This is my Gallatin Freshman Writing Seminar. I thought this course would be about China and Japan but it is actually much more focused on India and the Middle East. In this class I think we will study Orientalism as a discipline rather than the actual history of Eastern civilizations. So far I really love this class, the readings are engaging and the short writing assignment we did was illuminating. The frustrating aspect of this class is that many Orientalists we have studied thus far are racist European guys who have limited experience in the East.
Said’s Orientalism
In Orientalism, Edward Said critiques Orientalism as a discipline and Orientalists, those who study the Orient, as a whole. He believes that they can never truly know the East for a variety of reasons. The West dominated the Orient politically for so long that most of the Middle East (and the East in general) had very little autonomy and, therefore, was shaped almost exclusively by the Western powers who were simultaneously ruling and studying it. This is why Said believes that “because of Orientalism the Orient was not (and is not) a free subject of thought or action.” (page 3) By creating and implementing their own narrative, Western powers were able to shape Eastern culture and the world’s perception of it in unprecedented ways, which Gramsci described in his theory of cultural hegemony. As a result, Orientalists viewed the East as an object or set of ancient artifacts rather than a multifaceted society which contributed to the inaccuracy of their studies for hundreds of years.
Orientalism, for Said, is an academic study, a distinction the West created that creates a dichotomy between themselves and the East, and “the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient.”, all at once. (page 3) These definitions, as Said notes, are interdependent. Had the West not had political, cultural, and economic dealings with the East, it would not have been as accessible for scholarly research. Had the separation between the West and East not persisted, perhaps Western powers may not have been so quick to exploit Eastern people and resources. By “othering” the people of the Orient, Orientalists created a prescribed set of characteristics and stereotypes that they reinforced and, in many ways, forced Eastern people into. This “…created consistency, that regular constellation of ideas as the pre-eminent thing about the Orient, and not to its mere being.” (page 5) Additionally, “European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self.” (page 3) This was the process of “othering” the Orient: the East stood for everything that the West was not. It was made to appear as the opposite of the West. Unfortunately, many Orientalists would make an observation, state it proudly, and ignore all evidence counter to their statement while applying it to the East as a whole. This process further dehumanized Eastern people and allowed thousands of diverse cultured to be boiled down to one indistinguishable mass of caricatures.
The West’s political, cultural, and economic domination of the East are largely to blame for these issues. Here, Said’s third definition of Orientalism is most compelling: “Orientalism…as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient- dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.” (page 3) Through government and the many European Asiatic societies, the West shaped Eastern culture with the intent of correcting it. This kind of Orientalism made it difficult, if not impossible, for many Eastern cultures to maintain their way of life.
By constantly restructuring and defining Eastern-ness without the input or consent of actual Eastern people, the West shaped their views in a way that made their domination justifiable. By “knowing the Orient”, the West was better able to exercise power over it. This is one of Said’s key themes: knowledge shapes power, and vice versa. Said cites Balfour to illustrate this point. Balfour states that “We [British] know the civilization of Egypt better than we know the civilization of any other country; We know it further back; we know it more intimately; we know more about it.” (page 32) Said then asserts that “To have such knowledge of such a thing is to dominate it, to have authority over it.” (page 32) Clearly, British imperialists used their “knowledge” to dominate the Middle East.
Orientalists applied recursive logic to their rule over other nations. Such logic is illustrated by Said, intending to be schematic: “England knows Egypt; Egypt is what England knows; England knows Egypt cannot have self-government; England confirms that by occupying Egypt” (page 34) In simpler terms, England decides that Egypt (and other Eastern nations) cannot rule themselves and then proves it by imposing British governance on them. Another key point of Balfour’s argument as Said presents is his use of the words “we” and “they”. The distinction between “we” and “they” further illustrates the dehumanization of Eastern people in general by ignoring the complexity of their culture and attempting to encapsulate them into a neat category. Some scholars attribute the West’s dismissal of Eastern people and culture as a result of this schism.
A frustrating aspect this mode of study is the complete lack of Eastern voices in Orientalist dialogue. Said attributes this to Balfour’s argument, that “…[they] would somewhat uselessly confirm what is already evident: that they are a subject race, dominated by a race that knows them and what is good for them better than they could possibly know themselves.” (page 35) and adds Cromer’s argument that “Subject races did not have it in them to know what was good for them.” (page 37) These types of statements were useful for government officials such as Cromer and Balfour since they illustrate the necessity of Western (in this case, British) rule in various Eastern colonies. The idea that the East did not know how to govern themselves was disseminated from the earliest Orientalists like Mill and Macaulay and was used to justify violent repression and English governance generally in the Orient.
Eastern voices were left out of much Orientalist scholarship because of the accepted notion of European superiority. “…the major component in European culture that made that culture hegemonic both in and outside Europe: the idea of European identity as a superior one in comparison with all the non-European peoples and cultures.” (page 7) As Said says it, “Asia speaks through and by virtue of the European imagination.” (page 56) While Said does not explicitly address race here, it is implied that certain elements of whiteness are at play. The word of a white male has historically carried much more weight than the words of people of color, even about things that people of color obviously know more about, such as their own culture. Because of this, European scholars controlled much of the cultural and historical narrative regarding the Orient. A current example of this phenomenon is that white journalists and “experts” are saying that the land the Dakota Access Pipeline would disrupt is not sacred to Native Americans, while the Standing Rock Sioux, other tribes, and native anthropologists tell them many times that it is. Despite evidence contrary to white people’s assertions, in many cases they are still accepted without question. Said’s argument could have been strengthened by explicitly demonstrating how the view that the West (and there for white people) knew best how to rule the East was rooted in racism as well as cultural hegemony.
At best, Balfour, Cromer, and Orientalists more generally are misguided Europeans attempting to better the Eastern world. Balfour said, of Cromer: “Lord Cromer’s services during the past quarter of a century have raised Egypt from the lowest pitch of social and economic degradation until it now stands among Oriental nations, I believe, absolutely alone in its prosperity, financial and moral.” (page 35) It is unclear what moral prosperity he is referring to but it is interesting to note that, in all likelihood, few Eastern people were consulted about whether or not they wanted Western aid and that in creating the aforementioned “prosperity”, England exploited Egyptian land, natural resources, and labor, manufactured goods in England, and sold them back to Egypt for many times the amount they paid for the raw materials, such as the case of the Suez Canal. Similar forms of exploitation occurred in all colonies. Said would likely assert that this is a natural progression of the West inviting itself to “control, contain, and otherwise govern…the Other.” (page 48)
For Said, a major issue with the academic side of Orientalism is that it was, from the beginning, meant to be a “corrective study.” (page 41) The underlying intent to “fix” a culture that had not asked for such fixing makes truly objective scientific study, which the West so greatly values, impossible. The biased studies were used to create a dichotomy between the East and West that was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Europeans decided that they were different and superior and then, in their view, made it true by imposing their political, cultural, and economic rule on Eastern societies, likely without their input, and certainly without their consent. This recursive logic is seen in several cases where a European scholar, businessperson, or administrator attempts to justify colonization and the implementation of European government on other cultures. Because the East was politically and culturally dominated by Europe, its culture was unfairly influenced by a culture whose goal was to dominate it. This lack of autonomy led to the Orientalist study of the East like it was a child, rather than acknowledging the reality that it was more similar to Europe’s grandparent.
A Brief History of Orientalism
The East, or Orient, has long fascinated Western scholars, businessmen, rulers, and citizens alike. This interest influenced many areas of scholarly research as well as political dominance, art, and other cultural symbolism. While many definitions of Orientalism exist, and the connotative meanings of the word underwent shifts of its own, this piece will concern itself with Orientalism as an academic venture. Initially, Orientalism was an enterprise designed to study the ancient East through their languages, culture and texts. Over time, it became increasingly tied to imperial domination and was criticized when independence movements began to take hold in former colonies. Because of the notoriety of the book Orientalism, Said’s harsh critique of this study led to a complete shift in research practices that culminated in Subaltern Studies. Today, much debate about Orientalism continues to take place while researchers return to structuralism and other modes of study to write histories of the third world.
One of the most prominent Orientalists of the 18th century was William Jones. A “traditional Orientalist”, Jones was “a scholar versed in the knowledge of the Orient, its languages, literatures, etc.” (Abdel-Malek, 48) His interest in the East focused primarily on their legal texts, and he learned Sanskrit in order to translate them. He and his colleagues founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal, an institution that became a primary source of knowledge regarding the East, particularly India. (Schwab, 32) The society did not include any Indian or Bengali people during this time. It focused on languages as a vehicle of learning and aimed to include all Orientalists, not just those in India. Having this body as well as Oriental departments in universities in Europe helped to shape Orientalism into a legitimate area of study, like Classics departments and others. They used a historical lens to analyze the ancient East and were concerned with Sanskrit and other “dead languages” rather than contemporary civilizations. This was largely because Jones and Governor General Hastings wanted to use these lessons from the past to restore the former grandeur of ancient India via British imperial rule. Traditional Orientalism purported to be an objective academic study, but over time it became increasingly entwined with the politics of imperialism due to these legal influences.
James Mill was also interested in Eastern forms of government, but, unlike Jones, Mill had never actually visited India or learned any Oriental languages before the publication of his book, The Indian form of Government, in the early 19th century. Because of this book, many scholars consider him an Orientalist. Additionally, Mill served as a colonial administrator. As a colonial administrator, he highlighted portions of ancient texts that focused on the believed divinity of Indian rulers and asserted that Indian people had never conceived of a form of government other than a monarchy, writing “…the Asiatic model, the government was monarchical, and, with the usual exception of religion and its ministers, absolute.” (Mill, 11) This focus on Oriental despotism helped to justify the necessity of British rule over the region. Asiatic despotism was a concept that persisted until the 20th century. Mill’s portrayal of Indian people as primitive was very effective: it led to great changes in the governance of the colony and to his employment by the East India company until his death. Mill, as both an Orientalist and as an administrator, clearly demonstrates how entangled these two narratives became.
While both Jones and Mill were interested in Indian government and imperial rule, Jones took a much more scholarly approach to his research and would surely be considered a traditional Orientalist. He learned Sanskrit in order to translate real Indian documents and his interest was fueled by curiosity and a passion for learning rather than to achieve some political end. While some of his work was misconstrued by later Orientalists, his intentions were not to promote essentialisms in order to justify imperial rule. (Schwab, 32) Mill, in contrast, never went to India and based much of his assertions upon preconceived prejudices. Mill’s piece could hardly be interpreted as an objective, scientific study. The selection from his book only cited one source, and he admits that he had never travelled to the East or learned any Oriental languages. Mill’s piece reinforces prejudice against the native people of India by portraying them as unenlightened children who follow their divine ruler blindly and stresses the necessity of British colonial rule. Clearly, his ultimate goal of expanding British domination in India reinforced prejudiced views of Asiatic Despotism, preemptively and continuously justifying European imperialism.
In the 19th century, the influence of imperialism is clearly visible in Orientalist work such as the selection from James Mill. As a result, the Orient was studied as an object rather than being acknowledged as a complex area with many cultures and societies within it. Orientalism focused mainly on ancient cultures rather than contemporary ones and was founded upon a presumption of European superiority. These presumptions were eventually used to justify colonialism, in India especially, and propagated a harmful conceptualization of Eastern people. Orientalists used this frame to study the East before imperialism itself came into question, and, due to the aforementioned entanglement, so did Orientalism.
As imperialism came under greater critique, so did wider assumptions about how knowledge and power were related. This was done especially by Marxist thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci, writing during World War II. By expanding on Marx’s ideas about hegemony to include cultural domination, Gramsci formed a framework for questioning the power structures in place in both political and academic institutions. At this time, other writers on the left, such as Michel Foucault and G.W.F. Hegel also contributed to the formation of the basis for a critique of Orientalism, though they did not address it directly. Later, writers such as Anour Abdel-Malek and Edward Said mobilized these concepts in order to form a scholarly assessment of Orientalism’s academic institutions.
Edward Said criticized Orientalists ardently in his book, Orientalism. He took issue with the way Orientalists separated the East from the West, a process he discussed by creating “the other”, as the Oriental. Another important aspect of Said’s critique was that, from the beginning, Orientalism was meant to be a “corrective study”. (Said, 2) As such, it produced biased critiques, like the ones in Mill’s piece, which were then proven to be true by the colonial machine that dominated Eastern people culturally and politically. Said believed that the Orient was not a valid area of study because it was dominated by European culture and government. The Orient was studied as an object, and therefore made even more into an object. Consequently, it was not, as Said wrote, “…a free subject of thought or action.” (Said, 3) Thus, Orientalism’s corrective intentions polluted the supposedly objective and scientific basis of understanding that it was meant to form.
Before Orientalism, Anouar Abdel-Malek made very similar critiques in his piece, “Orientalism in Crisis” which was published in 1963. He believed that the study of the east, Orientalism, was in crisis because the established academic framework did not provide a lens for understanding the East after more modern liberation and independence movements. The “crisis” he discusses was due to the liberation movements themselves. A subject people no longer, “Orientals”, Abdel-Malek argued, should be studied as an autonomous body of complex societies and cultures. (Abdel-Malek, 49) He focuses more on the Middle East, specifically Egypt, but his hypothesis was also applied throughout the Orient as well as in Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America by other scholars. In Abdel-Malek’s piece, both the positive and negative aspects of Orientalism are discussed which strengthens his argument. One of the main issues with traditional Orientalists is that they were not producing the dominant narrative: scholarly societies ignored the ways their research affected government, business, and culture and was eventually replaced by a “…latter group [that] was formed by an amalgam of university dons, businessmen, military men, colonial officials, missionaries, publicists and adventurers, whose only objective was to gather intelligence information in the area to be occupied, to penetrate the consciousness of the people in order to better assure its enslavement to the European powers.” (Abdel-Malek, 49) Abdel-Malek acknowledged the good intentions of some Orientalists, but, for him, these were not the majority.
While Abdel-Malek’s piece was published before Said and Said drew upon it for inspiration, it failed to generate substantial change in the Orientalist discipline. It was not widely read and failed to reach the level of prominence that its successor did. Because Said’s critique was so successful and pervasive, it was able to drastically alter the way Orientalists did their research. All of the previous academic work regarding the East was brought into question, along with the framework in which it was completed. As the focal point of these critiques, Orientalism was largely responsible for the academic revolution that ensued. Despite its noteworthy reception, not all scholars agreed with Edward Said’s critiques. One such scholar was Bernard Lewis who engaged in many debates with Said after the publication of Orientalism. He was a scholar who relied on the previous framework throughout his career.
In response to Said in 1982, Lewis made several interesting criticisms of Orientalism. He believed that Said “… deals only with a small part of the Arab world, ignores German, Austrian, and Russian orientalism, and frequently displays ignorance of historical fact—it also displays prejudice, bias and obsession.” (Lewis, 249) He compared Orientalism to studies of the Classics, and while the two are very different, he made a compelling argument against Said and asked readers why it is acceptable to study Classics within a certain framework but it is not acceptable to study the East in the same way. Said would argue that this is the case because Greece was not politically dominated in the same way that many parts of the East were and was not dominated politically and culturally by foreign powers. Lewis also believed that “Orientalist” becoming an unscrupulous term was merely a trend in style. He described the word as being “poisoned” by Said’s scathing criticisms and was frustrated by the interruption in his scholarly research. Despite this disagreement, Said’s book was still able to generate significant change in academia, although scholars who utilize the previous framework, such as Lewis, still exist.
After Said, many new academic frameworks were formed that attempted to address the correct way to write post-Orientalist histories. The many modifications to historical writing that Said called for were difficult to put into practice. Some called for Eastern people themselves to write their own histories, but, as post-Orientalist scholar Gyan Prakash depicts the issue, “At best, it reaffirms the East-West and Orient-Occident oppositions that have shaped historical writings and seems to be a simple-minded gesture of solidarity. Furthermore, in apparently privileging the writings of historians with third-world origins, this formulation renders such scholars into “native informants” whose discourse is opened up for further disquisitions on how “they” think of “their” history. In short, the notion of the third world writing its own history seems to reek of essentialism.” (Prakash, 383) Nevertheless, Prakash attempts to answer the question of how post-colonial histories should be written in his piece and identifies several frameworks including nationalist historiography, Marxism, and structuralism. Each of these historical lenses created their own essentialisms and were unable to form a perfect solution to the issues Said and Abdel-Malek drew attention to. Prakash argued that while it may be impossible to produce truly unbiased histories, scholars should strive to do so nonetheless.
While many new frameworks were formed, one that was especially radical and meant to remedy Said’s concerns was Subaltern Studies. Subaltern Studies began at the end of the 20th century and continued until the early 21st century. The focus of Subalternists was to give a voice to peasants and former subject people and write histories that show the ways that subalterns made political statements as a collective body. It was designed to serve as an antidote to the previous framework. According to Partha Chatterjee, a prominent Subalternist, Subaltern Studies was “a product of its time” (Chatterjee, 44) It was formed in the 1960s when there was great political upheaval and academic changes taking place, like those facilitated by Abdel-Malek and Said. Chatterjee believes that Subaltern studies had value but that contemporary issues should be addressed via new academic work. He wrote “Even if the specific project called Subaltern Studies begun 30 years ago has run its course, it has managed to scatter, reinvent and insert itself in several subsequent projects. The questions it asked have now taken other forms; to answer them, it is necessary to craft new theoretical concepts” (Chatterjee, 49) Moreover, these studies were fragmented and very difficult to apply to other areas due to their specificity.
Vivek Chibber criticized Subaltern Studies and post-colonial theory in general in his interview with Jacobin. He argues that Subalternists dismiss all categories at their own peril, and that this makes it difficult to actually apply their theories. Chibber describes the impact that postcolonial theorists made, writing “Postcolonial theory is a very diffuse body of ideas. It really comes out of literary and cultural studies, and had its initial influence there. It then spread out through area studies, history, and anthropology. It spread into those fields because of the influence of culture and cultural theory from the 1980s onwards. So, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, disciplines such as history, anthropology, Middle Eastern studies, and South Asian studies were infused with a heavy turn toward what we now know as postcolonial theory.” (Chibber, 4) The way that postcolonial theory diffused across disciplines made it difficult to define, which, in turn, made it challenging to critique.
Contemporary historical studies remain somewhat stuck in a post-Saidian era, attempting to find a solution free of essentialisms and neo-imperial influences. Clearly, this is a very difficult goal and may be impossible to achieve. Moreover, as structuralism regains some of its former influence, much of the work that Subalternists did to eliminate categories could be erased. Orientalism has evolved greatly since its inception, from a purely academic study to one that was enmeshed in imperial narratives. After nationalist movements and colonial independence, Orientalism was critiqued by prominent thinkers and extensive changes took place which culminated in studies of Eastern peoples separate from liberal Enlightenment categories. Today, it is still unclear how to most effectively study the Third World without unintentionally reinforcing stereotypes or imperialist ideals, but scholars strive to do so nonetheless.