Discourse and dichotomy: Revisiting Orientalism

Orientalism in its extreme political form is the Trojan horse welcomed and adorned by a culture which it destroys from within

When Edward Said says: “Orientalism is the source of the inaccurate, cultural representations that are the foundations of Western thought and perception of the Eastern world”, he mostly criticizes the Orientalist attitude, because first there is this “audacity of judgment” in the west about the east which is a theoretical problem, and then as a result of their “westphilia” the east put faith in their own identity as represented by the west and eventually adopt and adapt the “fabricated” culture, avoiding their own original one, which is a practical social problem.

But the thing is- since “identity” can never be created all by oneself and is always contaminated by other external factors, then judgment is a natural thing and is a platform where we discover bits of ourselves. For example a person can be a father, a brother, a son and an uncle at the same time. In all these spaces of relationship, he has to assume different characters and perform certain roles which at the end determine his identity.

Then, if judgment is the standard for and against which we measure our actions and thus attempt to identify our location in the web of reality, why is Said critical about the judgments the west have for or against the east?

The reason is- politics. Judgment in its naïve form only helps us to improve ourselves, but when there is politics in it, there is this possibility of deliberate denouncement that aims at destroying a culture from the inside. Orientalism in its extreme political form is the Trojan horse welcomed and adorned by a culture which it destroys from within. Can it absolutely not be that it is actually the essential weak structure of the infested culture that backdrops the invasion that carries a banner of “civilization”?

To explain this rather daring hint of our own “essential weak structure”- do we not often get carried away, emotionally, by words? Because when we write about something we write what we understand and how we understand it. For that reason often research work is a biased approach towards an issue. Example- we are doing research on Orientalism living here in Bangladesh because in a way it compliments our culture. But we are not working on Occidentalism, fearing that this might pronounce our own negative attitude towards the west (termed as “malism” in cultural studies).

Even in the 1960s and 70s when Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams, as students of the British New Left, “set the tone of cultural studies”, their own working-class background determined their choice of concentration, namely- popular culture, that originates among the mass and is appreciated by the mass.

Said also has this Palestinian culture in the background of his discourse, and perhaps, committing a crime against one of the most acclaimed intellectuals, we may say- he channelled this anxiety related to his origin towards the criticism of Orientalism. At least that is a possibility we cannot completely discount. Hence, theoretical and research works might begin from selfish causes and as a result there cannot be an unbiased beginning, a fixed centre and a resolving end of social criticism that cultural studies claim to settle with its heavily-branched theories. This much needs to be clarified, to save cultural theories from the shame of partiality.

Said clarifies his position a bit further when he says: “…the phenomenon of Orientalism as I study it here deals principally,  not with a correspondence between Orientalism and Orient, but with the internal consistency of Orientalism and its ideas about the Orient (the East as career) despite or beyond any correspondence, or lack thereof, with a “real” Orient.”

Being an Orientalist used to be a profession. But for something to be a career, one requires knowing everything that can be known about it, and when it is a career for which someone has to travel as far as to the orient itself, the word “career” will definitely bear a meaning broader than the one we so readily associate with “money”. Moreover when a young person goes overseas to observe and study a culture, he is often driven more by wanderlust than by anything that has something to do with financial benefit only.

So despite the fact that there is an orient worthy to be dreamt about for its exoticness (positive otherness), “Orientalism”, as an enterprise or a colonial franchise catering exquisite stories (partly true they may be), takes the orient to a whole new level and turns it into a land of fantasy.

To the westerners—thanks to the mushrooming propagandizing-projects—the orient becomes an exaggerated (or understated) mythical land, an allegorical space that although actually does not exist, but nonetheless is very much present in the minds that want to believe in it for the way its depicted in the media, in books and in researches. Orientalism, at least, has brought the name of the orient to the mind of the westerners!  

Now, do we not get carried away with our (easterners) belief that the west actually has taken the trouble to plot something big to depict us in negative lights? We must be aware of this possibility that we might understand Said partially and fall into the trap of a west-antagonizing-discourse in our attempt to empathize the oriental people, or defend our own image from being debased by the westerners.

Just like I do not know, excluding my own take, what all the oriental (or south-Asian) people think about the west, it will equally be my ignorance if I, sitting in my comfortable armchair, go on speculating the possible condescension all the westerners have towards us and be all sentimental about it.

We cannot outright deny the possibility that pre-Said Orientalism might as well shed some light to the problems that arise when two cultures intermingle. If there is at least some truth in the discourse of Orientalism, then it can in fact be a good starting point to be aware of and then resolve any practical political, historical or psychological cultural conflict.

The writer is Lecturer, Department of English, Varendra University

 

Discourse and dichotomy: Revisiting Orientalism

Orientalism in its extreme political form is the Trojan horse welcomed and adorned by a culture which it destroys from within

When Edward Said says: Orientalism is the source of the inaccurate, cultural representations that are the foundations of Western thought and perception of the Eastern world, he mostly criticizes the Orientalist attitude, because first there is this audacity of judgment in the west about the east which is a theoretical problem, and then as a result of their westphilia the east put faith in their own identity as represented by the west and eventually adopt and adapt the fabricated culture, avoiding their own original one, which is a practical social problem. But the thing is- since identity can never be created all by oneself and is always contaminated by other external factors, then judgment is a natural thing and is a platform where we discover bits of ourselves. For example a person can be a father, a brother, a son and an uncle at the same time. In all these spaces of relationship, he has to assume different characters and perform certain roles which at the end determine his identity. Then, if judgment is the standard for and against which we measure our actions and thus attempt to identify our location in the web of reality, why is Said critical about the judgments the west have for or against the east? The reason is- politics. Judgment in its nave form only helps us to improve ourselves, but when there is politics in it, there is this possibility of deliberate denouncement that aims at destroying a culture from the inside. Orientalism in its extreme political form is the Trojan horse welcomed and adorned by a culture which it destroys from within. Can it absolutely not be that it is actually the essential weak structure of the infested culture that backdrops the invasion that carries a banner of civilization? To explain this rather daring hint of our own essential weak structure- do we not often get carried away, emotionally, by words? Because when we write about something we write what we understand and how we understand it. For that reason often research work is a biased approach towards an issue. Example- we are doing research on Orientalism living here in Bangladesh because in a way it compliments our culture. But we are not working on Occidentalism, fearing that this might pronounce our own negative attitude towards the west (termed as malism in cultural studies). Even in the 1960s and 70s when Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams, as students of the British New Left, set the tone of cultural studies, their own working-class background determined their choice of concentration, namely- popular culture, that originates among the mass and is appreciated by the mass. Said also has this Palestinian culture in the background of his discourse, and perhaps, committing a crime against one of the most acclaimed intellectuals, we may say- he channelled this anxiety related to his origin towards the criticism of Orientalism. At least that is a possibility we cannot completely discount. Hence, theoretical and research works might begin from selfish causes and as a result there cannot be an unbiased beginning, a fixed centre and a resolving end of social criticism that cultural studies claim to settle with its heavily-branched theories. This much needs to be clarified, to save cultural theories from the shame of partiality. Said clarifies his position a bit further when he says: the phenomenon of Orientalism as I study it here deals principally, not with a correspondence between Orientalism and Orient, but with the internal consistency of Orientalism and its ideas about the Orient (the East as career) despite or beyond any correspondence, or lack thereof, with a real Orient. Being an Orientalist used to be a profession. But for something to be a career, one requires knowing everything that can be known about it, and when it is a career for which someone has to travel as far as to the orient itself, the word career will definitely bear a meaning broader than the one we so readily associate with money. Moreover when a young person goes overseas to observe and study a culture, he is often driven more by wanderlust than by anything that has something to do with financial benefit only. So despite the fact that there is an orient worthy to be dreamt about for its exoticness (positive otherness), Orientalism, as an enterprise or a colonial franchise catering exquisite stories (partly true they may be), takes the orient to a whole new level and turns it into a land of fantasy. To the westernersthanks to the mushrooming propagandizing-projectsthe orient becomes an exaggerated (or understated) mythical land, an allegorical space that although actually does not exist, but nonetheless is very much present in the minds that want to believe in it for the way its depicted in the media, in books and in researches. Orientalism, at least, has brought the name of the orient to the mind of the westerners! Now, do we not get carried away with our (easterners) belief that the west actually has taken the trouble to plot something big to depict us in negative lights? We must be aware of this possibility that we might understand Said partially and fall into the trap of a west-antagonizing-discourse in our attempt to empathize the oriental people, or defend our own image from being debased by the westerners. Just like I do not know, excluding my own take, what all the oriental (or south-Asian) people think about the west, it will equally be my ignorance if I, sitting in my comfortable armchair, go on speculating the possible condescension all the westerners have towards us and be all sentimental about it. We cannot outright deny the possibility that pre-Said Orientalism might as well shed some light to the problems that arise when two cultures intermingle. If there is at least some truth in the discourse of Orientalism, then it can in fact be a good starting point to be aware of and then resolve any practical political, historical or psychological cultural conflict. The writer is Lecturer, Department of English, Varendra University