Orientalism as a geo-political and sociological concept has attracted much controversy. It remains author Edward Said’s definitive work, alongside other titles such a The Question of Palestine and Covering Islam. Orientalism as a scholarly work is the combined study and analysis of Oriental “philology, linguistics, ethnography, and the interpretation of culture through the discovery, recovery, compilation, and translation of Oriental texts”. (Windschuttle, 1999, p.30) Having been born into a Palestinian Christian family that later migrated to the United States, Said had the unique advantage of experiencing different perspectives on the issue of Palestine-Israel conflict as well as broader Arabian politics. His works on the subject of Middle East politics are informed by his first hand experiences at these places, as well as a careful study of preceding scholarship by Western intellectuals. The primary criticism in his book Orientalism, as also seen in the documentary, is directed toward the stereotyped vision of Arabs in Western media and academia. This phenomenon, Said notes, is not something new, for its origins could be dated back to the Napoleonic conquest of Egypt in late eighteenth century.
Behind the Western stereotyping of the Orient is the underlying belief that the surveyed geographies and peoples are somewhat backward and unrefined compared to Western civilization. What is also evident is the process of homogenization, whereby the vast mosaic of Oriental culture, language, social norms and religious beliefs are bracketed and abstracted into a unified whole. According to Said,
“Orientalism identifies a range of strategies by which 19th and 20th century scholars, writers and artists imposed their authority on the East. The Orient was represented as a theatrical stage affixed to Europe, a place where jaded aristocrats, earnest second sons and tyrannical explorers could discover timeless truths, or perhaps unimagined erotic delights. Stereotypes of eastern wise men and exotic harems removed the colonial world from history altogether, substituting a timeless realm. Orientals are seen not as people but as problems, subjects, races”. (Burrows, 1999, p.50)
But the reality is far from such constructions, as accounts of people who live in different regions of the Orient attest to. And as Said suggests in the documentary film, this set of illusions about the Middle East is not accidental or due to scholarly oversight.
Said identifies a subtle difference between the stereotyping of the Orient by erstwhile European imperial powers and that done by the United States of America. In the case of the latter, the contact with the Orient has not been direct, but one derived from the European imperial experience. Having assumed the position of a global superpower since the end of the Second World War, the United States has a strategic and material stake in the Middle East. With the Arab world rich in energy resources, the US can afford not to get involved in the politics of this region, so as to create favorable situations for corporate exploitation and political domination. The creation of Israel in the aftermath of WWII provided the US with an opportunity to get an enduring foothold in the Arab region, which it has established as expected. While the legitimacy of the state of Israel could be contested and debated, at least on moral grounds there was a need for a place of refuge for Holocaust survivors. In late 1940s, with the backing of a global wave of sympathy for the decimated Jewish population in Europe, the US was able to expedite the creation of Israel. But the real agenda is much beyond express humanitarian ones, as subsequent decades of the new country’s existence have shown. In order to understand why Orientalism as an intellectual construct continues to thrive, one also has to understand the pressing real-realpolitik considerations for US and its allies in the West.
Another core component of Said’s thesis is the vilification of Islam as the eternal “other” in the socio-political equations of American diplomacy. Giving several examples spanning recent decades, Said contends that the demonizing of Islam is largely motivated by political reasons, not least of which is the projected Judeo-Christian alliance of the US and Israel. In other words,
“Orientalism led the West to see Islamic culture as static in both time and place, as “eternal, uniform, and incapable of defining itself.” This gave Europe a sense of its own cultural and intellectual superiority. The West consequently saw itself as a dynamic, innovative, expanding culture, as well as “the spectator, the judge and jury of every facet of Oriental behavior.” (Windschuttle, 1999, p.31)
Said also says that terrorism as a strand of Arab protest is overplayed compared to equivalent atrocities committed by US allies. Even during the Oklahoma Center bombing of 1995, the immediate suspects were people of Arab origin, which is the result of steep stereotyping of the community and its tendencies. Illustrating Said’s perplexity at such indoctrination are the facts that emerged during subsequent investigation. It came out that the perpetrator of that act of terrorism, which was intended to cause much severe damage in terms of human lives, was none other than a thorough-bred American youth Timothy McVeigh, whose grievances against his own government and the nation’s political system had fired his angst.
The documentary film in discussion was shot toward the end of the last century; and Said’s thesis would have only gotten reinforced in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and other targets. The kind of propagandistic media outrage after the terror strikes, especially the renewed demonizing of Islam that came with it, fits right into the Orientalist discourse. The vilification of Osama bin laden might be justified to an extent. But dragging Saddam Hussein and his imagined Weapons of Mass Destruction into the War on Terror agenda only goes on to show the visceral fear of Arab Muslims created by systematic media propaganda. It is most likely that the War on Terror campaign would not relent in the foreseeable future. In this scenario, keeping oneself informed about critical interpretations of geo-political conflicts is very important. Hence, both the documentary film and the book are highly recommended for the specialized as well as the general reader.
The documentary film neatly encapsulates the content of the book of the same name. All students of history, culture and political science, especially within the United States, would widen their intellectual horizons by reading the book. And the documentary film will be a good starting point for acquainting oneself with Orientalism. Being only 40 minutes long, the documentary could even be screened during the class, which would also provide the students with an audio/visual relief. But the audience/reader should also keep in mind that Orientalism has invoked much controversy both within and outside American academia. For example, since the publication of the book in 1978, many sociologists and political scientists have made critical reviews of it, bringing to light some flaws in Said’s arguments. Roger Scruton, for instance, writing for the American Spectator, notes that
“Said illustrated his thesis with highly selective quotations, concerning a very narrow range of East-West encounters. And while pouring as much scorn and venom as he could on Western portrayals of the Orient, he did not trouble himself to examine any Eastern portrayals of the Occident, or to make any comparative judgments whatsoever, when it came to assessing who had been unfair to whom. He also has nothing to offer on other areas that traditionally comprised the field such as Hebrew, Persian, Turkish, Indian, and Far Eastern cultures, nor does he discuss the attitudes of German, Russian, Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese Orientalists.” (Scruton, 2006, p.11)
Given the short duration of the documentary film, only Said’s views could be covered in it, leaving no time for opposing viewpoints offered by such scholars as Scruton. Hence, a careful evaluation of Said’s points and his detractors’ counterpoints should be considered before arriving at an inference. On balance, though, it is perhaps a reflection of the veracity of the book’s claims that thirty years after its publication Edward Said is considered by students of literature, political science, sociology and cultural studies as one of the pioneers of the post-colonial movement in criticism and multiculturalism in politics. The following final words serve as a strong recommendation for the work:
“Its influence has been almost as widespread, not only in English departments across America and Europe but in sociology, anthropology and history. Orientalism has inspired its own academic field, post-colonial studies, which has generated some of the best critical work of the past two decades. It is almost inconceivable to imagine someone receiving a humanities PhD today without having come to terms with Said’s legacy”. (Burrows, 1999, p.51)
Works Cited
Burrows, Stuart. “Orientalism.” New Statesman 1 Jan. 1999: 50.
Foster, Charles. “Orientalism, the U.S. and the Middle East.” Contemporary Review Apr. 2005: 240+.
Scruton, Roger. “Islam and Orientalism.” The American Spectator May 2006: 10+.
Windschuttle, Keith. “Edward Said’s “Orientalism” Revisited.” New Criterion Jan. 1999: 30.