Post
Colonial Literature
Topic An Introduction to
Edward said’s
Orientalism
Name
Avani N. Dave
Roll
No. 2
Class M.A.
Sem. 3
Submitted to Shree S.B.Gardi
Department
of English
MK.
Bhavnagar University
Bhavnagar
Orientalism is ‘a manner of regularized writing, vision, and
study, dominated by imperatives, perspectives, and ideological biases ostensibly
suited to the Orient.’ It is the image of the ‘Orient’ expressed as an entire
system of thought and scholarship.
Introduction to Edward said’s Orientalism
Edward Said
discusses all about Ideals that world is built on ideas. He evaluates tents of
examples of western Orientalist, statesmen, writers, military and political
leaders . “Orientalism” by Edward Said is Canonical text of cultural
studies in which he challenged the Concept of Orientalism or the difference
between east and west; as he puts it. He says that with start of European
Colonization the Europeans came in contact with lesser developed Countries of
the east. They found their civilization and culture very exotic, and established
the science of Orientalism, which was the study of the Orientals or the people
from these exotic civilizations.
The book are in three chapter
Chapter
1
The
Scope of Orientalism
(1) Knowing the Oriental
(2) Imaginative Geography and its Representation:
Oriental sings the Oriental.
(3) Projects.
(4) Crisis.
Chapter
2
Orientalist
Structures and Restructures
(1) Redrawn Frontiers, Redefined issues,
Secularized n
Religion
(2) Silvestre de Stacy and Ernest Renan: Rational
Anthropology
and Philological.
(3) Oriental Residence and Scholarship: The
Requirements of
Lexicography and
(4) Pilgrims and Pilgrimages, British and French
Chapter
- 3
Orientalism
now
(1) Latent and Manifest Orientalism
(2) Style, Expertise, Vision;
Orientalism World illness
(3) Modern Anglo: French Orientalism in its
fullest Flower
(4) The Latest phase.
Chapters in Deapth :
Chepter : 1
‘The Scope of Orientalism’
In
this Section Said outlines his argument with several caveats as to how it may
be flawed. He States that it fails to include Russian
Orientalism and explicitly excludes German Orientalism, which he
suggests had “clean “ Pasts(Said 1978: 2 and 4),and could be promising future
studies. Said also suggests that not all academic discourse in the west has to
be orient list in its intent but much of it is. He also suggests that all
cultures have a view of other cultures that may be exotic and harmless to some
extent, but it is not this view that he argues against and when this view is
taken by a military and economically dominant culture against another it can
lead to disastrous results.
Chepter – 2
Orientalist Structures and Restructures
In
this chapter Said outlines how Orientalist discourse was transferred from
Country to Country and Political leader to author. He suggests that this
discourse was set up as a foundation for all further study and discourse of the
Orient by the occident.
He States that
“The
four elements I have described expansion, historical Confrontation, sympathy,
classification are the Currents in eighteenth century thought on whose presence
the specific intellectual and institutional structures of modern Orientalism
depend.”
Further
travelers and academics of the East depended on this discourse for their own
education, and so the Orientalist discourse the West over and East was passed
down through European Writers and politician (and therefore through all
European)
Chapter – 3
‘Orientalism now’
This
chapter starts off by telling us that how the geography of the world was shaped
by the Colonization of the Europeans. There was a quest for geographical
knowledge which formed the base of Orientalism.
The
author then talks about the changing approach to Orientalism in 20th century.
The main difference was that where the earlier Orientalist was more of silent
observers the new Orientalist took a part in the everyday life of the orients.
The earlier oriental lists did not interact a lot with the orients, whereas the
new orients lived with them as if they were one of them . This was not out of
appreciation of their lifestyle but was to know more about the orients in order
to rule them properly. Lawrence of Arabia was one of such Orient lists.
Then
Edward said goes on to talk about two other Scholars Massignon and Gibb. Though
Massignon was a bit liberal with Oriental lists and often tried to protect
their rights, there was still inherited biased found him for the Orientals,
which can be seen in his work. With the changing world situation especially
after World War I, Orientalism took a more liberal stance towards most of its
subjects, but Islamic Orientalism did not enjoy this status. There were
Constant attacks to show Islam as a weak religion, and a mixture of many
religions and thoughts. Gibb was the most famous Islamic Orientalists of this
time.
After
World War I the centre of Orientalism moved from Europe to USA. One important
transformed (transformation) that took place during this time was instance of
relating it to Philology and it was related to social science now. All the
orientalists study the Orientals to assist their Government to come up with
Policies for dealing with the orient Countries. With the end of World War 2,
all the Europeans Colonies were lost; and it was believed that there were no
more Orientals and Occident, but this was surely not the case. Western
prejudice towards eastern Countries was still very explicit, and often they
managed to generalize most of the eastern Countries because of it. For example
Arabs were often represented as cruel and violent people. Japanese were always
considered to be terrorists, thus, this goes on to show that even with
increasing globalization and awareness, such bias was found in the people of
the developed Countries.
Edward
Said conclude his book by saying that he is not saying that the Orientalists
should not make generalization, or they should include the orient perspective
too, but creating a boundary at the first place is something which should not
be done.
Hereby
the presenter has narrowed down her discussion to the first part of the book
Orientalism that is scope of Orientalism in study sub-chapter.
Chapter- 1
The Scope of Orientalism
1.
Knowing the oriental
Introduction :
On
June 13, 1910, Arthur James Balfour lectured the House of Commons on “the
Problems with which we have to deal in Egypt”. Then, he said, “Belong to a
wholly different category.” Than those” affecting the Isle of Wight or the west
Riding of Yorkshire.”
During
his involvement in imperial affairs Belfour Serve a monarch who in 1876 had
been declared Empress of India; he had been especially well placed in position
of uncommon influence to follow the Afghan and Zulu wars, the British
occupation of Egypt in 1882, the death of General Gordon in the Sudan, the
Russo- Japanese
war.
Two
great themes dominate his remarks here and in what will follow: Knowledge and
Power, the Bacon an themes. As Balfour justifies the necessity for British
occupation of Egypt, Supremacy in his mind is associated with”our” knowledge of
Egypt and not principally with military or economic power. Knowledge to Balfour
means rising above immediacy, beyond self, into Foreign and distant. The object
of such knowledge in inherently Vulnerable to scrutiny; this object is a “fact”
which, it develops, changes or otherwise transforms itself in the way that
civilizations frequently do, nevertheless is fundamentally, even ontologically
stable.
Balfour must then go on to the next part of argument
It
is a good thing for these great nations – I admire their greatness – that this
absolute Government should be exercised by us? I think it is a good thing. I
think that experience shows that they have got under it far better government
that in the whole history of the world they ever had before, and which not only
is a benefit to them, but it undoubtedly a benefit to the whole to the
civilized west……. We are Egypt not merely for the sake of the Egyptians/ though
we are these for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large.
Balfour
produces no evidence that Egyptians and “the races with whom we deal.”Appreciate
or even understand the good that is being done them by Colonial occupation. It
does not occur to Balfour , however, to let the Egyptian speak for himself ,
since presumably any Egyptian who would speak out is more likely to be “ the
agitator (Who) wishes to raise difficulties” than the good native who overlooks
the “difficulties” of foreign domination.
England
knows Egypt; Egypt is what England knows: England knows that Egypt cannot have
self-government; England confirms that by occupying Egypt; for the Egyptians,
Egypt is what England has occupied and now governs; foreign occupation
therefore become” the very basic” of Contemporary Egyptian civilization ; Egypt
requires, indeed insist upon, British occupation. But is the special intimacy,
between governor and governed in Egypt in disturbed by parliament’s doubts at
home, then “the authority of what… is the dominant race and as I think
ought to remain the dominant race – has been undermined.” Not only does English
prestige suffer; “ It is vain for a handful of British officials – endow them
how you like, give them all the qualities of character the genius you can
imagine – it is impossible for them to carry out the great task which in Egypt,
not we only, but the civilized world have imposed upon them.”
Cromer made Egypt, said Balfour :
Everything
he has touched he has succeeded in … Lord Cromer’s Services during the past
quarter of a century have raised Egypt from the lowest pitch of social and
economic degradation until now stands among oriental nation I
believe , absolutely alone in its prosperity , financial and moral.
How
Egypt’s moral prosperity was measured, Balfour did not venture to say. British
exports to Egypt equaled those to the whole of Africa; that century indicated a
sort of financial prosperity, for Egypt and England (some what) together.
How
much “Serious Consideration”the ruler ought to give proposals from
the subject race was illustrated in Cromer’s total opposition to Egyptian
nationalism. Free native institutions, the absence of foreign occupation, a
self-sustaining nation sovereignty:” these unsurprising demands were
consistently rejected by Comer, who asserted unambiguously that the real future
of Egypt …. Lies not in the direction of a narrow nationalism, which will only
embrace native ‘Egyptians ….. But rather in that of an enlarged
Cosmopolitanisms”.
Sir Alfred Lyall Once to Balfour :
“Accuracy is abhorrent to the Oriental mind.
Every Anglo- Indian should always remember that maxim.” Want of accuracy, which
easily degenerates into untruthfulness, is in fact the main characteristic of
the Oriental mind.”
The
European is a close reasoned; his statements of fact are devoid of any
ambiguity; he is natural logician, albeit he may not have studied logical;
he is by nature skeptical and requires proof before he can accept the truth of
any proposition; his trained intelligence works like a piece of mechanism. Many
terms were used to express the relation: Balfour and Cromer, typically, used
several.
The
Oriental is irrational, depraved (fallen), childlike, “different”; Thus the
European is rational, virtuous, mature,” normal.” In Cromer’s and Balfour’s
language the oriental is depicted as something one judges (as in a Court of law),
Something one studies depicts (as in Curriculum), Something one discipline (as
in a school or prison), Something one illustrates(as in a Zoological manual).
An
order of Sovereignty is set up from East to West, a mock chain of being whose
clearest from given once by Kipling:
Mule,
horse, elephant , or bullock, he obey his driver, and the driver his sergeant,
and the sergeant his lieutenant, and the lieutenant his captain, and his
Captain his major, and major his Colonel, and the Colonel his brigadier
Commanding three regiments and the brigadier’s general who obeys the Viceroy,
who , is the servant of the Empress.
As
deeply forged as it is this monstrous chain of Command, as strongly managed as
is Cromer’s “harmonious working,” Orientalism can also express the strength of
the West and the Orient’s weakness- as seen by West. Such strength and such
weakness are as intrinsic to Orientalism as they are to any view that divides the
world into large. General divisions, entities that Coexist in a state of
tension produced by what is believed to be radical difference.
For
that is the main intellectual issue raised by Orientalism. Can one divide human
reality, seems to be genuinely divide, into clearly different cultures,
histories, traditions, societies, even races, and survive the Consequences
humanly ? By surviving the Consequences humanly, I mean to ask whether there is
any way of avoiding the hostility expressed by the division, say, of men into
“us “(westerners) and “they” (Orientals).
“It
is a notable fact that while the Arab value system demands absolute solidarity
within the group, it at the same time encourages among its members a kind of
rivalry that is destructive of that very solidarity” ; in Arab society only “
Success counts” and “the end justifies the means”; - Glidden
Arabs
live “naturally” in a world “characterized by anxiety, expressed in generalized
suspicion and distrust, which has been labeled free- floating hostility;
“The art of subterfuge is highly developed
in Arab life, as well as in Islam itself”:
The
Arab need for vengeance overrides everything, otherwise the Arab would feel “
ego-destroying “ shame. The purpose of this learned disquisition is merely to
show how on the western and Oriental scale of values,
“The relative
position of the elements is quite difference.” QED.
Conclusion :
As
we have seen,Orientalism is an indispensable Theory for those who are
concernedwith cultural studies and post-colonialism. As such, the usual
criticism directed to criticaltheory can be applied in criticizing.it does not
offer an alternative for what it in criticizing. This is the apogee of
Orientalist Confidence. No merely asserted generality is denied the dignity of
truth; no theoretical list of Oriental attributes is without application to the
behavior of Orientals in the real world. On the one hand there are westerns,
and on the other there are Arab- Orientals; the former are rational, peaceful,
liberal, logical, capable of holding real values, without natural suspicion;
the latter are none of these things.
No comments:
Post a Comment