-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
edward said-orientalism
- Thread starter aniela
- Start date
aniela
New Member
i will begin with the conclusion: i agree to the point Said wants to make, but i disagree with the way he sustains it. i find Said to lack in logical argumentation.
-the ideas i agree with in Said's book:
1. the orient is the image of the Other for europe, and it is necessary to define european "identity".
but i still think that the orient is not the only point of reference for european culture. i think europe also compares itself to africa and to the united states for example.
2. i agree with him when he points to the shameful boasting of european politicians and scholars who argue that the colonization was a positive action (and this attitude is unfortunately maintained today: see the law on the positive role of colonization passed in France recently). i think european countries should assume their past and recognize the mistakes made. it would be the minimum sign of respect towards the nations that were colonized. european intellectuals should stop to falsify history. we all have to learn from the past mistakes. by denying them, there is always room to repeat them.
-and i also agree to him when he sees the "west" as haunted by the history of its relations with the "orient" (and in here i am thinking about the discussion about the admission of turkey in the european union)
-the loose elements in Said's book:
1. i think that the most important flaw in Said's book is his criticizing one part without building anything in stead. he unveils the ways european scholars viewed the orient in a stereotyped fashion with the inevitable limits of such a view (oversimplification overgeneralization etc).
but he does not fill in the gaps. he is only saying: it is not like this. so, me, as a reader, i kept on asking all through the book: ok, i agree it is not like that, but how is it then? i think Said did not have a personal stand in the matter. he only destroyed a wicked way of thinking and left a void in its place. so, finally, we are not to think outside europe at all? i think Said left to much to the reader to answer. we can say that, of course, the orient is not something uniform, that we have to see the differences inside it, just as we are able to spot the heterogeneity of the european culture, but Said never explicitly expresses his opinion about it.
2. the examples he chooses from literature to back his ideas are minor works. for example, at one point he mentions mark twain. he does not quote any work of his. he just states what mark twain opinion about the orient is, without explaining how he (Said) arrived at that conclusion.
3. i found some of his statements to be tendentious, therefore undermining the strength of a rational argumentation. ex: "in short, having transported the Orient into modernity, the Orientalist could celebrate his method, and his position, as that of a secular creator, a man who made new worlds as God had once made the old" (i do not think this kind of an interpretation has its place in a rather scientific debate)
4. he insists on the works that are suitable for his arguments. it is true that he admits the existence of works that expressed a different view on the orient, but he only mentions them briefly, without getting ito details. i found that to be rather biased.
5. Said accused the european (or western) culture of mistakes that are not an exclusive attribute of this specific society. for example: "the idea of European identity as a superior one in comparison with all the non-European peoples and cultures." -i think that is a common characteristic of all the communities, societies, groups etc. without the feeling that what binds them together is more important that what keeps together other communities, people would not adhere to any group and would not be able to form any identity as transmitted by the group. what i find it to be an issue is not the belief in the importance of one's own values (individual or shared with the group), but the conviction that those values must be imposed on others at any cost. that is a problem!
i tried to be as brief as possible with this, but apparently there are a lot of things to say.
-the ideas i agree with in Said's book:
1. the orient is the image of the Other for europe, and it is necessary to define european "identity".
but i still think that the orient is not the only point of reference for european culture. i think europe also compares itself to africa and to the united states for example.
2. i agree with him when he points to the shameful boasting of european politicians and scholars who argue that the colonization was a positive action (and this attitude is unfortunately maintained today: see the law on the positive role of colonization passed in France recently). i think european countries should assume their past and recognize the mistakes made. it would be the minimum sign of respect towards the nations that were colonized. european intellectuals should stop to falsify history. we all have to learn from the past mistakes. by denying them, there is always room to repeat them.
-and i also agree to him when he sees the "west" as haunted by the history of its relations with the "orient" (and in here i am thinking about the discussion about the admission of turkey in the european union)
-the loose elements in Said's book:
1. i think that the most important flaw in Said's book is his criticizing one part without building anything in stead. he unveils the ways european scholars viewed the orient in a stereotyped fashion with the inevitable limits of such a view (oversimplification overgeneralization etc).
but he does not fill in the gaps. he is only saying: it is not like this. so, me, as a reader, i kept on asking all through the book: ok, i agree it is not like that, but how is it then? i think Said did not have a personal stand in the matter. he only destroyed a wicked way of thinking and left a void in its place. so, finally, we are not to think outside europe at all? i think Said left to much to the reader to answer. we can say that, of course, the orient is not something uniform, that we have to see the differences inside it, just as we are able to spot the heterogeneity of the european culture, but Said never explicitly expresses his opinion about it.
2. the examples he chooses from literature to back his ideas are minor works. for example, at one point he mentions mark twain. he does not quote any work of his. he just states what mark twain opinion about the orient is, without explaining how he (Said) arrived at that conclusion.
3. i found some of his statements to be tendentious, therefore undermining the strength of a rational argumentation. ex: "in short, having transported the Orient into modernity, the Orientalist could celebrate his method, and his position, as that of a secular creator, a man who made new worlds as God had once made the old" (i do not think this kind of an interpretation has its place in a rather scientific debate)
4. he insists on the works that are suitable for his arguments. it is true that he admits the existence of works that expressed a different view on the orient, but he only mentions them briefly, without getting ito details. i found that to be rather biased.
5. Said accused the european (or western) culture of mistakes that are not an exclusive attribute of this specific society. for example: "the idea of European identity as a superior one in comparison with all the non-European peoples and cultures." -i think that is a common characteristic of all the communities, societies, groups etc. without the feeling that what binds them together is more important that what keeps together other communities, people would not adhere to any group and would not be able to form any identity as transmitted by the group. what i find it to be an issue is not the belief in the importance of one's own values (individual or shared with the group), but the conviction that those values must be imposed on others at any cost. that is a problem!
i tried to be as brief as possible with this, but apparently there are a lot of things to say.
Gem
kickbox
Hello,
Great post. Your observations are excellent, and at this point i won't add too much to them.
The biggest drawback, for me at least, was as you highlighted:
The failure to address in at least some depth, the differing views, undermines in my opinion his arguments. He ignored the American Arab researchers (i can't think of names right now) who played a part in the field. A man named Goldziher (sp?) also if i remember correctly, whose work and research contributed heavily to the study of Islam. But Said kinda ignores him because his views were different. I think that by the time Said was carrying out his own research, understanding and representation of the 'Orient' and in particular Islam had vastly improved - and starting to become a little more multi dimensional.
I can't argue that Said's points weren't valid, because they were but picking & mixing prior works and research to reflect his own viewpoint just kinda detracts from it.
Great post. Your observations are excellent, and at this point i won't add too much to them.
The biggest drawback, for me at least, was as you highlighted:
The failure to address in at least some depth, the differing views, undermines in my opinion his arguments. He ignored the American Arab researchers (i can't think of names right now) who played a part in the field. A man named Goldziher (sp?) also if i remember correctly, whose work and research contributed heavily to the study of Islam. But Said kinda ignores him because his views were different. I think that by the time Said was carrying out his own research, understanding and representation of the 'Orient' and in particular Islam had vastly improved - and starting to become a little more multi dimensional.
I can't argue that Said's points weren't valid, because they were but picking & mixing prior works and research to reflect his own viewpoint just kinda detracts from it.
aniela
New Member
he does mention some names of arab american scholars in the field, and he also mentions one of them criticizing his book. but he stops there. no further details.
as for the literary works and the other "orientalist" references in his book, i guess he used them because this is the field he works in (i think he is a professor in comparative literature)
i have not read some of his recent articles, maybe in there he makes his point with more accuracy.
but i have doubts that our view on the "orient" has changed very much from the time Said conceived his book. i find a lot of articles and opinions in contemporary press that fit the same stiffing stereotype pattern Said criticizes in his book.
as for the literary works and the other "orientalist" references in his book, i guess he used them because this is the field he works in (i think he is a professor in comparative literature)
i have not read some of his recent articles, maybe in there he makes his point with more accuracy.
but i have doubts that our view on the "orient" has changed very much from the time Said conceived his book. i find a lot of articles and opinions in contemporary press that fit the same stiffing stereotype pattern Said criticizes in his book.
Gem
kickbox
Hello Aniela,
Without a doubt this is true to a very large extent. Stereotypes are always very difficult to overcome completely but i'd have to say that the boundaries of the Orient stereotypes are increasing even if only ever so slightly.
I also haven't read any recent articles by Said, but it would be interesting to read them and see if he differs or wavers at all. Can you recommend any particular works?
Without a doubt this is true to a very large extent. Stereotypes are always very difficult to overcome completely but i'd have to say that the boundaries of the Orient stereotypes are increasing even if only ever so slightly.
I also haven't read any recent articles by Said, but it would be interesting to read them and see if he differs or wavers at all. Can you recommend any particular works?
Peder
Well-Known Member
Gem,Gem said:I had no idea.
I came across Orientalism about five years ago and when I saw this thread, I just pulled out my old copy.
I guess that explains the lack of recent articles.
He was very much beloved by the many many people and students who knew him personally. The testimonials are absolutely glowing.
Peder
Peder
Well-Known Member
I just picked up Orientalism, after having continually put it off for quite a while. I'll probably be reading along quietly and not saying much since my own interest is mainly political. But I am looking forward to a very interesting and illuminating read. He certainly comes well-recommended.
Peder
Peder
Peder
Well-Known Member
Having just said that I won't be saying much, I suppose I'll have to ammend that to say that maybe I won't be saying much after this post. I have been aware of Edward Said for some time, mainly through fragmentary comments that I have seen in media and book reviews, and typically related to a seemingly passionate support for one side of the current Middle-East fighting. In Orientalism, however, he styles himself as "humanist" whch, at least subliminally to me, suggests a broad and balanced interest in all of humanity or, in this case, an unbiased and balanced approach to a divisive subject.
I have read both prefaces (and 9 pages of the text) and my cyinicism immediately rises again, that this is a book of advocacy and that the author has an attitude typical among advocates, namely: "You believe as I do, and I'll believe as I do, and we'll all get along just fine."
Nevertheless, I am quite willing to hear him out on his arguments, and only time will now tell whether I moderate my cynicism above, or whether the book turns into one where I scribble progrssively more vigorously in the margins as I take greater and greater exception to what the author is saying. I don''t often write in books, but this one is beginning to have the feel that it will be one of the esceptions.
Now to attempt relative silence while I read,
Peder
I have read both prefaces (and 9 pages of the text) and my cyinicism immediately rises again, that this is a book of advocacy and that the author has an attitude typical among advocates, namely: "You believe as I do, and I'll believe as I do, and we'll all get along just fine."
Nevertheless, I am quite willing to hear him out on his arguments, and only time will now tell whether I moderate my cynicism above, or whether the book turns into one where I scribble progrssively more vigorously in the margins as I take greater and greater exception to what the author is saying. I don''t often write in books, but this one is beginning to have the feel that it will be one of the esceptions.
Now to attempt relative silence while I read,
Peder
Gem
kickbox
Peder,
You don't have to write in the book - scribble it all on this thread, I would love to read your thoughts.
Whilst Said makes substantial points, i felt that the fact that his approach seems to be, if i may quote you on this:
In any case i've started to reread it, to make sure that i haven't remembered it wrong.
Remember: put your scribbles here
You don't have to write in the book - scribble it all on this thread, I would love to read your thoughts.
Whilst Said makes substantial points, i felt that the fact that his approach seems to be, if i may quote you on this:
really detracts from the work. Hang on i think i've already said all this in another post.
In any case i've started to reread it, to make sure that i haven't remembered it wrong.
Remember: put your scribbles here
Peder
Well-Known Member
Gem,Gem said:
That's an interesting thought! One that I hadn't considered before, partly because some of my reactions can be pretty intemperate -- indeed unprintable -- and partly because I am willing to let him make his case, by reading the whole book, before I take him to task for what he seems to be saying, so far, in the Prefaces and the Introduction.
After all, as I have read it so far, one of his claims seems to be that I personally must of necessity have an Orientalist frame of mind, given the Country and times in which I have grown up. While I don't think so, he of course has constructed his definition of Orientalism in a way to permit him to say "See! That proves my point, that you do have an Orientalist outlook, even though you don't know it. But especially because you don't know it." I would prefer to read on and see his attempts to prove such an intellectually arrogant and demeaning proposition, before I render my opinion of just what I think he might be. Suffice it to say for the moment that on pp 26-28 he describes an America that I don't recognize, even though I have lived here through the same turbulent times that he says he has experienced here.
Second, I definitely resent his calling me a Zionist, and I have to say that his gratuitous disparagement of Jewish people, at least twice now in 28 pages, speaks very poorly for him and for his supposed intellectual stature. I don't much care for people who have what I take to be his frame of mind.
So I would rather let him try to explain himself better than I have perhaps understood him so far.
Third, I find his artful construction of the concept of Orientalism to be a fascinating exercise of his intellect, and am going to have to reread his super-voluminous words to see if I understand it correctly. So far, I think it is qute a piece of work, in the colloquial sense of that phrase.
All of that, of course, doesn't get written in the margins. My actual marginal notes are pithier and less reverent. However, I am at page 29 and still reading, even though my last encounter with an author of his exceptional arrogance did not end up well for the book (Democracy and Populism by John Lukacs).
That's the condensed version,
But I'm afraid he has my hackles up,
Peder
aniela
New Member
i had no clue that Said was dead. i guess i should ponder a little bit over the autobiographies of the authors i am reading.
i found it mentioned somewhere about one article written by Said in 1999. but i have to go back and find that reference. or maybe i will just google. a little bit.
i am very interested in Peder's opinions about the book. he seems to be quite a fierce critic!
i found it mentioned somewhere about one article written by Said in 1999. but i have to go back and find that reference. or maybe i will just google. a little bit.
i am very interested in Peder's opinions about the book. he seems to be quite a fierce critic!
Peder
Well-Known Member
Aniela,aniela said:i had no clue that Said was dead. i guess i should ponder a little bit over the autobiographies of the authors i am reading.
i found it mentioned somewhere about one article written by Said in 1999. but i have to go back and find that reference. or maybe i will just google. a little bit.
i am very interested in Peder's opinions about the book. he seems to be quite a fierce critic!
I think he deseres a stiff scrubbing especially since, behind the facade of all his erudition and all his fine words, I notice that he says at one point (p.96)
Actually I was taught that scholarly work was by definition to be scrupulously disinterested, and at the very same very reputable Univeristy he was from -- Columbia. So I would say that he has decided to depart from the 'scholarly' and into the 'partisan' and, therefore, has appropriately earned himself an argument. Propagandists have always relied on distortion and he is no exception, I would say. Many of his references fall into the same caegory (e.g. Chomsky, Gramsci to begin with,, and perhaps also Fouault).
Peder
Gem
kickbox
Hello Peder,
Thank you so much for your posts.
At the moment i'm only about 25 pages into the introduction, as I keep getting sidetracked; my book is full of underlined passages from the last time i read it. Of course I now can't remember why I underlined them and it's driving me to distraction trying to remember
I'm going upto Scotland tomorrow for a week or so for the annual family Easter get together, It's a long journey by train so i'll have enough time to complete the book and clarify my thoughts. I look forward to reading more of your posts when I get back.
I hadn't thought of this at all, but I certainly see what you mean. Said is of course an intellectual and master of his subject, but his lack of objectivity does amaze me. Your propaganda insinuation really does hit the mark, so far at least.
Happy reading, i'll expect long analytic posts when i get back
.
Thank you so much for your posts.
At the moment i'm only about 25 pages into the introduction, as I keep getting sidetracked; my book is full of underlined passages from the last time i read it. Of course I now can't remember why I underlined them and it's driving me to distraction trying to remember
I'm going upto Scotland tomorrow for a week or so for the annual family Easter get together, It's a long journey by train so i'll have enough time to complete the book and clarify my thoughts. I look forward to reading more of your posts when I get back.
I hadn't thought of this at all, but I certainly see what you mean. Said is of course an intellectual and master of his subject, but his lack of objectivity does amaze me. Your propaganda insinuation really does hit the mark, so far at least.
Happy reading, i'll expect long analytic posts when i get back
.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Gem,
Have a happy trip! I don't think there will be much new to say before you get back, even though I continue to read on. I'm just about half-done now and he continues to hammer the same tired nail over and over again with his same complaint, that 'Orientalists' have continually provided distorted views of 'the Orient,' and usually in support of nefarious Western purposes. The thought grows that he includes subjects for discussion in the book only to sneer at them. So now I'm reading on mainly to see if there is ever any change in that basic attitude, or whether there is anything 'Western' or 'European' that he can say anything good about. But as the blurb from The Observer says on the back cover:
Have a happy time,
Peder
And PS, That name should have been spelled 'Foucault' in my previous post. My typo.
P.
Have a happy trip! I don't think there will be much new to say before you get back, even though I continue to read on. I'm just about half-done now and he continues to hammer the same tired nail over and over again with his same complaint, that 'Orientalists' have continually provided distorted views of 'the Orient,' and usually in support of nefarious Western purposes. The thought grows that he includes subjects for discussion in the book only to sneer at them. So now I'm reading on mainly to see if there is ever any change in that basic attitude, or whether there is anything 'Western' or 'European' that he can say anything good about. But as the blurb from The Observer says on the back cover:
More and more I realize how accurate that is. But I'll finish.
Have a happy time,
Peder
And PS, That name should have been spelled 'Foucault' in my previous post. My typo.
P.
mosheazrabadie
New Member
This is my first and last foray on book forum. I read with interest Peder's constipated reactions/opinions to orientalism and aniela's naive but sincere approach and my comments are mostly directed to Peder's. You try to convince us that you have an open mind, you even start by eulogizing Said as being a formidable intellectual mind, only to shift very quickly and accuse him of antisemitism...the truth hurts and whoever carries it is usually demonized, but I am not gonna stand idle and allow you to dirty his memory.
I am jewish by birth and Said was my teacher at Columbia and I want it to be clearly known that Said was neither an antisemite( how could he be? he is a semite himself), nor a man on a mission to advocate uncivilized solutiuons to a "civilized world". His only sin was to advocate that we are one civilization under this very tiny earth, and it does not serve any purpose to face each other as enemies but to comprehend that we have inherited from each other..that today's culture is a mixture of all that has already existed before...
May be Emerson puts it best when he says" The intuition of the moral sentiment is an insight of the perfection of the laws of the soul.these laws execute themselves. They are out of time, out of space, and not subject to circumstance.Thus; in the soul of man there is a justice whose retributions are instant and entire. He who does a good deed, is instantly ennobled. He who does a mean deed, is by the action itself contracted.He who puts off impurity, thereby puts on purity." And so Peder, do not confuse jewishness with zionism. jewishness is a purity of heart, and zionism is a scourge similar to nazism or fascism. In fact , as you continue to read orientalism, with complete objectivity of course, you will realize Said's humanity coming through very clearly and your constipated reactions/opinions receding to the bins of forgotten hitory.
I am jewish by birth and Said was my teacher at Columbia and I want it to be clearly known that Said was neither an antisemite( how could he be? he is a semite himself), nor a man on a mission to advocate uncivilized solutiuons to a "civilized world". His only sin was to advocate that we are one civilization under this very tiny earth, and it does not serve any purpose to face each other as enemies but to comprehend that we have inherited from each other..that today's culture is a mixture of all that has already existed before...
May be Emerson puts it best when he says" The intuition of the moral sentiment is an insight of the perfection of the laws of the soul.these laws execute themselves. They are out of time, out of space, and not subject to circumstance.Thus; in the soul of man there is a justice whose retributions are instant and entire. He who does a good deed, is instantly ennobled. He who does a mean deed, is by the action itself contracted.He who puts off impurity, thereby puts on purity." And so Peder, do not confuse jewishness with zionism. jewishness is a purity of heart, and zionism is a scourge similar to nazism or fascism. In fact , as you continue to read orientalism, with complete objectivity of course, you will realize Said's humanity coming through very clearly and your constipated reactions/opinions receding to the bins of forgotten hitory.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Well my friend. Thank you for your attempted clarification, although it seems like you are confused about what I think. It definitely sounds like we speak different languages. However I am glad ro hear how an actual student of Edward Said puts it, because it sounds considerably different when he writes it down in his book. If you were to hang around we could no doubt discuss it to our mutually better understanding.
Sincerely,
Peder
Sincerely,
Peder
