Passage One

Orientalism and Orientalism

1．The first“Orientalists”were 19th century scholars who translated the writings of“the Orient”into English，based on the assumption that a truly effective colonial conquest required knowledge of the conquered peoples．This idea of knowledge as power is present throughout Said's critique．By knowing the Orient，the West came to own it．The Orient became the studied，the seen，the observed，the object;Orientalist scholars were the students，the seers，the observers，the subject．The Orient was passive;the West was active．

2．One of the most significant constructions of Orientalist scholars is that of the Orient itself．What is considered the Orient is a vast region，one that spreads across a myriad of cultures and countries．It includes most of Asia as well as the Middle East．The depiction of this single“Orient”which can be studied as a cohesive whole is one of the most powerful accomplishments of Orientalist scholars．It essentializes an image of a prototypical Oriental—a biological inferior that is culturally backward，peculiar，and unchanging—to be depicted in dominating and sexual terms．The discourse and visual imagery of Orientalism is laced with notions of power and superiority，formulated initially to facilitate a colonizing mission on the part of the West and perpetuated through a wide variety of discourses and policies．The language is critical to the construction．The feminine and weak Orient awaits the dominance of the West;it is a defenseless and unintelligent whole that exists for，and in terms of，its Western counterpart．The importance of such a construction is that it creates a single subject matter where none existed，a compilation of previously unspoken notions of the Other．Since the notion of the Orient is created by the Orientalist，it exists solely for him or her．Its identity is defined by the scholar who gives it life．

3．Said calls into question the underlying assumptions that form the foundation of Orientalist thinking．A rejection of Orientalism entails a rejection of biological generalizations，cultural constructions，and racial and religious prejudices．It is a rejection of greed as a primary motivating factor in intellectual pursuit．It is an erasure of the line between“the West”and“the Other．”Said argues for the use of“narrative”rather than“vision”in interpreting the geographical landscape known as the Orient，meaning that a historian and a scholar would turn not to a panoramic view of half of the globe，but rather to a focused and complex type of history that allows space for the dynamic variety of human experience．Rejection of Orientalist thinking does not entail a denial of the differences between“the West”and“the Orient，”but rather an evaluation of such differences in a more critical and objective fashion．

4．Orientalism，published in 1978，is a critique of the academic field of Oriental Studies，which has been a scholarly pursuit at most of the prestigious European universities for several centuries．Oriental Studies is a composite area of scholarship comprising philology，linguistics，ethnography，and the interpretation of culture through the discovery，recovery，compilation，and translation of Oriental texts．Said makes it clear that he is not attempting to cover the whole area．His focus is on how English，French，and American scholars have approached the Arab societies of North Africa and the Middle East．He has nothing on the 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．The period he covers is more restricted than the scholarly field，too，extending only from the late eighteenth century to the present，whereas European scholarship on the Orient dates back to the High Middle Ages^[1]．Within his time frame，however，Said extends his examination beyond the works of recognized Orientalist academics to take in literature，journalism，travel books，and religious and philosophical studies to produce a broadly historical and anthropological perspective．

5．His book makes three major claims．The first is that Orientalism，although purporting to be an objective，disinterested，and rather esoteric field，in fact functioned to serve political ends．Orientalist scholarship provided the means through which Europeans could take over Oriental lands．Said is quite clear about the causal sequence:“Colonial rule was justified in advance by Orientalism，rather than after the fact．”Imperial administrators like Lord Curzon^[2]，a Viceroy of India，agreed that the products of this scholarship—“our familiarity，not merely with the languages of the people of the East but with their customs，their feelings，their traditions，their history，and religion”—had provided“the sole basis upon which we are likely to be able to maintain in the future the position we have won．”In the late twentieth century，the field helps preserve American power in the Middle East and defends what Said calls“the Zionist invasion and colonization of Palestine．”Today，however，there is much less interest in the traditional fields of philology and literature．American academic centers for Middle Eastern studies are more concerned with providing direct advice to the government on public policy．

6．His second claim is that Orientalism helped define Europe's selfimage．“It has less to do with the Orient than it does with‘our’world．”The construction of identity in every age and every society，Said maintains，involves establishing opposites and“Others．”This happens because“the development and maintenance of every culture require the existence of another different and competing alter ego^[3]．”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．”This became part of its imperial conceit．

7．Thirdly，Said argues that Orientalism has produced a false description of Arabs and Islamic culture．This happened primarily because of the essentialist nature of the enterprise—that is，the belief that it was possible to define the essential qualities of Arab peoples and Islamic culture．These qualities were seen in uniformly negative terms，he says．The Orient was defined as a place isolated from the mainstream of human progress in the sciences，arts，and commerce．Hence:“its sensuality，its tendency to despotism，its aberrant mentality，its habit of inaccuracy，its backwardness．”Where this approach first goes wrong，Said says，is in its belief that there could be such a thing as an Islamic society，an Arab mind，an Oriental psyche．Where Orientalism goes even further astray，he claims，is its anachronistic assumption that Islam has possessed a unity since the seventh century，which can be read，via the Koran，into every facet of，say，modern Egyptian or Algerian society．The notion that Muslims suffer such a form of arrested development not only is false，he maintains，but also ignores more recent and important influences such as the experience of colonialism，imperialism，and，even，ordinary politics．

Questions for Understanding:

1．Why did the Orientalists translate the Oriental works in the early days?

2．How(through which way or ways)do you think the Westerners knew the“Orientals”?

3．By“Orient”what did the Orientalists refer to?What's wrong with this geographical concept?

4．According to Said，what does it mean to reject Orientalism?

5．What does Said mean by“narrative”and“vision”?

6．According to paragraph 4，do you think Orentalism only refers to the Orientalists'perception of people in the Arab societies of North Africa and the Middle East?

7．What are the three claims made by Said?How might they differ from each other?

8．What do you think might be the“correct”or expected way(s)Said suggests to construct the people and their land in the“Orient”?