a fabricated concept: the Orient. Orientalism constructed a specific image of the East – known as the Orient – as a means to approach it. team of researchers was responsible for defining Orientalism, and the “experts” on the East were known as Orientalists. This concept was fleshed out by other colonial powers, most notably Britain during the 19th century, and was the lens through which the West viewed the entire Orient, which was considered to include the Middle East, Asia and the Far East.
The resulting image of the East was an exotic,
erotic and irrational one, while Eastern stereotypes found in travel journals, newspapers and scientific publications began to proliferate. These presented
the Orient as exotic and unfamiliar; as one equally
strange and foreign entity, regardless of country, people or culture; and as the place where unseemly passions could run amok. the people of the Orient were perceived as irrational and incapable of logic; the accompanying assumption was that the opposite of these traits were considered Western trait.
Orientalism was influenced by economic and
political interests, and claimed knowledge about the Orient that the Orient didn’t have. Orientalism was able to establish itself as an authority over the people in the Orient, as it was steered by “experts” who ostensibly knew more about the ancient Orient than the very people of the Orient. These scholars and linguists found and translated ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and uncovered previously unknown archaeological digs, revealing ancient Egyptian monuments.
This knowledge made it easier for the Orientalists
to assert their dominance and influence over the local people. Socioeconomic developments forced Orientalism to change and adapt. French poet Gérard Nerval, for example, once romantically wrote about a past Orient that he had never actually witnessed, but which he simply dreamed up in his book Voyage en Orient.
When he did finally visit the Orient, he was
shocked to find that it didn’t line up with his vision, an image created by Orientalist practices and documents. They created fantasies. resistance movements and revolutions gave the Orient power, and Orientalists had three ways of responding to this disturbance.
In the first two ways, they would continue to
observe and document the Orient as if it were a static object dictated by texts, and they would also attempt to determine how one’s vision of the Orient had to change given recent events. The third way of responding to the Orient’s newfound influence was to entirely give up the study of the East as “the Orient” – but this approach was seriously considered by only a handful of Orientalists.
Orientalism tried to prove its main findings about
the Orient in different ways. After the resistance and revolutionary movements in the East, the West found it increasingly difficult to disseminate its so-called discoveries. Orientalism responded to this trend in a few different ways. categorizations developed by Orientalists clouded the nuances of the cultures in question.
A number of practices and categories created by
the Orientalists made it particularly difficult to observe each culture’s complexity.
Categories such as Oriental, Semitic, Arab,
Muslim, Jew, as well as categories of race, mentality, type and nation, while somewhat helpful, would simultaneously lump variations and diversity within individuals, families and cultures under the same umbrella, thereby obscuring their numerous differences.
THE SCOPE OF ORIENTALISM
Edward Said's Oreintalism describes how the science of orientalism developed as a system of knowledge in modern times. According to Said, the Western Orinetals structured the world as made of two opposing elements, ours and theirs. The West and East were to be cultural distinctions, differences in civilization or lack of it. In Western eyes orients were incapable of taking care of themselves, they were lazy, lustful, irrational and violent but also exotic and mysterious. The self-proclaimed superiority of the West over the East also led Western scholars to think that they are more apt to understands the orients than the orients themselves, thus "orientalizing" them and subjecting them to Western standards which did not favor them. According to Edward Said researchers and men of administration took a very Eurocentric and therefore biased and selective approach to understanding the Orient and the orients. All accounts of the Orient according to Said were prone to generalizations, attributing collective significance to acts of individuals. The West also used its own terminology to define and analyze the Orient, applying terms were unknown to their subjects. This is how concepts of the Orient were developed by Western eyes and for Western eyes.
Orientalism for Said was fundamentally a system
of self projection. The Orient served as a mirror for the West who wanted to see himself as superior. By describing the oriental as uncivilized the West attempt to proclaim its own civilization. Said also employs the Freudian mechanism of projection, arguing that Europe projected everything it didn't want to acknowledge about itself onto the Orient (including sexual fantasies). The point of Said's chapter 1 of Orientalism is that Western Knowledge of the East was never neutral since it was always involved with a political and cultural agenda. Part 1 of chapter 1 talks about The initial creation of a framework of domination during the 18th and 19th centuries allowed for domination to occur. This framework was initially characterized as an "us" versus "them" dichotomy, established by those who were in power, and thus in a position to act as knowledge producers. Said states that this is the basis of the "main intellectual issue raised by Orientalism."
At its core, Orientalism represented a system of
"knowledge" and perceived "power" regarding the Orient that framed interactions with the West. Said concludes the chapter by setting up the historical timeline for the development of Orientalism through the 18th–20th centuries he goes on to describe in later parts. Chapter 2