“Introduction” of Orientalism: Points for essay

Orientalism is primarily a term used for the imitation or depiction of aspects of Eastern cultures in the West by
writers, designers and artists. Since the 19th century, "orientalist" has been the traditional term for a scholar of
Oriental studies. Nonetheless, the 20th century saw considerable change in the term's usage. In 1978, American
scholar Edward Said published his influential and controversial book, Orientalism; he used the term to describe a
pervasive Western tradition, both academic and artistic, of prejudiced outsider interpretations of the East, shaped
by the attitudes of European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. (Wikipedia). In the “Introduction” of
Orientalism, Said introduces and explains what he means by the term Orientalism, before going on to analyse the
various manifestations of this meaning in various texts.

Said begins by talking of French journalist’s response to destruction of Beirut – sad at destruction of the Orient of
Nerval and Chateaubriand – of their romanticised perception of Beirut not the reality of Beirut – example of how the
Orient is an imagined ‘reality’ for the West – comes to main argument of the book: Orientalism is a way of “coming
to terms with the Orient” because of special place the Orient has in European experience – Orient richest, greatest
and oldest colonies, and “one of its deepest and most recurring images of the Other” – especially true for England
and France and to a lesser extent to Germany or Portugal or Russia and America.

Said then offers three related, explanatory definitions for Orientalism:

1. “Anyone who teaches, writes about or researches the Orient” is an Orientalist and “what he or she does is
Orientalism”;
2. A more general meaning: “a style of thought base upon the ontological and epistemological distinction made
between ‘the Orient’ and . . . ‘the Occident’” i.e, the felt difference between the West and the East was
responsible for theories, novels, social/ political descriptions about Orient, its people, customs, mind, etc;
3. A combination of the above definitions; “a Western style for dominating, restricting and having authority over
the Orient” by making statements about it, teaching it, settling it, ruling over it - Orientalism thus a discourse in
the Foucaultian sense – responsible for the European culture being able to ‘produce’ the Orient politically,
militarily, ideologically, imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period – Orient therefore not a “free
subject of thought or action” - i.e Orientalism guides West to see East in certain ways.

Said proceeds to explain Orientalism in greater detail – first restates basic argument – the Orient is a ‘creation’ of the
Western mind – both Orient and Occident are man-made entities – not “inert fact of nature” – but (1) there is a
“brute reality” corresponding to the Westerner’s conception of the Orient – completely different from perceived
Orient – Disraeli’s Orient is an Orient imagined by Western culture – not real Orient; (2) the ‘Orientalising’ of the
Orient did not happen accidentally – it happened because relationship between Occident and Orient is relationship
of power and domination, of “varying degrees of a complex hegemony” – reflected in K.M Panikker’s classic work
Asia and Western Dominance – the Orient could be submitted to be made Oriental – Flaubert’s description of
Egyptian courtesan mistress created influential model of Oriental woman – possible because of Flaubert’s power
over her as wealthy, male Westerner – she did not have freedom to present her emotions, history; (3) Orientalism
not merely lies or myth (being imagined) which will blow away when truth revealed – Orientalist discourse has
“sheer knitted-together strength” – closely tied with powerful socio-economic and political institutions – Orientalism
not “airy European fantasy about the Orient” but “a created body of theory and practice” created with considerable
material investment – “an accepted grid for filtering through the Orient into Western consciousness” – Orientalism’s
strength and durability can be explained in terms of Gramsci’s notion of hegemony/ cultural hegemony – (certain
ideas become powerful/ influential in a culture through consent) – idea of superior European identity in comparison
with non-European cultures responsible for cultural hegemony – natural because of extraordinary ascendance of
Europe after Renaissance – power over the Orient meant power to create knowledge about Orient – no history of
England by Indian or Arab – so found in all kinds of knowledge about Orient (linguistic, anthropological, historical,
etc)

To show how Orientalism and knowledge are connected, Said examines relationship between power and knowledge
and between pure knowledge and political knowledge – acc. to Said general consensus that ‘true’ knowledge is
“fundamentally non-political” obscures “the political circumstances obtaining when knowledge is produced” –
general belief that knowledge should be non-political, scholarly, academic, impartial, above small-minded doctrinal
ideology – but there is assumption that writing on Keats or Wordsworth is non-political – but writing on Russian
economics political – but impossible acc to Said to detach scholar from “circumstances of life”, “facts of his
involvement with a class, a set of beliefs”, “social position” – so nothing like ‘pure knowledge’ – all knowledge
political, but in different degrees – therefore argues that “all academic knowledge about India and Egypt” is tinged,
impressed with, violated by colonialism – a European or American studying Orient “comes up against the Orient as a
European or American first, as an individual second” – this is why all knowledge of the Orient is political and seen
through prism of Orientalism – but it was culture which created this interest in an Orientalist viewpoint, along with
brute political, economic and military power.

Said then goes on to expand his definitions of Orientalism -- Orientalism not mere political subject matter or
something reflected passively by culture – nor is Orientalism large and diffuse number of texts on the Orient – nor is
it part of a Western plot to subdue the East – it is (1) a “distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic,
scholarly, economic, sociological, historical and philological texts; (2) “an elaboration of not only of a basic
geographical distinction” but also of a series of multidisciplinary ‘interests’ which creates and maintains it; (3) it is an
intention to understand or control a very different world, through various kinds of power (political, intellectual,
cultural or moral) – argues that Orientalism is a “considerable dimension of modern political-intellectual culture” and
has less to do with the Orient than “’our’ world” – it is conceded that intertextuality can affect an individual writer –
but reluctance to agree that “political, institutional and ideological constraints” act in same manner on individual –
so philosophers discuss Locke’s empiricism ignoring relationship between their philosophy and justifications of
slavery – “an intellectual and historical impossibility” to avoid the role of political imperialism in study of Orient –
easy to show that liberal cultural heroes like John Stuart Mill, Arnold, Carlyle, Newman, Macaulay, Ruskin, George
Eliot, and Dickens had definite views on race and imperialism – does not however indicate that culture is demeaned
by Orientalism – culture has become richer through it. Said therefore believes that philology, lexicography, history,
biology, political and economic theory, novel-writing and lyric poetry “came to the service of Orientalism’s broadly
imperialistic view of the world”.

Said makes two related points on Orientalism before concluding his essay – firstly every writer writing about the
Orient adopts a stance towards his subject – he locates himself/ herself vis-a vis the Orient – this revealed in kind of
narrative voice he adopts, the structures, images, themes and motifs in the text – further each text on the Orient
“affiliates itself with other works” – they have a unity as they frequently refer to each other – secondly Orientalism
does not lie hidden in the text – it is on its exterior – because what is presented in such a text is only a re-
presentation – the Orientalist poet or scholar makes the Orient speak – explains and make Orient simple to the West
– it is not the ‘truth’ about the Orient, but representations, which are creations of the Orientalist with the Orientalist
always outside the Orient.

Said concludes by drawing attention to the changes in Orientalism across the centuries – after the 1860s, i.e in
modern Orientalism, “the range of representations expanded enormously” because of the expansion of colonialism
and the developments in science – gave expanded scope and more refined techniques for receiving the Orient – in
the contemporary, electronic postmodern world there has been “reinforcement of the stereotypes by which the
Orient is viewed” – this standardization and stereotyping on TV, in films, have further demonised the ‘mysterious
Orient’ – aggravated by three facts 1. history of popular anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice in the West; 2. the
struggle between Arabs and Israeli Zionism and its effect on liberal culture; 3. total absence of a cultural position
which enables identification with or dispassionate analysis of Arabs or Islam – it is therefore the “nexus of
knowledge and power” which creates the ‘Oriental’ and “obliterates’ him/ her as a human being – ends with
argument that literary culture and society “can only be understood and studied together”.