Upon reading through Flaubert’s stories, I cannot help but consider the relevancy of these letters and travel notes on the grander scheme of literature. I do not see how this piece could have had a large influence on Western society as a whole. Were these texts highly circulated around America and Europe? It seems that this would be unlikely to qualify as a popular text. Obviously, I have not gotten the entire historical context around this piece, but from the little bit of research I have been able to do since we were assigned the readings, I have come to understand that Egypt was in a complex political conflict. I also understand that the travelers in this piece were at least somewhat well-versed in their contemporary Egyptian affairs. It seems that their mission was one fueled by a desire to become more educated, but that the travelers were unable to separate their preconceived notions of the “Oriental” culture from their travels through Egypt. They go through various scenes, describing what they see from a very European perspective. The tone implies that the characters are white, aristocratic, and entertained more than informed on a regular basis. They regale all that they see with an heir of embellishment; the use of vulgarities and the reflection upon the residents usually focuses on the differences between the French culture and the Egyptian culture. It doesn’t seem like it is the most unrealistic representations of other cultures. It definitely wasn’t as bad as Mandeville. He doesn’t describe the Egyptians as monsters; he keeps his exaggerations to those relevant to vulgarities. Flaubert and his companions keep harping on the prevalence of prostitution and strange customs such as public sex, the treatment of Europeans, and the goings-ons of the governmental offices. He provides a seemingly somewhat biased perspective, but he is not slandering their religion as a whole, or calling out a single person for any one thing; he is just trying to express his experiences through his honest opinions. He may not be giving a reflective perspective of their culture; in other words, this is not the Arabic or Egyptian views of Egypt, it is a very European perspective, which should be accounted for when reading it. I have to assume that if this was circulated throughout Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, the readers were not ignorant to the point that they would not consider the historical context and the overall perspective and background of the writer. I am honestly turned-off by this text; I do not believe that these travelogues would have provided a significant impact of the overall views of Muslims, Egyptians, Arabs, or any people from the “Orient.” I can see how it did not bring about a more realistic or positive perspective, but it sure doesn’t seem as bad as Mandeville as I have said above. It is only a fraction as bad as those texts which outright slander the religion and culture of peoples of the “Orient.”
I agree that Flaubert's perspective seems a bit off and certainly biased. In one of his passages he notes that he was rather underwhelmed by the landscape of the Orient, as he had pictured it much more grand and exotic in his mind. I feel that this notion is applicable to all of his encounters and observations during his time in the East; Flaubert likely spent so much of his youth romanticizing the foreign lands which we dreamed about, and his expectations continued to grow more and more exotic. Ultimately regardless of what he managed to observe, the reality of Egypt would never have met his expectations. Another instance that this applies to, but on the opposite end of the spectrum is his encounters with the "grotesque." Flaubert observed slavery, trafficking of women, thievery, and public beatings. To the average person, these incidents would be shocking and appalling. Flaubert on the other hand, described these observations as "fresh," "genuine," and "charming," as they are the only things to come close to his outlandish expectations.
Flaubert's text is a prime example of the problem in popular literature, which (as you say) we saw with Mandeville earlier: the accuracy and objectivity of a piece takes far less priority than its appeal to the masses. You say that you can't see this being a popular text, yet it does precisely what many texts that appeal to the lowest common denominator do: tells people what they want to hear. The doctrine of Imperialism planted the idea in the minds of Europeans that they were better than those they colonized, and that mindset is precisely what Flaubert's writing enforces. It reaffirms something that contemporary European readers desperately wanted to believe, and that explains its potential for popularity.
This was helped along by Flaubert's popularity as a novelist. His notoriety as a writer lent considerable credibility to his account of Egypt, since readers were more likely to accept such an account from a writer they enjoyed. This brings us to the major problem of Flaubert that persists to this day, and that is celebrity opinion. People are more likely to adopt ideals if they are first presented by someone they respect or someone famous. If these people act like Flaubert, enforcing negative views about the so-called "other," then Orientalism is going to continue to be a problem. Flaubert represents a very dangerous, very real trend, and that is the popularization of racism.
My first thought on reading this article were an immediate sense that Flaubert would not be a reliable narrator, or any kind of authority of what is the honest truth of travelling the east—I could tell from the start that his work narrated what he wanted to see, what he dreamed of the “Orient”, rather than the reality. From the first page of the article, his obsession with prostitution was a red flag; this view would most certainly impact his opinions not only of women (especially in other cultures), but of his travels overall. Considering his stance on prostitution, his dramatic impression of having read Arabian Nights, and his idea that his early writing was full of “a longing for the exotic…a yearning for the east” (11) was most certainly not going to be flattering or even remotely trustworthy. A man who insists on paying for the ideal sexual encounter, and then bragging about how he feels that to partake of prostitution is to engage in “a complete absence of human contact” (10) (because whores aren’t people, apparently), and going on with such a romantic pretension about all that he learned in the brothels—“the sense of sadness” (10). Even more disturbing—in the purely necrophilia sense, never mind the orientalist sense—was what his intention was exactly in declaring that he would give up all women to possess Cleopatra’s corpse. He dreamed of the colorful stories he read of the Orient, and proceeded to deify it, “create a homeland” (12) without having ever set foot in the “Orient”, without knowing or caring about the realities of life in the East. Flaubert disregarded the struggles and differences between and among cultures in order to live out his Oriental fantasy. Even the memoires of his friend who financed the travels to Egypt are a testament to the fact that Flaubert was unreliable: Flaubert shows up in his house before their departure, torn as to whether or not he should accompany them. Even when he finally makes the decision to join the company headed down the Nile, his friend “unhesitatingly” (25) feels the need to employ an extra servant to babysit Flaubert. The pretentious guy doesn’t even realize his own situation; in a letter to his mother, he rattles off a list of names of people he had met, and finishes with “I trust you are impressed” (30). He also flagrantly and indiscriminately uses people—especially women, but even his own family and friends. On page 34 he says, “It was no small satisfaction to me…to think that father’s memory was still useful to me…” when he meets a doctor who knows his fathers medical work. Flaubert was an orientalist and a chauvinist, a usurer and, in his own words, a ladies man with a disturbing case of necrophilia. His narrative must be questioned, despite his reputation speaking for itself, since he is not only a racist, but a braggart and a voyeur.
Upon delving into Flaubert's travelogue I immediately began comparing it to other texts that we have read up to this point. The text has similar qualities to The Book of John Mandeville in ways such as othering the people living in the East. However, the notion of the Orient is established in the 19th century- making the fear of the unknown such as monsters, turn into desire and domination over the exotic. This sets a new tone to the derogatory comments written carelessly down by western travelers. The exploitation of the "orient" is seen in Flaubert's text in his description of the people and culture. He commonly refers to prostitutes, and sexual encounters. However these descriptions are indiscriminate as seen on page 36/37 when Flaubert’s mentions the Male dancers in their ugliness, charming corruption, feminine movements and how they could arouse men better than any woman could. Other than these embarrassing and blatantly expanded on descriptions, I found the text equally dismissive towards the western civilization. I believe that Flaubert is so anxious to be a part of the East, he begins to see common western ideas or people as other- he mentions that “many of the Europeans are more oriental than the Orientals.” I saw this idea first on page 17 in his description on the English family in which the mother “looks like a sick old parrot” and again on page 34 when he describes the regulars who are an imitation of Europe “with their trouser straps under their shoes, and such shoes!” This othering of Europe to me stood out because it indicates how Westerners go into the East looking to dive into the culture while pressing their own cultural beliefs on the people they encounter. The idea of the “grotesque” stands out because it is a newly constructed image of the East. Flaubert points out that while imperialism has had influence on the orients, the influence does not quite fit. This goes back to the image of the Turkish officers on page 33 in their European Garb- so unfitting and unlike the “superb” rags and “unpatched robes” of the Orient which are “dusty but not stained.” However, despite his acknowledge of imperialism and its affects, he further contributes to the othering of the East in his own sensualizing of the culture. He briefly mentions the distortion of the western view towards the East, “we picture the Arab as very serious. Here he is very merry, very artistic in gesticulation and ornamentation,” and therefore he is knowledgeable about the effect that his travelogue will have on its readers.
I would have to agree with your view of Flaubert's rejection of Western culture. He seems to be so caught up in the idea of being part of this mystical fantasy vacation that he's created for himself, that he doesn't actually try to understand the culture that he is a part of. The best comparison that I can think of is that he is like a modern day middle class white person who declares that they are Buddhist or Muslim, wearing different symbols of their newfound religion and using all of the politically correct buzzwords to describe their adopted culture, and yet accidentally insult the culture that they now proclaim a connection with because they don't truly understand what the eightfold path is or what jihad actually means. They end up creating further prejudice when trying to fight against it because their intentions are fake and superficial, just as Flaubert's are in this book. He wants the credit for being part of the culture without any of the moral or spiritual responsibility.
We’ve already established the problematic nature of Flaubert’s writing in the context of Orientalism, and I think it’s sometimes difficult (but important) to look further than just the overt imperialism that plagued/plagues “non-western” societies and take note of the subtle hegemonic domination that precedes it (or occurs simultaneously). In many ways, I think that hegemony is the precursor to blatant colonialism and therefore it’s important to recognize the ways in which 19th century Europeans were able to perpetuate hegemonic ideals within the minds of many of the people of the Middle East. There is a notable example from the Flaubert reading in which he recalls, “We look quite the pair of orientals—Max is especially marvellous when he smokes his narghile and fingers his beads. Considerations of safety limit our sartorial splurges: in Egypt the European is accorded greater respect than the native, so we won’t dress up completely until we reach Syria” (42). Flaubert asserts the importance of keeping a European image to maintain a certain level of respect and fear among the native people, which is the epitome of hegemony. Flaubert and Du Camp found excitement in dressing up in what they interpreted as the exotic, novel adornments of the east, but Flaubert insists that they “won’t dress up completely” or at least until they reach Syria, due to the implications of blending in and thus losing grip of the European hegemonic tradition. Reading this specific part reminded me of a personal experience-which (I think) proves that this type of hegemony still persists today, often times in masked forms. I spent a couple of months in Cusco this past summer taking Spanish classes, and I found that much of what my peers and other travelers from different parts of the world thought to be “cultural immersion” was rather offensive and a product of the hegemonic atmosphere that western nations create for most of the world. For instance, I took a weekend trip to a place called Taquile where many indigenous descendents still reside (the women dress in traditional indigenous Peruvian textiles, etc), and one of the activities planned by the travel agency was for tourists to dress in this traditional garb (loaned out by the people of this island) so that the foreigners could have a “traditional” experience. Everyone found this particular experience to be cool and “authentic,” while I personally felt that this culture, which had such important and strong ties to its Incan ancestors, was being sensationalized and converted into a sort of spectacle for the pure enjoyment of the foreigner. I almost want to say it felt like the culture was being “mocked” but I’m not sure if that’s the right word to use. At the end of the day the residents of this town watched us roll out our expensive down sleeping bags and layer ourselves in warm brand name jackets (comparable to the idea that Flaubert and Du Camp wanted a taste of the traditional dress and rituals, but only when it was convenient in terms of being able to maintain a certain hegemonic structure). Of course the example I provided is an inevitable outcome of what many cultures have had to sacrifice as a result of a reliance on tourism, but that is also a product of hegemony and imperialism.
I agree that the precursor to overt imperialism is a sense of innate superiority that pervades the would-be imperialist culture, but I don't think it begins only when those power structures begin to be exercised by tourism. I think that a more accurate chain of events would be to say that a sense of superiority pervades a culture in general before any imperialist notions even begin to percolate in their social consciousness. Then, with that mindset, when another culture is brought into the public eye, the binary naturally and inevitably places that culture as an inferior one. This essentially Other-izes the rest of the world as a quaint, safe place to visit, and if that power structure is disturbed by any sort of military growth, that Other becomes a dangerous place where terror breeds. Flaubert seems like he may be just a product of that culture, as indicated in the line in the first chapter: "Like many of his contemporaries who were children or adolescents in the Romantic Age, Flaubert had been infected with a longing for the exotic..." He had been primed and loaded with nationalism and superiority in preparation for learning about and, ultimately, traveling to the East and producing this text.
"Lambert had noticed that we were of inquiring mind and were not like idle tourists who travel simply in order to say they have traveled; he understood that what we wanted was to learn, and he helped us do so." (60)
This quote, taken from the 'Souvenirs Litteraires of Maxime Du Camp' really frustrated me, and in more ways than one. First off, I believe that what Lambert supposedly saw in the pair was for the most part what he actually saw in just Du Camp, who I think was the better of the duo. I say this because Du Camp was the one on a real, academic mission, in which he was responsible for photographing a world which the East had hardly seen, yet a world which was dominated through the East's imperialism. Contrary to this, when it came to Flaubert, the Institut de France was more concerned about getting a map of Egypt to his heartbroken mother so that she may know is location at all times. (24) Because of his lack of assignment, Flaubert feels he has the liberty of acting in a way that would be considered deplorable in society back home. He is abroad and instead of being "of inquiring mind" like Lambert suspects, is actually seemingly capable of having a shockingly perverted mind, which drives him to disrespect women in both his descriptions of them and in the way he takes advantage of them. The way in which Flaubert conducts himself while in Egypt causes him to be frustrated by how seriously Du Camp takes his photography. Flaubert shows his disdain for Max's work when he states the following: "...Max's days are completely absorbed and consumed by photography. He is doing well, but grows desperate whenever he spoils a picture or finds that a plate has been badly washed. Really, if he doesn't take things easier he'll crack up." (74) Flaubert seems to have no concept of responsibility; his actions and opinions blatant proof.
When I compare Flaubert to the other authors we've read this semester, I find him most similar to Mandeville. This connection is based on the fact that both men focus their writings on exaggerated tales of perceived negative aspects of foreign societies.Both authors choose to focus on (if they are even slightly true) rare and strange incidents, instead of focusing on the way foreign cultures function as a whole. Both authors write in this way- Mandeville to attract a radically Christian audience, and Flaubert to attract an audience that consists of men looking to fulfill all of their sexual desires and lacking in any desire to learn, as Lambert says.
Flaubert is the equivalent of the modern day white male college student studying abroad: wasting his parent’s money, sex driven, objectifying, and racist, hiding behind claims of worldliness. Simply, he is the direct result of Mandeville’s text.
Mandeville’s work initiates the orientalist fantasies of a mythical land. He “other-izes” the East purely for the sake of the entertainment of his readership. He employs clearly fantastical elements, such as the dog-headed men, and the man with one leg: elements that are entirely fictional. However, these ideas that were presented to the general population as non-fiction works. This had detrimental affects, resulting in some of the most oppressive attitudes in history. They allowed the western world to point a finger and say, “we were right, the East is filled with inhuman monsters.” From here it left anything up to the imagination.
Therefore it was not a far stretch for the male audience to begin to fantasize eastern women. For example, today in class we looked at the various pieces of art, which were prevalent at the time of Flaubert. These were images of naked, helpless women. They depicted the notion of women as seductresses, valued only for their sexuality. For if a society can believe that there are men with dogs for heads, surely it would not be a stretch to imagine the east also filled with women who’s only purpose in existence is for the pleasure of men.
It is this anything goes mentality that drives Flaubert to travel to the East in the first place. Flaubert is introduced as a man who outwardly supports prostitution. Additionally, his sheer ignorance is clearly highlighted. He attempts to remove himself from education at all possible costs, personally delighted by the seizures he endured as it allowed him to drop out of college. Now we have a man, with uncontrolled sexual desires, and a low, voyaging on a trip to the Middle East in which he feels as though he should share his experiences.
Essentially, I would argue that the sheer publication of his experiences is detrimental to women. To this day we objectify the veiled woman of the Middle East as if modesty is equivalent to submission. We now see Middle Eastern women as abused victims, sex objects, and powerless- remnants of the attitudes of the helpless Middle Eastern seductress of Flaubert’s time. While it is important to recognize that this is happening in areas of the Middle East, not all women who choose to wear a veil are powerless, uneducated, abused victims. The veil is not an excuse for objectification, or stereotypes in Flaubert’s time or today.
I think this post closely relates with a quote that another student already used in her post, but in a different context. "Lambert had noticed that we were of inquiring mind and were not like idle tourists who travel simply in order to say they have traveled; he understood that what we wanted was to learn, and he helped us do so." (60)
Clearly Flaubert is far from interested in being educated in the culture in which he has "immersed" himself, and instead chooses to indulge in what he considers important which is sex. The entire point of his trip, as you mentioned, was to live out what today is the typical white male college kid fantasy in a foreign country. In frequent and repulsive accounts of his sexual escapade he not only demonizes the the morals and values of muslim society through the people he is involved with, particularly women, but he also creates a not so great image of European men. Personally, all I could think about while reading this piece was "ew, this dude is a total pervert...is this really what men were like in Europe during this time?"
Flaubert definitely portrays women as sex objects in his travelogue. It is obvious from the beginning that Flaubert is the kind of person who cares more about physical characteristics than anything else. However, Flaubert has taken his value of physical beauty to the extreme. For example in Flaubert’s background he says, “but I love prostitution…my heart begins to pound every time I see one of those women in low cut, dresses walking under the lamplight...” Flaubert is immediately in love just by looking at this woman’s clothing and body. The only thing that he is attracted to is her physical appearance. Before this quote the editor mentions how Flaubert fell in love with a married woman that was even years older than him when he was fifteen. Flaubert lacks control and automatically falls in love with any woman he sees. He does not care about his behaviors; he just does as he pleases.
In class today we discussed a lot about how Flaubert is quite the playboy. Even though his mind is focused on sex more often than not, I find it really interesting the extent to which Flaubert sexualizes the East. Everyone is sexualized from the women to even the children and animals. By discussing how sexually charged, open, loose, free etc. everyone is in the East, Flaubert is feeding into the Otherization of the East and widening the gap between the binaries that are the East and West.
On page 38, Flaubert describes what a boy who was basically pimping out his mother said to him: “If you give me five paras I’ll bring you my mother to fuck. I wish you all kinds of prosperity, especially a long prick’. The expression on his face as he said ‘Allah’”. This idea of a child trafficking his own mother is extremely obscene for the West. Even though he does not include his reaction, he is not only clearly making the East out to be this world filled with amoral people, but is also targeting Muslims in particular by including the detail of the child saying Allah. Interestingly, he sort of leaves that last sentence with no connection with the ones before it or after it. One could even read that as him making a jab at Islam.
Another example of Flaubert sexualizing the East is on page 85 and 86. Flaubert says, “A week ago I saw a monkey in the street jump on a donkey and try to jack him off—the donkey brayed and kicked, the monkey’s owner shouted, the monkey itself squealed—apart from two or three children who laughed and me who found it very funny, no one paid any attention.” Not only is Flaubert otherizing the East by over sexualizing the men and women, he is expanding this otherness to the animals. The fact (according to Flaubert) that no one but Flaubert, the children, and the monkey’s owner paid attention to the monkey “jacking-off” the donkey speaks to the underlining idea that a display such as this is normal in the East. Flaubert goes even further to back up this idea by including another person’s account of seeing “an ostrich trying to violate a donkey.”
Flaubert’s travelogue is more or less consumed by this sexualizing of the East. Clearly, a lot of these things seem, and most likely are, fabricated and fictional. But to what extent is Flaubert lying? I mentioned in class that a majority of what Flaubert sees could be due to the people escorting him throughout these cities. Most nations in the world, especially those that have been colonized by the West, have brothels and red light districts. Perhaps, due to his playboy personality, he is being caravanned to the types of places that suit his pleasures, and in turn he is mistaking these places to be representative of the East as a whole. There is evidence on page 42, where he describes himself to be unimpressed with the natural and architectural aspects of the East, giving way to the fact that he prefers only to be around people and things he can make a spectacle of in his letters, and also alluding to his desire to only be around things he likes.
Overall, however fictional or realistic Flaubert’s accounts are, he is still strengthening the binaries through his sexualizing of the East.
Alison I agree with you 100%! It perplexed me so much how vulgar Flaubert could be at times. Yes, I know it was a different time period, however, the way he made women an “object” disturbed me significantly. In his writings it is obvious how the women in the Middle East are nothing more than toys to him. He plays with them, and then basically discards them. In class we touched upon the idea of women being colonized “twice.” I would like to expand upon that notion. It is accurate that Flaubert, and many other men during this time period, saw women as less than human. Especially once European men were in the East, they believed women were nothing more than “things” they could use for sex. Of course, to Flaubert, Kuchuk Hanem is the exception to this…. His relationship with her confuses me so much. In his narrative, everything he sees, he sees in black and white. However, once he meets her, and once he has sex with her, all of this changes instantly. At first, I believed this was a contradiction to everything he had previous written. Yet, once I dived more thoroughly into the piece, I came to the conclusion that this made sense. He had fallen in love with Kuchuk Hanem. But I can’t help but wonder why her? Why is it her that made him promptly forget all of the other realizations he had made about the East? We, as readers, know that he imaged the East as this fantasyland where magic and enchanted being were real. Then, when he actually arrived there, he came to the conclusion that there were real problems there. He felt disillusioned immediately. But he meets her and he remembers that love and fictional realms are actually real. What made her more than human to him? This question haunts me. To get back to my original point, I just want to say that even though he does fall in love with Kuchuk Hanem, he still views everything else in the East as “primitive.” She is the one allowance. She is what inspires him to write, “Madame Bovary,” so she must be very important to him. And yet, I personally feel like the reader doesn’t understand why her.
The most interesting aspect of Flaubert’s travels in Egypt is that he had previously imagined what it would be like. At the beginning of chapter 4 we get a look at how Flaubert described his imagination of a view from atop the pyramids. Since he took the liberty to assume he even could imagine it, from secondhand accounts or books, we realize that Flaubert was taking liberties long before he actually traveled to the place. Not only does he describe the landscape, but Flaubert describes what the people of Egypt would be doing around the time of his imagined viewing with the image of “sultanas come to bathe their bodies at the hour when the moon makes bluer the shadow of the groves” (48). He is making the assumption that he can gaze upon this culture, even from countries away, and describe their bodies and how they bathe. He also describes palaces of lava, a completely exotic view of Egypt that might not have been backed by anything but Flaubert’s imagination. It seems interesting to me that Flaubert is frustrated by Maxime using his camera so often. He is impatient that Max is constantly cleaning the glass or developing pictures. I believe that his disapproval stems from him not wanting the world to know what Egypt is really like. He approves of the imagination forming whatever view it wants, the French have the ability to discuss Egypt as a foreign land that is exotic and up for being ravaged culturally and physically. His constant remarks about the women he sleeps with, and his intense gaze on all women, shows that he has an obsession with his power over the Egyptians. Every person he encounters knows at least a few words of French, and this also seems to please him. That is why he is obsessed with making his mother and his friends address him as a mission worker. He wants his power to be recognized by all so that he has even more justification to subvert Egyptians. Later, he describes his desire to write a book about Muslim culture and practices, “I had the intention of using the information in a book to be called Moslem customs” (61). I noted that it might be more beneficially to let people who actually know about Muslim culture to write about it. He feels he has this privilege since he is French, and therefore, according to him, wiser than any of the people who are actually immersed in the culture. The scene when his caravan shamelessly beats a vendor is another example of how Flaubert intends to ravage the country with no reserve. He describes the beatings as commonplace, saying that it was normal practice to beat anyone you chose. He is able to justify the beating in his own minds since he had previously made a note to say there were “thieving merchant[s]…very genuine and charming” (42-43). Of course, in his mind, all merchants had no dignity because the French view of them was coarse and dishonest. To Flaubert, he is a savior doling out punishment to worthy recipients.
Upon reading through Flaubert’s stories, I cannot help but consider the relevancy of these letters and travel notes on the grander scheme of literature. I do not see how this piece could have had a large influence on Western society as a whole. Were these texts highly circulated around America and Europe? It seems that this would be unlikely to qualify as a popular text. Obviously, I have not gotten the entire historical context around this piece, but from the little bit of research I have been able to do since we were assigned the readings, I have come to understand that Egypt was in a complex political conflict. I also understand that the travelers in this piece were at least somewhat well-versed in their contemporary Egyptian affairs. It seems that their mission was one fueled by a desire to become more educated, but that the travelers were unable to separate their preconceived notions of the “Oriental” culture from their travels through Egypt. They go through various scenes, describing what they see from a very European perspective. The tone implies that the characters are white, aristocratic, and entertained more than informed on a regular basis. They regale all that they see with an heir of embellishment; the use of vulgarities and the reflection upon the residents usually focuses on the differences between the French culture and the Egyptian culture. It doesn’t seem like it is the most unrealistic representations of other cultures. It definitely wasn’t as bad as Mandeville. He doesn’t describe the Egyptians as monsters; he keeps his exaggerations to those relevant to vulgarities. Flaubert and his companions keep harping on the prevalence of prostitution and strange customs such as public sex, the treatment of Europeans, and the goings-ons of the governmental offices. He provides a seemingly somewhat biased perspective, but he is not slandering their religion as a whole, or calling out a single person for any one thing; he is just trying to express his experiences through his honest opinions. He may not be giving a reflective perspective of their culture; in other words, this is not the Arabic or Egyptian views of Egypt, it is a very European perspective, which should be accounted for when reading it. I have to assume that if this was circulated throughout Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, the readers were not ignorant to the point that they would not consider the historical context and the overall perspective and background of the writer. I am honestly turned-off by this text; I do not believe that these travelogues would have provided a significant impact of the overall views of Muslims, Egyptians, Arabs, or any people from the “Orient.” I can see how it did not bring about a more realistic or positive perspective, but it sure doesn’t seem as bad as Mandeville as I have said above. It is only a fraction as bad as those texts which outright slander the religion and culture of peoples of the “Orient.”
ReplyDeleteI agree that Flaubert's perspective seems a bit off and certainly biased. In one of his passages he notes that he was rather underwhelmed by the landscape of the Orient, as he had pictured it much more grand and exotic in his mind. I feel that this notion is applicable to all of his encounters and observations during his time in the East; Flaubert likely spent so much of his youth romanticizing the foreign lands which we dreamed about, and his expectations continued to grow more and more exotic. Ultimately regardless of what he managed to observe, the reality of Egypt would never have met his expectations. Another instance that this applies to, but on the opposite end of the spectrum is his encounters with the "grotesque." Flaubert observed slavery, trafficking of women, thievery, and public beatings. To the average person, these incidents would be shocking and appalling. Flaubert on the other hand, described these observations as "fresh," "genuine," and "charming," as they are the only things to come close to his outlandish expectations.
DeleteFlaubert's text is a prime example of the problem in popular literature, which (as you say) we saw with Mandeville earlier: the accuracy and objectivity of a piece takes far less priority than its appeal to the masses. You say that you can't see this being a popular text, yet it does precisely what many texts that appeal to the lowest common denominator do: tells people what they want to hear. The doctrine of Imperialism planted the idea in the minds of Europeans that they were better than those they colonized, and that mindset is precisely what Flaubert's writing enforces. It reaffirms something that contemporary European readers desperately wanted to believe, and that explains its potential for popularity.
DeleteThis was helped along by Flaubert's popularity as a novelist. His notoriety as a writer lent considerable credibility to his account of Egypt, since readers were more likely to accept such an account from a writer they enjoyed. This brings us to the major problem of Flaubert that persists to this day, and that is celebrity opinion. People are more likely to adopt ideals if they are first presented by someone they respect or someone famous. If these people act like Flaubert, enforcing negative views about the so-called "other," then Orientalism is going to continue to be a problem. Flaubert represents a very dangerous, very real trend, and that is the popularization of racism.
My first thought on reading this article were an immediate sense that Flaubert would not be a reliable narrator, or any kind of authority of what is the honest truth of travelling the east—I could tell from the start that his work narrated what he wanted to see, what he dreamed of the “Orient”, rather than the reality. From the first page of the article, his obsession with prostitution was a red flag; this view would most certainly impact his opinions not only of women (especially in other cultures), but of his travels overall. Considering his stance on prostitution, his dramatic impression of having read Arabian Nights, and his idea that his early writing was full of “a longing for the exotic…a yearning for the east” (11) was most certainly not going to be flattering or even remotely trustworthy. A man who insists on paying for the ideal sexual encounter, and then bragging about how he feels that to partake of prostitution is to engage in “a complete absence of human contact” (10) (because whores aren’t people, apparently), and going on with such a romantic pretension about all that he learned in the brothels—“the sense of sadness” (10). Even more disturbing—in the purely necrophilia sense, never mind the orientalist sense—was what his intention was exactly in declaring that he would give up all women to possess Cleopatra’s corpse.
ReplyDeleteHe dreamed of the colorful stories he read of the Orient, and proceeded to deify it, “create a homeland” (12) without having ever set foot in the “Orient”, without knowing or caring about the realities of life in the East. Flaubert disregarded the struggles and differences between and among cultures in order to live out his Oriental fantasy.
Even the memoires of his friend who financed the travels to Egypt are a testament to the fact that Flaubert was unreliable: Flaubert shows up in his house before their departure, torn as to whether or not he should accompany them. Even when he finally makes the decision to join the company headed down the Nile, his friend “unhesitatingly” (25) feels the need to employ an extra servant to babysit Flaubert. The pretentious guy doesn’t even realize his own situation; in a letter to his mother, he rattles off a list of names of people he had met, and finishes with “I trust you are impressed” (30). He also flagrantly and indiscriminately uses people—especially women, but even his own family and friends. On page 34 he says, “It was no small satisfaction to me…to think that father’s memory was still useful to me…” when he meets a doctor who knows his fathers medical work.
Flaubert was an orientalist and a chauvinist, a usurer and, in his own words, a ladies man with a disturbing case of necrophilia. His narrative must be questioned, despite his reputation speaking for itself, since he is not only a racist, but a braggart and a voyeur.
Upon delving into Flaubert's travelogue I immediately began comparing it to other texts that we have read up to this point. The text has similar qualities to The Book of John Mandeville in ways such as othering the people living in the East. However, the notion of the Orient is established in the 19th century- making the fear of the unknown such as monsters, turn into desire and domination over the exotic.
ReplyDeleteThis sets a new tone to the derogatory comments written carelessly down by western travelers. The exploitation of the "orient" is seen in Flaubert's text in his description of the people and culture. He commonly refers to prostitutes, and sexual encounters. However these descriptions are indiscriminate as seen on page 36/37 when Flaubert’s mentions the Male dancers in their ugliness, charming corruption, feminine movements and how they could arouse men better than any woman could.
Other than these embarrassing and blatantly expanded on descriptions, I found the text equally dismissive towards the western civilization. I believe that Flaubert is so anxious to be a part of the East, he begins to see common western ideas or people as other- he mentions that “many of the Europeans are more oriental than the Orientals.” I saw this idea first on page 17 in his description on the English family in which the mother “looks like a sick old parrot” and again on page 34 when he describes the regulars who are an imitation of Europe “with their trouser straps under their shoes, and such shoes!” This othering of Europe to me stood out because it indicates how Westerners go into the East looking to dive into the culture while pressing their own cultural beliefs on the people they encounter.
The idea of the “grotesque” stands out because it is a newly constructed image of the East. Flaubert points out that while imperialism has had influence on the orients, the influence does not quite fit. This goes back to the image of the Turkish officers on page 33 in their European Garb- so unfitting and unlike the “superb” rags and “unpatched robes” of the Orient which are “dusty but not stained.”
However, despite his acknowledge of imperialism and its affects, he further contributes to the othering of the East in his own sensualizing of the culture. He briefly mentions the distortion of the western view towards the East, “we picture the Arab as very serious. Here he is very merry, very artistic in gesticulation and ornamentation,” and therefore he is knowledgeable about the effect that his travelogue will have on its readers.
I would have to agree with your view of Flaubert's rejection of Western culture. He seems to be so caught up in the idea of being part of this mystical fantasy vacation that he's created for himself, that he doesn't actually try to understand the culture that he is a part of. The best comparison that I can think of is that he is like a modern day middle class white person who declares that they are Buddhist or Muslim, wearing different symbols of their newfound religion and using all of the politically correct buzzwords to describe their adopted culture, and yet accidentally insult the culture that they now proclaim a connection with because they don't truly understand what the eightfold path is or what jihad actually means. They end up creating further prejudice when trying to fight against it because their intentions are fake and superficial, just as Flaubert's are in this book. He wants the credit for being part of the culture without any of the moral or spiritual responsibility.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe’ve already established the problematic nature of Flaubert’s writing in the context of Orientalism, and I think it’s sometimes difficult (but important) to look further than just the overt imperialism that plagued/plagues “non-western” societies and take note of the subtle hegemonic domination that precedes it (or occurs simultaneously). In many ways, I think that hegemony is the precursor to blatant colonialism and therefore it’s important to recognize the ways in which 19th century Europeans were able to perpetuate hegemonic ideals within the minds of many of the people of the Middle East. There is a notable example from the Flaubert reading in which he recalls, “We look quite the pair of orientals—Max is especially marvellous when he smokes his narghile and fingers his beads. Considerations of safety limit our sartorial splurges: in Egypt the European is accorded greater respect than the native, so we won’t dress up completely until we reach Syria” (42). Flaubert asserts the importance of keeping a European image to maintain a certain level of respect and fear among the native people, which is the epitome of hegemony. Flaubert and Du Camp found excitement in dressing up in what they interpreted as the exotic, novel adornments of the east, but Flaubert insists that they “won’t dress up completely” or at least until they reach Syria, due to the implications of blending in and thus losing grip of the European hegemonic tradition. Reading this specific part reminded me of a personal experience-which (I think) proves that this type of hegemony still persists today, often times in masked forms. I spent a couple of months in Cusco this past summer taking Spanish classes, and I found that much of what my peers and other travelers from different parts of the world thought to be “cultural immersion” was rather offensive and a product of the hegemonic atmosphere that western nations create for most of the world. For instance, I took a weekend trip to a place called Taquile where many indigenous descendents still reside (the women dress in traditional indigenous Peruvian textiles, etc), and one of the activities planned by the travel agency was for tourists to dress in this traditional garb (loaned out by the people of this island) so that the foreigners could have a “traditional” experience. Everyone found this particular experience to be cool and “authentic,” while I personally felt that this culture, which had such important and strong ties to its Incan ancestors, was being sensationalized and converted into a sort of spectacle for the pure enjoyment of the foreigner. I almost want to say it felt like the culture was being “mocked” but I’m not sure if that’s the right word to use. At the end of the day the residents of this town watched us roll out our expensive down sleeping bags and layer ourselves in warm brand name jackets (comparable to the idea that Flaubert and Du Camp wanted a taste of the traditional dress and rituals, but only when it was convenient in terms of being able to maintain a certain hegemonic structure). Of course the example I provided is an inevitable outcome of what many cultures have had to sacrifice as a result of a reliance on tourism, but that is also a product of hegemony and imperialism.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the precursor to overt imperialism is a sense of innate superiority that pervades the would-be imperialist culture, but I don't think it begins only when those power structures begin to be exercised by tourism. I think that a more accurate chain of events would be to say that a sense of superiority pervades a culture in general before any imperialist notions even begin to percolate in their social consciousness. Then, with that mindset, when another culture is brought into the public eye, the binary naturally and inevitably places that culture as an inferior one. This essentially Other-izes the rest of the world as a quaint, safe place to visit, and if that power structure is disturbed by any sort of military growth, that Other becomes a dangerous place where terror breeds. Flaubert seems like he may be just a product of that culture, as indicated in the line in the first chapter: "Like many of his contemporaries who were children or adolescents in the Romantic Age, Flaubert had been infected with a longing for the exotic..." He had been primed and loaded with nationalism and superiority in preparation for learning about and, ultimately, traveling to the East and producing this text.
Delete"Lambert had noticed that we were of inquiring mind and were not like idle tourists who travel simply in order to say they have traveled; he understood that what we wanted was to learn, and he helped us do so." (60)
ReplyDeleteThis quote, taken from the 'Souvenirs Litteraires of Maxime Du Camp' really frustrated me, and in more ways than one. First off, I believe that what Lambert supposedly saw in the pair was for the most part what he actually saw in just Du Camp, who I think was the better of the duo. I say this because Du Camp was the one on a real, academic mission, in which he was responsible for photographing a world which the East had hardly seen, yet a world which was dominated through the East's imperialism. Contrary to this, when it came to Flaubert, the Institut de France was more concerned about getting a map of Egypt to his heartbroken mother so that she may know is location at all times. (24) Because of his lack of assignment, Flaubert feels he has the liberty of acting in a way that would be considered deplorable in society back home. He is abroad and instead of being "of inquiring mind" like Lambert suspects, is actually seemingly capable of having a shockingly perverted mind, which drives him to disrespect women in both his descriptions of them and in the way he takes advantage of them. The way in which Flaubert conducts himself while in Egypt causes him to be frustrated by how seriously Du Camp takes his photography. Flaubert shows his disdain for Max's work when he states the following: "...Max's days are completely absorbed and consumed by photography. He is doing well, but grows desperate whenever he spoils a picture or finds that a plate has been badly washed. Really, if he doesn't take things easier he'll crack up." (74) Flaubert seems to have no concept of responsibility; his actions and opinions blatant proof.
When I compare Flaubert to the other authors we've read this semester, I find him most similar to Mandeville. This connection is based on the fact that both men focus their writings on exaggerated tales of perceived negative aspects of foreign societies.Both authors choose to focus on (if they are even slightly true) rare and strange incidents, instead of focusing on the way foreign cultures function as a whole. Both authors write in this way- Mandeville to attract a radically Christian audience, and Flaubert to attract an audience that consists of men looking to fulfill all of their sexual desires and lacking in any desire to learn, as Lambert says.
Flaubert is the equivalent of the modern day white male college student studying abroad: wasting his parent’s money, sex driven, objectifying, and racist, hiding behind claims of worldliness. Simply, he is the direct result of Mandeville’s text.
ReplyDeleteMandeville’s work initiates the orientalist fantasies of a mythical land. He “other-izes” the East purely for the sake of the entertainment of his readership. He employs clearly fantastical elements, such as the dog-headed men, and the man with one leg: elements that are entirely fictional. However, these ideas that were presented to the general population as non-fiction works. This had detrimental affects, resulting in some of the most oppressive attitudes in history. They allowed the western world to point a finger and say, “we were right, the East is filled with inhuman monsters.” From here it left anything up to the imagination.
Therefore it was not a far stretch for the male audience to begin to fantasize eastern women. For example, today in class we looked at the various pieces of art, which were prevalent at the time of Flaubert. These were images of naked, helpless women. They depicted the notion of women as seductresses, valued only for their sexuality. For if a society can believe that there are men with dogs for heads, surely it would not be a stretch to imagine the east also filled with women who’s only purpose in existence is for the pleasure of men.
It is this anything goes mentality that drives Flaubert to travel to the East in the first place. Flaubert is introduced as a man who outwardly supports prostitution. Additionally, his sheer ignorance is clearly highlighted. He attempts to remove himself from education at all possible costs, personally delighted by the seizures he endured as it allowed him to drop out of college. Now we have a man, with uncontrolled sexual desires, and a low, voyaging on a trip to the Middle East in which he feels as though he should share his experiences.
Essentially, I would argue that the sheer publication of his experiences is detrimental to women. To this day we objectify the veiled woman of the Middle East as if modesty is equivalent to submission. We now see Middle Eastern women as abused victims, sex objects, and powerless- remnants of the attitudes of the helpless Middle Eastern seductress of Flaubert’s time. While it is important to recognize that this is happening in areas of the Middle East, not all women who choose to wear a veil are powerless, uneducated, abused victims. The veil is not an excuse for objectification, or stereotypes in Flaubert’s time or today.
I think this post closely relates with a quote that another student already used in her post, but in a different context.
Delete"Lambert had noticed that we were of inquiring mind and were not like idle tourists who travel simply in order to say they have traveled; he understood that what we wanted was to learn, and he helped us do so." (60)
Clearly Flaubert is far from interested in being educated in the culture in which he has "immersed" himself, and instead chooses to indulge in what he considers important which is sex. The entire point of his trip, as you mentioned, was to live out what today is the typical white male college kid fantasy in a foreign country. In frequent and repulsive accounts of his sexual escapade he not only demonizes the the morals and values of muslim society through the people he is involved with, particularly women, but he also creates a not so great image of European men. Personally, all I could think about while reading this piece was "ew, this dude is a total pervert...is this really what men were like in Europe during this time?"
Flaubert definitely portrays women as sex objects in his travelogue. It is obvious from the beginning that Flaubert is the kind of person who cares more about physical characteristics than anything else. However, Flaubert has taken his value of physical beauty to the extreme. For example in Flaubert’s background he says, “but I love prostitution…my heart begins to pound every time I see one of those women in low cut, dresses walking under the lamplight...” Flaubert is immediately in love just by looking at this woman’s clothing and body. The only thing that he is attracted to is her physical appearance. Before this quote the editor mentions how Flaubert fell in love with a married woman that was even years older than him when he was fifteen. Flaubert lacks control and automatically falls in love with any woman he sees. He does not care about his behaviors; he just does as he pleases.
DeleteIn class today we discussed a lot about how Flaubert is quite the playboy. Even though his mind is focused on sex more often than not, I find it really interesting the extent to which Flaubert sexualizes the East. Everyone is sexualized from the women to even the children and animals. By discussing how sexually charged, open, loose, free etc. everyone is in the East, Flaubert is feeding into the Otherization of the East and widening the gap between the binaries that are the East and West.
ReplyDeleteOn page 38, Flaubert describes what a boy who was basically pimping out his mother said to him: “If you give me five paras I’ll bring you my mother to fuck. I wish you all kinds of prosperity, especially a long prick’. The expression on his face as he said ‘Allah’”. This idea of a child trafficking his own mother is extremely obscene for the West. Even though he does not include his reaction, he is not only clearly making the East out to be this world filled with amoral people, but is also targeting Muslims in particular by including the detail of the child saying Allah. Interestingly, he sort of leaves that last sentence with no connection with the ones before it or after it. One could even read that as him making a jab at Islam.
Another example of Flaubert sexualizing the East is on page 85 and 86. Flaubert says, “A week ago I saw a monkey in the street jump on a donkey and try to jack him off—the donkey brayed and kicked, the monkey’s owner shouted, the monkey itself squealed—apart from two or three children who laughed and me who found it very funny, no one paid any attention.” Not only is Flaubert otherizing the East by over sexualizing the men and women, he is expanding this otherness to the animals. The fact (according to Flaubert) that no one but Flaubert, the children, and the monkey’s owner paid attention to the monkey “jacking-off” the donkey speaks to the underlining idea that a display such as this is normal in the East. Flaubert goes even further to back up this idea by including another person’s account of seeing “an ostrich trying to violate a donkey.”
Flaubert’s travelogue is more or less consumed by this sexualizing of the East. Clearly, a lot of these things seem, and most likely are, fabricated and fictional. But to what extent is Flaubert lying? I mentioned in class that a majority of what Flaubert sees could be due to the people escorting him throughout these cities. Most nations in the world, especially those that have been colonized by the West, have brothels and red light districts. Perhaps, due to his playboy personality, he is being caravanned to the types of places that suit his pleasures, and in turn he is mistaking these places to be representative of the East as a whole. There is evidence on page 42, where he describes himself to be unimpressed with the natural and architectural aspects of the East, giving way to the fact that he prefers only to be around people and things he can make a spectacle of in his letters, and also alluding to his desire to only be around things he likes.
Overall, however fictional or realistic Flaubert’s accounts are, he is still strengthening the binaries through his sexualizing of the East.
Alison I agree with you 100%! It perplexed me so much how vulgar Flaubert could be at times. Yes, I know it was a different time period, however, the way he made women an “object” disturbed me significantly. In his writings it is obvious how the women in the Middle East are nothing more than toys to him. He plays with them, and then basically discards them.
DeleteIn class we touched upon the idea of women being colonized “twice.” I would like to expand upon that notion. It is accurate that Flaubert, and many other men during this time period, saw women as less than human. Especially once European men were in the East, they believed women were nothing more than “things” they could use for sex. Of course, to Flaubert, Kuchuk Hanem is the exception to this….
His relationship with her confuses me so much. In his narrative, everything he sees, he sees in black and white. However, once he meets her, and once he has sex with her, all of this changes instantly. At first, I believed this was a contradiction to everything he had previous written. Yet, once I dived more thoroughly into the piece, I came to the conclusion that this made sense.
He had fallen in love with Kuchuk Hanem. But I can’t help but wonder why her? Why is it her that made him promptly forget all of the other realizations he had made about the East? We, as readers, know that he imaged the East as this fantasyland where magic and enchanted being were real. Then, when he actually arrived there, he came to the conclusion that there were real problems there. He felt disillusioned immediately. But he meets her and he remembers that love and fictional realms are actually real.
What made her more than human to him? This question haunts me. To get back to my original point, I just want to say that even though he does fall in love with Kuchuk Hanem, he still views everything else in the East as “primitive.” She is the one allowance. She is what inspires him to write, “Madame Bovary,” so she must be very important to him. And yet, I personally feel like the reader doesn’t understand why her.
The most interesting aspect of Flaubert’s travels in Egypt is that he had previously imagined what it would be like. At the beginning of chapter 4 we get a look at how Flaubert described his imagination of a view from atop the pyramids. Since he took the liberty to assume he even could imagine it, from secondhand accounts or books, we realize that Flaubert was taking liberties long before he actually traveled to the place. Not only does he describe the landscape, but Flaubert describes what the people of Egypt would be doing around the time of his imagined viewing with the image of “sultanas come to bathe their bodies at the hour when the moon makes bluer the shadow of the groves” (48). He is making the assumption that he can gaze upon this culture, even from countries away, and describe their bodies and how they bathe. He also describes palaces of lava, a completely exotic view of Egypt that might not have been backed by anything but Flaubert’s imagination.
ReplyDeleteIt seems interesting to me that Flaubert is frustrated by Maxime using his camera so often. He is impatient that Max is constantly cleaning the glass or developing pictures. I believe that his disapproval stems from him not wanting the world to know what Egypt is really like. He approves of the imagination forming whatever view it wants, the French have the ability to discuss Egypt as a foreign land that is exotic and up for being ravaged culturally and physically. His constant remarks about the women he sleeps with, and his intense gaze on all women, shows that he has an obsession with his power over the Egyptians. Every person he encounters knows at least a few words of French, and this also seems to please him. That is why he is obsessed with making his mother and his friends address him as a mission worker. He wants his power to be recognized by all so that he has even more justification to subvert Egyptians. Later, he describes his desire to write a book about Muslim culture and practices, “I had the intention of using the information in a book to be called Moslem customs” (61). I noted that it might be more beneficially to let people who actually know about Muslim culture to write about it. He feels he has this privilege since he is French, and therefore, according to him, wiser than any of the people who are actually immersed in the culture.
The scene when his caravan shamelessly beats a vendor is another example of how Flaubert intends to ravage the country with no reserve. He describes the beatings as commonplace, saying that it was normal practice to beat anyone you chose. He is able to justify the beating in his own minds since he had previously made a note to say there were “thieving merchant[s]…very genuine and charming” (42-43). Of course, in his mind, all merchants had no dignity because the French view of them was coarse and dishonest. To Flaubert, he is a savior doling out punishment to worthy recipients.