Within the introduction to Edward Said, there was a lot that he shed a light on in terms of reading canonical texts that I thought was very interesting, however what I found was even more illuminating was how my view of the subject was incredibly short sighted. This is not my first class where Said’s work has been exposed to me, however seeing how these ideas evolved and formed has given me a greater understanding of Said’s message. The early works of Edward Said displayed to me, as well as previously reading Orientalism, wasn’t just about reading texts through a lens of post-colonial discourse, but rather it was a way to completely restructure the mindset that exists from a Western standpoint, and taking another look at the true accessibility of the text itself.
Moving through his early work showed me how his exposure to what our culture had defined as pinnacles of literature revealed this very elitist chain of thoughts in regards to literature. Works of Shakespeare were revered as models of character development that will withstand the test of time, whereas works from the Eastern part of the globe are seen as whispered attempts to match greatness. However, it is this very idea of superiority that actually makes these texts less worldly, or unable to be received by the global audience. The texts that are commonly used in the vein of English Literature only apply to the evolution of British culture, and how that culture viewed the world around it. This creates a narrow view of the world, and as such doesn’t allow for the kind of worldliness required to properly critique not only British society, but also any outside societies included within the texts. The concept of self-exile also pushes this idea of stepping outside the culture you identify with in order to be a more active participant in the vast academic stratosphere that exists in this world.
Overall, I was fascinated to truly grasp the concept of worldliness, even though I have to admit I was slightly embarrassed that it took me two classes to understand what Said meant. It is a concept that I still struggle with, and hope that this class can give me the ability to remove myself from my very Anglo-Saxon viewpoint and help me appreciate a wider pallet of literature.
I think the most prominent question that kept coming to my mind while reading the introduction to Edward Said was why “oriental” culture is looked at as inferior in pop culture, media, literature, movies, and in society in general. This is something that I have never thought about prior to taking this class. I've also never been exposed to Edward Said or any of his ideas about orientalism before. Unfortunately, growing up in the “west” has forced me to believe in many stereotypes about the east without even realizing it. For example, I never really stopped to think about how unfair it was to categorize the east under “the Orient” when there are dozens of ethnicities, nationalities and languages to consider. Growing up in a rural area, I thought of how many people in my hometown would be outraged to be grouped together with New York City, never mind being grouped together with an entirely different country. It never occurred to me how grouping together different countries could be so ignorant.
Therefore, I kept wondering: how did the east gain so many terrible stereotypes that made us western civilizations look at them as inferior? It is common knowledge that many eastern countries are looked at as uncivilized and incapable of running their own government, as Said mentions. It never occurred to me, however, to think about why people in the past thought this way, and still continue to today.
Although I cannot answer this question as to why the east is looked at as inferior, I believe the only way our society will ever be able to begin getting over their prejudice against eastern countries is to be more exposed to literature that comes from eastern countries. Especially as an English major, being exposed to literature from all over the world is incredibly important in order to receive a well-rounded and non-biased education.
"how did the east gain so many terrible stereotypes that made us western civilizations look at them as inferior?" I have constantly wondered the same question. The conclusion I find most useful is the constant bombardment of images and ideas fed to the west by powerful, colonizing countries like Britain. For instance, when we hear a British accent we automatically assume the person is well educated and sophisticated. These ideas are not automatic, they are ingrained. When an idea starts early enough in life, it can lead to disastrous beliefs. The same methods that Hitler used to convince the world Jews should be exterminated are in constant motion in Western society against the East. What people tend to ignore about Hitler's ideas was that America was not outside the bias. Boats of Jews were turned away because hatred did not stop at the ocean. Once we realized it was not okay to hate Jews, the media needed a new enemy. The weakest point to hit was the East, since they did not have a chance to develop after being colonized by Britain for so long.
“For example, I never really stopped to think about how unfair it was to categorize the east under “the Orient” when there are dozens of ethnicities, nationalities and languages to consider.” Being an education major, I am often faced with discussions about diversity and how to appreciate the uniqueness of students’ backgrounds and culture. Labels have negative connotations. That is apparent in the structure of schools, literature, and how individuals interact daily. Too often, the west is shown as superior to other cultures. This may be from the sense of technological advances, or even religious practices that believe that those under a particular practice are more worthy or “chosen”. I have taken particular interest in Southeast Asian culture this past year and have been working on breaking down my own barriers having been raised in a suburban and predominantly middle-class Caucasian town. It began in my dance 100 class when we were given an assignment and my group chose Bollywood dance to compare to western styles of dance. It was amazing to see the influences, west-east but also east-west. Since then, I have been tutoring Thai refugees and dancing in Shakti a student-run Southeast Asian dance club on campus. What I have learned is that culture is not something to be side-stepped or timidly avoiding in discussions, but something to be celebrated and shared. The same goes for text. Literature is reflective of the context from which it is written. From it, we can determine biases, and feeling towards events or people. Even in text that tries to avoid giving opinion, you can still read for what is missing. Readers can think about how an author addresses diverse ethnicities, nationalities, languages, and genders to get a better view on a text’s position as well as how that text may influence the reader or target audience. Consistently reading biased works with labels without thinking about how it may effect ones interactions between those groups. We need to think about how we represent ourselves and others when we write and in how we interpret the world around us.
That's a great question to ask, why the east ended up with so many negative stereotypes. And I think Nikki really hits the nail on the head with the whole explanation about having been bombarded with these images of an essentialist, conglomerate "east" from such an early age. That explanation is solid--but I think we also have recent US military history to blame. There have been so many violent conflicts in these negatively stereotyped regions--near and far east (from Vietnam, where the Vietnamese were portrayed as crazy, brutal guerrilla warriors in the late 60's, to the conflicts today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and many other countries). Part of the process of colonization, which holds true for involvement in foreign wars, is the idea that the people our soldiers are fighting are these mythical, villainous "others". It's far easier to fight against an idea than it is to send troops out into Vietnam or Afghanistan (or anywhere in the world) to kill human beings who have families and homes. Thus, the "otherness" which has a truly unfortunate tendency to linger from one decade to another, even between generations. Since most of the violent conflicts that the US has been involved in during the last 50 years or so has been overwhelmingly in the "East" it makes sense (not that it's fair or right!) that this massive region gets the worst of the inter-generational negative stereotypes.
"I kept wondering: how did the east gain so many terrible stereotypes that made us western civilizations look at them as inferior?"
My immediate, paranoid answer is that the way we see the world comes from the way we’re shown the world. People have touched on this already. But I get worried sometimes that the world really is as controlled as I fear. I get worried that faceless powers control and always have controlled what I see, how I see it – giving me opinions on things that I’ve never truly thought about or experienced – all without my knowledge or consent. I know that sounds very sci-fi conspiracy-theory paranoid, but it’s an important thing to consider. Especially because it’s probably true. We can all see that it’s a case of representation that causes the bad vibes between the west and the east. In many ways they’re very different, and different things can always irk people. And we can all tell that it’s been convenient for our culture to lump these eastern cultures together, hate them so we can kill them in battle, etc… If anything, all this makes me resolved to look with my own eyes. The thought that we as a culture are fundamentally misunderstanding a whole continent [and really, the whole non-American world] is both tasking and sad. But this makes me want to ask the question [by which I mean, haphazardly apply a turn of phrase to this massive, vital discussion that clearly goes beyond a simple turn of phrase]: what came first, the chicken or the egg? We know representation caused the West’s general dislike and distrust of the East, and that the existence of those stereotypes made it convenient and necessary to perpetuate it. But maybe we’ll never fully understand why the stereotypes really started in the first place. There’s no single blame to place, let alone a convenient, known target. In this case, we can really only speculate. The relevant questions to ask then are: How can we break the cycle of these negative stereotypes, and is there a convenience to them existing today that we’re still enjoying and not recognizing?
After discussing Orientalism I began to reflect on the artificial binary constructed between Western and Eastern culture. Why it was constructed seemed straightforward (i.e. to create an Other who is difficult or impossible to sympathize with), but the form it takes today interested me. Obviously racism is still very present in American culture, but is it as mono-dimensional as this binary?
The main reason this question raised in my head was that there seems to be a popularized view in the social media of the unattractive American. As much as there are negative characteristics attributed to those in the East, Americans often say things like "Oh, of course I'm fat/lazy/selfish/arrogant! I'm an American, and proud of it!" Americans openly speak derisively of their own politicians and leaders being incompetent and untrustworthy. If the perception of the East via Orientalism takes the shape of a binary, if Americans are all of these negative things, then what must the Other be?
Then again, perhaps these comments are not indicative of how Americans truly view themselves as a whole. Perhaps Americans have created an Other out of the Americans who they think really exhibit those behaviors. "Sure, there are lots of people in America who are fat/lazy/untruthful/etc, but certainly not me! I'm a real American!" This could explain the seeming contradiction between what people are saying and their unreasonably high level of self-esteem in being American despite it.
Ultimately, I have observed a lot of xenophobia regarding the East, especially when the East and West are held in comparison, but I think it is becoming increasingly difficult to be openly xenophobic as the level of communication and travel between nations had led to a large amount of cultural diffusion over the years. Despite this increased global awareness, many Westerners seem to be clinging to this xenophobia. I am interested to see how xenophobia in these older texts will compare to the xenophobia present in Western culture today to see how far – or perhaps how little – Western culture has progressed in terms of being accepting of other cultures.
I like how you view the idea of xenophobia through the lens of Orientalism. I think that your insight into the analysis of medieval texts is a good perspective to take when reading something that hasn't been looked at by Said himself. As Akman said, Said really started to critique literature from the 17th century onward. I think that we can find out a lot from the texts we read in class and then compare it to the views taken by Said to deduce how much of the xenophobic discourse between the "East" and the "West" during medieval times is going to match up with modern perspectives. I would like to hypothesize that the authors we read have a perspective that is congruent with the writers of the colonial era, but being that it is the first week, I cannot confidently say this is true. Although, in my experience with literature I have come to notice that the past follows congruently with the future in many cases. Once the bubble of presumptuous views has been popped, it seems that I started to notice that just as others have said how you learn about the perspectives of British culture chronologically and topically, and they line up congruently to paint a picture of clear continuous evolution of ideas based on the atmospheric influences of the discourse of the time. I think this idea will carry over in painting the picture that British culture and central European travelers specifically propagated a negative and xenophobic attitude before their more contemporary counterparts.
A common thought in Edward Said is the notion of what is exile, and what does it mean to be exiled. One “version” of exile is on page 40, when Said believes that the intellectual should perhaps be exiled at one point to, “develop the capacities for free-ranging criticism.” This can be very true. All throughout literature “exile” can be seen as a way to change one’s life, to go on a journey, and then have a glorious redemption. However, then on page 45 of Edward Said a very different concept is reflected upon. It is written that, “European exile has been accommodated, celebrated, and allowed a new ‘home,’ the position of the ‘other’ exile has been highly problematic.” This idea never had honestly crossed my mind before I read this sentence, but I now realize how very true that is, particularly in today’s society.
Many people from all over the world travel to the United States for a plethora of reasons. One of their main motives is to provide a better life for their families. This is also exactly what many Europeans did these past few centuries. In our eyes, it was a noble thing to do. It was a quest, a journey and an adventure. Sure, they had hard times and weren’t always treated right, but they did it for us, their ancestors. And yet, the people who do that today are shown great hostility. I know there are other problems with immigration besides all of this, but it still is, at least to me, interesting to reflect upon the past and present.
The entire concept of “exile” to me simply goes back to the perception that the West believes them to better than the East, or even any other country that does not follow exactly their own train of thought, or have a similar culture to their own. Throughout Edward Said it is apparent that Europeans and the United States believe that their own people and ancestors hold a greater importance and rank than anyone else they come across. So many things in the book opened my eyes to this, and how this privileged belief happened years ago and is still occurring today.
Katie, your dissection of the concept of “exile” and its relation to the text sparked my interest. The word itself has a negative connotation: one of treasonous behavior, shaken government fists, and a haughty “and stay out!” spat from some representative official. I agree with your first observation, that Said is not wrong in advocating “free-ranging criticism” but that mindset specifically refers to pre-colonial criticism. It undoubtably holds water, and is a valid way of interpreting a text, however i feel that for the purposes of this class, we would be rewarded in considering literary, societal, and political contexts. That being said, “exile” can also be a fantastic way to remain uneducated. Many Americans’ self-imposed alienation from foreign cultures can lead to biased and inaccurate perspectives. By fetishizing “the East”, one could say we are exiling ourselves from the truth. Consciously turning one’s back on the information around one should not be lauded merely because authors have spun their isolation into success in the past. Good writing and bad writing have come from just about every environment one can imagine. We should, regardless, strive to achieve the most informed and invested of mentalities - this will lead to cohesive and insightful literature. As a side-note, voluntary exile can be extremely conducive to success, as seen in works like D.H. Lawrence’s Aaron’s Rod. By abandoning the doldrums of his every-day life, Lawrence notoriously left his wife behind and wandered the globe with a new lover (a friends wife). Of course, this seems counter productive to any sort of sustainable lifestyle. However, by severing specific ties that held him back, his potential was reached. This is the mindset we should keep when we decide to forego some of the ideas or constructs we are attached to.
I found Edward Said’s points about supposed “inferiority” in oriental culture quite insightful and engaging. While Western cultures have seemed to carry this negative view of Eastern cultures, what troubles me the most is the idea of Eastern cultures viewing themselves as inferior as well, and at the same time praising Western cultures to such a high extent. I was born in the Philippines, and somewhat recently, had the opportunity of visiting my home country. While there, I met people who on several instances seemed to show a sort of enhanced respect or impression of me after finding out I was from the United States. Also, many stores advertised that their products were either imported from the United States, or mimicked after American products. One thing that seemed to epitomize this concept I am addressing was the “skin-lightening” salons they had in the Philippines. In Western culture, most people are familiar with tanning salons, but in the Philippines darker skin is generally considered less attractive than lighter skin, consequently giving skin-lightening treatment strong appeal in the country. As a country predominately populated with dark skinned citizens, it was shocking to see this, and I viewed it almost as a lack of pride in the culture. If not that, then at the very least the praise of the Western image and society was visibly a part of Filipino culture.
Chris - the point you make here is really important. I think the effects on "Eastern" cultures themselves often get overlooked in orientalist dialogue. This makes me wonder about globalization, which is more about "Westernization" than unification. You mentioned globalization's effects on Filipino culture, particularly in marketing, which reminded me of Professor Akman's example of Camel advertising. Orientalism serves here to illustrate the "Eastern exotic", while the idea of US imports creates a "Western superiority". Orientalism permeates not only in the "West", but also has tremendous impact and sway on how the "East" knows itself - it would be interesting to look at this more as a class. While there are obviously a lot of orientalist ideas that dissolve within the "East", the sense of inferiority still resonates, as Chris/Said mention.
While I'm not denying how truly disturbing it is to hear about any culture debasing itself, and I certainly don't think American culture is any better or worse than any other around the globe, I got the same reaction ("Oh you're from New York?! I LOVE New York City/American Music/American cinema/etc.) the entirety of last semester when I was in Southern France. France, which is a supposedly "western" culture/country, with the history of fine cuisine and cinema and luxury--yet, whenever I met someone and introduced myself, they always had the same reaction. So is this politeness, or is it pandering to the American pride, or is it actually some kind of masochistic belief that American culture is "superior"?
While reading Said’s introduction and discussing it in class, I find myself questioning the degree to which this binary between the “west” and the “other” has effected me in regards to my beliefs about other countries and their ways of life. Prior to my exposure to this piece, I embarrassingly admit that I was an advocate for our occupation in other countries under the belief that their ways of living needed to be improved, and we were responsible for making that improvement. This idea of the ‘western’ world, and even the United States specifically as superior is something that is drilled into the minds of every day citizens, whether they realize it or not. Even the news, something that people generally consider to be a fairly reliable source of information, has a way of manipulating and altering information to demonize certain groups of people. A prime example of this is the ‘capture’ and ‘torture’ of Jessica Lynch, an American soldier taken prisoner of war in Iraq in 2003. News reports stated that Lynch was subjected to a number of torture techniques while being held in an Iraqi hospital including burning, stabbing, and cutting. After her rescue, it was revealed that these allegations were completely false, and that Lynch was in fact receiving the best medical treatment available to her in the hospital for injuries sustained during the explosion of her platoon’s vehicle. I am fortunate enough that my experiences as a college student and English concentrator have allowed me to be able to look beyond stereotypes, and be critical of the information that is given to me through certain sources. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for a number of everyday citizens who are not afforded the opportunity to receive an education, therefore leaving them ignorant and blind to the stereotypes that are being reinforced to them on a constant basis, even on cigarette packs. Being an education major, I honestly believe that in order to end this cycle, teachers should incorporate literature from different regions into the curriculum in an attempt to educate our youth about different cultural practices and ways of life and also teach students to be more critical about the information they receive.
The point you make about your previous belief in the U.S. occupation and "reformation" of Middle Eastern countries is something that really struck a chord with me. From a future educator's as well as a student's perspective I know that in the majority of Social Studies classes are based upon educating students about the major accomplishments of the United States throughout history, as well as what makes our nation a world leader. We are taught to have pride in our country, but there is a significant difference in having pride and being completely ignorant to the fact that even though the U.S. is a world leader, it still has it's fair share of significant internal and external issues that I'm sure are popular topics of conversation for people elsewhere in the world. Though these issues are less serious than current events such as the Syrian Civil War, they still are significant and because of that I don't believe our nation's leaders should feel the responsibility to take it upon themselves to infiltrate nations in an attempt to reform and control, because those efforts could do wonders on our own home front- the outcome of efforts elsewhere is uncertain.
Edward Said was often criticized for being "overly Westernized" due to his time living and working in the U.S. Being "overly Westernized" was equated with not being able to possess knowledge that would allow him to share a unique and correct perspective on Orientalism. This relates to what I was saying previously because if being "overly Westernized" isn't exactly considered a positive thing, then why do we still attempt to instill our political and cultural values in the lives of others through hegemony? Why "fix" what we don't fully understand because of our own identities?
The answer? Because throughout history and still today, power is justified through knowledge. Knowledge is power. This is a major part of colonialism- a group of people who believe that they are more knowledgeable because they are "civilized" believe they have the right to rule others. Knowledge shouldn't be a means of exerting power of other people. Knowledge should be a means by which people reverse the unequal power relationship between the text and reader and take what knowledge a text shares with them and utilize it in order to end a vicious cycle of ignorance and stereotypical ideas of the unfamiliar.
Overall, I found the introduction to Edward Said to be very eye-opening and interesting. The authors did a good job of not merely restating their main points but continuously connecting them to other ideas. Prior to reading this intro, I had never really heard of the word "discourse" in this context, and it's truly fascinating to look at the world in such a way - a conglomeration of all the things the majority believes it to be. Orientalism is a set of beliefs that is nonetheless a part of "the machinery of cultural domination," (51) but the very need for this machine is indicative of an even broader set of beliefs that plagues the world we live in. Indeed, the way Western society views the East says more about the West than the East.
The reasons behind this need for a "machine of cultural domination" are vast, many of which probably having to do with human nature. But as a race it is important that we constantly strive to move past what holds us back, and human nature is most definitely not the only thing that leads to this toxic mindset. The intro did bring up some historical points, such as "the industrial dominance of Britain," and "the post-revolutionary sense of national destiny in France." Just by looking at these two examples, we can see what has always driven Western society in the past and is most likely what drives us today: a sense of superiority and unbridled patriotism. It is one thing to love one's country, but an entirely different thing to believe it is inherently superior to others, and many countries are guilty of this worldview. Perhaps, by discouraging such ideas from polluting the reality of our equivalence to the Orient, we might be able to shut down the machine.
Looking further at the "machine of cultural domination" concept presented in the book, I find a sentence on page 62 to be extremely interesting. "The creation of the Orient as the 'other' is necessary so that the Occident can define itself and strengthen its own identity by invoking such a juxtaposition." Said even draws examples of westerners using traditions and phenomena in the east as a means of contrasting Occident and Orient. Said says, "the Oriental was always like some aspect of the West; to some German Romantics, for example, Indian religion was essentially an Oriental version of Germano-Christian pantheism." It is as if the Occident attempts to construct the east as a sort of negative antithesis of the west. This view of the east through a western lens is likely one source of the many issues in the world today, from unnecessary U.S. occupations to wars with seemingly no purpose. When eastern religion, government, etc is seen as a mere digression from that of the west and not simply a difference, westerners will assume that the east is inferior. The west uses the east-west contrast to mask difference as defiance and thus "justify" inhumane actions against the east as positive conversion or a way of helping people located in the east. Furthermore, the notion of superiority that plagues western institutions is one of many contributing factors to the hegemonic structure created by the west which allows for the machine of cultural domination to exist.
As someone with a background in literature and the consideration of its place and purpose in a wider world, I was very much drawn in by the introduction’s discussion of text versus context and which is truly important in literary analysis. I once held the belief that literature should be judged at face value: that its worth should be determined by the text. My justification for this was that anything that would have seeped into the text due to authorial bias was likely unintentional, and therefore would be interpreted in an entirely different manner by a reader bringing his own unique set of biases to the table. In this way, literary value would be determined by the merit of the text, and potentially valuable works would not be discredited simply because their progenitor was possessed of dubious moral integrity. The idea of worldliness in literature has disavowed me of this notion somewhat. Nietzsche’s view of the relationship between reader and texts being analogous to that of coloniser and colonised (page 23) made me rethink my view on the power of bias and cultural collateral in literary works. Especially when dealing with works that come from a dominant world power (such as American and British literature), the pieces of cultural bias that inevitable seep into texts play an important role in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes and ignorance. Intentionally or not, works that spawn from a society that is not globally savvy will assume a role similar to that of the foreign oppressor, imposing their own values and presuppositions on whomever is exposed to them. The inevitability of this occurrence means that one must always be aware of how cultural context has both informed the work one is reading as well as how that same societal bias has affected the reader himself. Analysing literature from the viewpoint of worldliness means maintaining a balanced consideration of text and context, as well as the extent to which each has created the other. By keeping in mind the extent to which literature molds society, we gain increased insight into the workings of culture, and how national bias can affect the development of the global society.
“Hegemony…generally understood to mean ‘dominance by consent’,” an unnerving concept regardless of whether looked at from the point of view of the person in power or the person relinquishing power. While many would think that this is not such a bad concept, in execution it is problematic seeing as it encourages one group to lord their power over another. The idea of dominance as presented in Said is not a physical power struggle as it is often thought of, but rather a power over politics and the economy. Said points out the dominance that certain individuals feel based purely on the part of society into which they were born. Similarly Ashcroft and Ahluwalia point out the necessity of hegemony for the success of Imperialism. Because of the importance of hegemony in Imperialism, it makes sense that the dominance referred to is dominance of the colonizing culture over the colonized. This being said, it raises questions as to the rightness of any one group asserting power over another. The scary part of hegemony is how it creeps up on societies without them even noticing. Not only is it able to sneak up on the dominating countries, but those societies that assume themselves to be inferior are by default consenting to being controlled by other societies. In this not only does it lend to populations being led to think of themselves as inferior, but it encourages the prejudice seen in current society. By believing in the idea of hegemony, people are continuing to cede to the ideas of prejudice that have been present since the early days of colonization. In current society many people believe the idea of racism to be an old fashioned one; however it is still quite prevalent in society today. In order to even begin to try and bridge the gaps seen between races and classes in today’s world, it is important for everyone to understand the idea of hegemony and how it is harmful to society.
I also found the idea of hegemony to be an unnerving concept. Dominance by consent is what led to most of the world’s historical atrocities like the Holocaust. Earlier in Edward Said on page 23, the author quoted an excerpt from Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man that really struck me: “His language, so familiar and so foreign, will always be for me an acquired language…My soul frets the shadow if his language.” The narrator felt that even the words he formed always belonged to the headmaster because they were not his native language and the way he has spoken before. He felt that he was losing his identity to the headmaster. For some reason I never really thought too much about how colonization forced people to speak the language of the hegemonic nation. Most of my westernized learning focused on how the colonizers went to spread Christianity and disease (by accident), but failed to cover other the implications that came with being colonized. Language is tied into almost every aspect of identity; our thoughts, our expressions, the way we feel and describe ourselves has everything to with our language. To force someone to use something other than their native language in their homeland is to strip them of their tools to identify themselves and disrupt the flow of their culture. I also agree with your point about racism. Racism is primarily fueled by hegemony; we even see it today as the hegemonic majority in our country stereotype and mistreat people who make up the ethnic and socioeconomic minority. I am interested to see how racism plays out when we explore the eastern view of the west.
While reading the introduction to Edward Said I found the text to be both interesting and informative. Each of Edward Said’s ideas the authors discuss builds off each other and is connected to one another throughout this text. One of the ideas that stuck out to me was how Said’s identity allowed him to present Palestine to the world. In the beginning on page 6 it says, “… he located himself a space between a Palestinian colonial past and an American imperial present.” Said’s identity in the in between spaces allowed him to stand up for Palestine and present Palestine to Americans.
I also started thinking about how Said’s identity connects to the worldliness that comes from his theory of orientalism. For example, on page 30 it says, “Thus, when we read his analysis of orientalist discourse…the issue of worldliness of his own place in the world becomes a crucial factor. It is undoubtfully this worldliness which drives his own theory of the interactive operations of text, reader, and critic.” Said’s complicated and paradoxical identity is what drives him in his theory and own analysis. Edward Said’s personal connection shown in his works allows readers to see his unique perspective about the Middle East.
My immediate reaction to Ashcroft and Ahluwalia’s profile on Edward Said and his advocacy for criticism founded in worldliness was to apply it to the circumstances which led Said to form his literary theory. Said was born in 1935 and grew up in Cairo, where he was well-educated in schools modelled to the British’s standards of education. Given the time period of his education, it is very likely that Said was exposed to the idea of New Criticism, a theory which sought place texts within a cultural bubble and establishing them as separate entities from the influences of the author. If I were Said, a Cairene citizen whose education was fettered in this so-called “western” cannon and I’m being told that these works of literature are somehow “timeless” and “universal” for all, I would certainly spend my career voicing my dissent as Said did. His theories on post-colonialism and his worldliness approach are a reactionary product of the ideas proposed by New Criticism. As well, his exposure to both sides of the cultural boundary put in place by orientalism allows Edward Said the unique position of understanding the interaction between the eastern and western cultures.
I found Ashcroft and Ahluwalia’s introduction to be smart, brave and sensitive to complicated political/ethnic issues that are always controversial to write about. Their summary of Said’s “Paradox of Identity” rang especially true to me. As a person of both Northwestern Iranian and Scotch-Canadian descent, I understand that cultural identity is much more complicated than naming the country one lives in, and that compound personal identities can indeed appear to be paradoxical. I think Said voices the thoughts of many, many people of “Middle Eastern” descent when he explains and analyzes this idea. Despite the complicated and articulate presentation of the Paradox of Identity theory, I noticed that there is a huge body of criticism levelled at Said and specifically at Orientalism. Breezing through summaries of these articles, it appeared that one of the more severe and well circulated criticisms is by Malcom Kerr, who accuses Said of homogenizing “the West” as one ignorant, insidiously racist culture, even as he points out the rich diversity of regions typically considered “Eastern.” I was surprised to see that such a critique was so successful, considering that a core presumption of Said’s theory is that cultural identity can be paradoxical, meaning that many people are known to actively and simultaneously participate in conventionally “Eastern” ways of life and “Western” ways of life, meaning that there really is no Occident and Orient, just one world with people living all over it. Therefore, his indictments are not directed at a Western world that he imagines, but at people of any cultural affiliations that do imagine an East that is distinct from a West. His criticisms fall most harshly, or so it sounds thus far, on people from Middle Eastern regions that participate in the hegemony of British or French or American dominance, willingly subjecting themselves to the notion that there is an East and a West, and that the West is better than the East. Malcom Kerr’s dismissive critique of Said in this sense is completely unfounded and is missing the point by a long shot.
When reading about Edward Said, I was surprised to hear that he wrote his monumental work Orientalism in 1978. Although it has been 36 years since it was produced, his work is still not widely taught in English classes (as far as I can tell through my experiences at Geneseo). Although I have grown up in and received my education in a sheltered, white-dominated setting, I have always thought of myself as trying to be as progressive as possible, but the topic of orientalism remains foreign to me. However, the most interesting topics to me within the reading were Said’s ideas on literary criticism. As an education major who is interested in sociolinguistics and literacy, I loved Said’s ideas of literary criticism being accessible to an audience who may not be academics. Although this does not necessarily correspond to the divide between the East and the West, it speaks to Said’s dedication to groups that are marginalized. Although I cannot speak for other countries, in America most cultures and races that are not white-dominated have a low socioeconomic status. This means that many of these cultures are not as well educated as the upper class. Literary criticism is not accessible to these cultures, meaning that the worldliness of the literature is not utilized as it could be in these settings. This is the way that I utilize what I read about Said’s criticism through my own lens as an American educator. I am looking forward to learning more about orientalism and Islam, and looking at those subjects through the same lens. I have just begun to learn about Said’s ideas of criticism, and although I am not well versed, I can already begin to apply it to my own prior schemas. This speaks for Said’s ideas and the truth that all texts are worldly.
Deven- As a future educator, I cannot agree more- especially in accordance with your point on the direct correlation between Western (American) minorities and the respective economic and academic deprivation. In fact I believe in our culture today, there is a certain cyclical nature in the case of the oppression of American minorities. These citizens tend to live within urban settings in which the cost of living is less than the suburban alternative. Ironically, the district budget is nearly entirely based upon the collection of school taxes, which intern are based upon the value of your home. Therefore, the schools within the wealthier neighborhoods receive more monetary support than their less well off counterparts, putting the overwhelming majority of impoverished American students at an extreme disadvantage before they even open a book. From here the cycle continues. The schools with lower funding cannot fiscally meet the educational needs of their students. They are not able to fund the essential additional support outside the general education classroom. Consequently, the students fail to achieve on the required standardized tests put into effect by the very government that fails to support their necessities. Failure to succeed in the way of these examinations means students are not receiving high school diplomas, let alone advancing to receive the collegiate degrees required to overcome the economic barriers. The present system is flawed to the point of irrationality. The only logical explanation for such a systems existence is oppression. The only “white man’s burden” that remotely exists or should exist is our responsibility to expand our worldliness. In consideration with our privilege, we need to expand our lives, values, and perspective, to a global level. Ignorance cannot be tolerated. It is our duty- our burden, as citizens of the world. It is in this way that we should all look Said, for his accomplishments in transcending the cultural divide between East and West.
While reading Edward Said, three questions stood out the most in my mind—the first being, why does the “Western world” hold such proliferated, false cultural assumptions about ‘the East’; secondly, what does this tell us about ourselves as a nation; and thirdly, what can be done about it?
In addressing the first question pertaining to the misguided notions and ideas our nation has accepted, in both the past and present, as “fact”—is it our historically Eurocentric prejudice that we have decidedly deemed what is almost an entire continent of different cultures, nations, and people, the ‘East’ or the ‘Orient’? Or is it simply a matter of cultural misrepresentation? I would argue it is a bit of both. It is no secret that we, as people, fear what is different—we see something as socially and/or culturally foreign to our own way of life and suddenly, as a culture, we conclude that this society, alien to our own, is in some way as threatening as it is antagonistic; as dangerously hostile as it is distinct. In short: We fear what we do not know. And what better way to greater solidify our own identity as a culture, than to define what is not objectively “us” as “other” and therefore, “inferior”? With the unquestioned assumption of cultural dominance in Western culture, many that said they had gained “knowledge” their travels and/or studies of Orientalism, soon began creating a discourse based off of their experiences—allowing many to misconstrue what, in many cases was, hearsay, myth, or simply opinion as factually grounded truths. What does that tell us about ourselves as products of a nation that has created a structure within which Orientalism is placed and thereby contained? For one, we have in the past used our knowledge as a means to inflict power and control over others both economically and militarily, under the false pretenses of a “civilizing mission”. But besides the West’s need to feed its own ego as well as the need to define itself by means of juxtaposition—the more important and final question is, what can be done about it? Can we unlearn, as Ashcroft and Ahluwalia so adequately put it, the “inherent dominative mode,”—that which has been so culturally ingrained into us? I think that if we see Orientalism for what it is—discourse—as opposed to concrete fact, then yes, we may be able to do away with the prevalent modes of thinking, thereby dissolving the boundaries between what is commonly known and identified as the “West” and the “Other”. In recognizing and identifying the prejudices that still widely affect us as a nation today, we allow ourselves the opportunity to objectively and properly reflect on our thinking processes, biases, and prejudices of cultures that are not our own—giving way to the possibility to shift our perspectives of both ourselves and the world around us. Knowledge is power—it’s just a matter of what we do with it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWithin the introduction to Edward Said, there was a lot that he shed a light on in terms of reading canonical texts that I thought was very interesting, however what I found was even more illuminating was how my view of the subject was incredibly short sighted. This is not my first class where Said’s work has been exposed to me, however seeing how these ideas evolved and formed has given me a greater understanding of Said’s message. The early works of Edward Said displayed to me, as well as previously reading Orientalism, wasn’t just about reading texts through a lens of post-colonial discourse, but rather it was a way to completely restructure the mindset that exists from a Western standpoint, and taking another look at the true accessibility of the text itself.
ReplyDeleteMoving through his early work showed me how his exposure to what our culture had defined as pinnacles of literature revealed this very elitist chain of thoughts in regards to literature. Works of Shakespeare were revered as models of character development that will withstand the test of time, whereas works from the Eastern part of the globe are seen as whispered attempts to match greatness. However, it is this very idea of superiority that actually makes these texts less worldly, or unable to be received by the global audience. The texts that are commonly used in the vein of English Literature only apply to the evolution of British culture, and how that culture viewed the world around it. This creates a narrow view of the world, and as such doesn’t allow for the kind of worldliness required to properly critique not only British society, but also any outside societies included within the texts. The concept of self-exile also pushes this idea of stepping outside the culture you identify with in order to be a more active participant in the vast academic stratosphere that exists in this world.
Overall, I was fascinated to truly grasp the concept of worldliness, even though I have to admit I was slightly embarrassed that it took me two classes to understand what Said meant. It is a concept that I still struggle with, and hope that this class can give me the ability to remove myself from my very Anglo-Saxon viewpoint and help me appreciate a wider pallet of literature.
I think the most prominent question that kept coming to my mind while reading the introduction to Edward Said was why “oriental” culture is looked at as inferior in pop culture, media, literature, movies, and in society in general. This is something that I have never thought about prior to taking this class. I've also never been exposed to Edward Said or any of his ideas about orientalism before. Unfortunately, growing up in the “west” has forced me to believe in many stereotypes about the east without even realizing it. For example, I never really stopped to think about how unfair it was to categorize the east under “the Orient” when there are dozens of ethnicities, nationalities and languages to consider. Growing up in a rural area, I thought of how many people in my hometown would be outraged to be grouped together with New York City, never mind being grouped together with an entirely different country. It never occurred to me how grouping together different countries could be so ignorant.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I kept wondering: how did the east gain so many terrible stereotypes that made us western civilizations look at them as inferior? It is common knowledge that many eastern countries are looked at as uncivilized and incapable of running their own government, as Said mentions. It never occurred to me, however, to think about why people in the past thought this way, and still continue to today.
Although I cannot answer this question as to why the east is looked at as inferior, I believe the only way our society will ever be able to begin getting over their prejudice against eastern countries is to be more exposed to literature that comes from eastern countries. Especially as an English major, being exposed to literature from all over the world is incredibly important in order to receive a well-rounded and non-biased education.
"how did the east gain so many terrible stereotypes that made us western civilizations look at them as inferior?"
DeleteI have constantly wondered the same question. The conclusion I find most useful is the constant bombardment of images and ideas fed to the west by powerful, colonizing countries like Britain. For instance, when we hear a British accent we automatically assume the person is well educated and sophisticated. These ideas are not automatic, they are ingrained. When an idea starts early enough in life, it can lead to disastrous beliefs. The same methods that Hitler used to convince the world Jews should be exterminated are in constant motion in Western society against the East. What people tend to ignore about Hitler's ideas was that America was not outside the bias. Boats of Jews were turned away because hatred did not stop at the ocean. Once we realized it was not okay to hate Jews, the media needed a new enemy. The weakest point to hit was the East, since they did not have a chance to develop after being colonized by Britain for so long.
“For example, I never really stopped to think about how unfair it was to categorize the east under “the Orient” when there are dozens of ethnicities, nationalities and languages to consider.”
DeleteBeing an education major, I am often faced with discussions about diversity and how to appreciate the uniqueness of students’ backgrounds and culture. Labels have negative connotations. That is apparent in the structure of schools, literature, and how individuals interact daily. Too often, the west is shown as superior to other cultures. This may be from the sense of technological advances, or even religious practices that believe that those under a particular practice are more worthy or “chosen”. I have taken particular interest in Southeast Asian culture this past year and have been working on breaking down my own barriers having been raised in a suburban and predominantly middle-class Caucasian town. It began in my dance 100 class when we were given an assignment and my group chose Bollywood dance to compare to western styles of dance. It was amazing to see the influences, west-east but also east-west. Since then, I have been tutoring Thai refugees and dancing in Shakti a student-run Southeast Asian dance club on campus. What I have learned is that culture is not something to be side-stepped or timidly avoiding in discussions, but something to be celebrated and shared. The same goes for text. Literature is reflective of the context from which it is written. From it, we can determine biases, and feeling towards events or people. Even in text that tries to avoid giving opinion, you can still read for what is missing. Readers can think about how an author addresses diverse ethnicities, nationalities, languages, and genders to get a better view on a text’s position as well as how that text may influence the reader or target audience. Consistently reading biased works with labels without thinking about how it may effect ones interactions between those groups. We need to think about how we represent ourselves and others when we write and in how we interpret the world around us.
That's a great question to ask, why the east ended up with so many negative stereotypes. And I think Nikki really hits the nail on the head with the whole explanation about having been bombarded with these images of an essentialist, conglomerate "east" from such an early age. That explanation is solid--but I think we also have recent US military history to blame. There have been so many violent conflicts in these negatively stereotyped regions--near and far east (from Vietnam, where the Vietnamese were portrayed as crazy, brutal guerrilla warriors in the late 60's, to the conflicts today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and many other countries). Part of the process of colonization, which holds true for involvement in foreign wars, is the idea that the people our soldiers are fighting are these mythical, villainous "others". It's far easier to fight against an idea than it is to send troops out into Vietnam or Afghanistan (or anywhere in the world) to kill human beings who have families and homes. Thus, the "otherness" which has a truly unfortunate tendency to linger from one decade to another, even between generations. Since most of the violent conflicts that the US has been involved in during the last 50 years or so has been overwhelmingly in the "East" it makes sense (not that it's fair or right!) that this massive region gets the worst of the inter-generational negative stereotypes.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete"I kept wondering: how did the east gain so many terrible stereotypes that made us western civilizations look at them as inferior?"
DeleteMy immediate, paranoid answer is that the way we see the world comes from the way we’re shown the world. People have touched on this already. But I get worried sometimes that the world really is as controlled as I fear. I get worried that faceless powers control and always have controlled what I see, how I see it – giving me opinions on things that I’ve never truly thought about or experienced – all without my knowledge or consent. I know that sounds very sci-fi conspiracy-theory paranoid, but it’s an important thing to consider. Especially because it’s probably true.
We can all see that it’s a case of representation that causes the bad vibes between the west and the east. In many ways they’re very different, and different things can always irk people. And we can all tell that it’s been convenient for our culture to lump these eastern cultures together, hate them so we can kill them in battle, etc…
If anything, all this makes me resolved to look with my own eyes. The thought that we as a culture are fundamentally misunderstanding a whole continent [and really, the whole non-American world] is both tasking and sad.
But this makes me want to ask the question [by which I mean, haphazardly apply a turn of phrase to this massive, vital discussion that clearly goes beyond a simple turn of phrase]: what came first, the chicken or the egg? We know representation caused the West’s general dislike and distrust of the East, and that the existence of those stereotypes made it convenient and necessary to perpetuate it. But maybe we’ll never fully understand why the stereotypes really started in the first place. There’s no single blame to place, let alone a convenient, known target. In this case, we can really only speculate. The relevant questions to ask then are: How can we break the cycle of these negative stereotypes, and is there a convenience to them existing today that we’re still enjoying and not recognizing?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAfter discussing Orientalism I began to reflect on the artificial binary constructed between Western and Eastern culture. Why it was constructed seemed straightforward (i.e. to create an Other who is difficult or impossible to sympathize with), but the form it takes today interested me. Obviously racism is still very present in American culture, but is it as mono-dimensional as this binary?
ReplyDeleteThe main reason this question raised in my head was that there seems to be a popularized view in the social media of the unattractive American. As much as there are negative characteristics attributed to those in the East, Americans often say things like "Oh, of course I'm fat/lazy/selfish/arrogant! I'm an American, and proud of it!" Americans openly speak derisively of their own politicians and leaders being incompetent and untrustworthy. If the perception of the East via Orientalism takes the shape of a binary, if Americans are all of these negative things, then what must the Other be?
Then again, perhaps these comments are not indicative of how Americans truly view themselves as a whole. Perhaps Americans have created an Other out of the Americans who they think really exhibit those behaviors. "Sure, there are lots of people in America who are fat/lazy/untruthful/etc, but certainly not me! I'm a real American!" This could explain the seeming contradiction between what people are saying and their unreasonably high level of self-esteem in being American despite it.
Ultimately, I have observed a lot of xenophobia regarding the East, especially when the East and West are held in comparison, but I think it is becoming increasingly difficult to be openly xenophobic as the level of communication and travel between nations had led to a large amount of cultural diffusion over the years. Despite this increased global awareness, many Westerners seem to be clinging to this xenophobia. I am interested to see how xenophobia in these older texts will compare to the xenophobia present in Western culture today to see how far – or perhaps how little – Western culture has progressed in terms of being accepting of other cultures.
I like how you view the idea of xenophobia through the lens of Orientalism. I think that your insight into the analysis of medieval texts is a good perspective to take when reading something that hasn't been looked at by Said himself. As Akman said, Said really started to critique literature from the 17th century onward. I think that we can find out a lot from the texts we read in class and then compare it to the views taken by Said to deduce how much of the xenophobic discourse between the "East" and the "West" during medieval times is going to match up with modern perspectives. I would like to hypothesize that the authors we read have a perspective that is congruent with the writers of the colonial era, but being that it is the first week, I cannot confidently say this is true. Although, in my experience with literature I have come to notice that the past follows congruently with the future in many cases. Once the bubble of presumptuous views has been popped, it seems that I started to notice that just as others have said how you learn about the perspectives of British culture chronologically and topically, and they line up congruently to paint a picture of clear continuous evolution of ideas based on the atmospheric influences of the discourse of the time. I think this idea will carry over in painting the picture that British culture and central European travelers specifically propagated a negative and xenophobic attitude before their more contemporary counterparts.
DeleteA common thought in Edward Said is the notion of what is exile, and what does it mean to be exiled. One “version” of exile is on page 40, when Said believes that the intellectual should perhaps be exiled at one point to, “develop the capacities for free-ranging criticism.” This can be very true. All throughout literature “exile” can be seen as a way to change one’s life, to go on a journey, and then have a glorious redemption. However, then on page 45 of Edward Said a very different concept is reflected upon. It is written that, “European exile has been accommodated, celebrated, and allowed a new ‘home,’ the position of the ‘other’ exile has been highly problematic.” This idea never had honestly crossed my mind before I read this sentence, but I now realize how very true that is, particularly in today’s society.
ReplyDeleteMany people from all over the world travel to the United States for a plethora of reasons. One of their main motives is to provide a better life for their families. This is also exactly what many Europeans did these past few centuries. In our eyes, it was a noble thing to do. It was a quest, a journey and an adventure. Sure, they had hard times and weren’t always treated right, but they did it for us, their ancestors. And yet, the people who do that today are shown great hostility. I know there are other problems with immigration besides all of this, but it still is, at least to me, interesting to reflect upon the past and present.
The entire concept of “exile” to me simply goes back to the perception that the West believes them to better than the East, or even any other country that does not follow exactly their own train of thought, or have a similar culture to their own. Throughout Edward Said it is apparent that Europeans and the United States believe that their own people and ancestors hold a greater importance and rank than anyone else they come across. So many things in the book opened my eyes to this, and how this privileged belief happened years ago and is still occurring today.
Katie, your dissection of the concept of “exile” and its relation to the text sparked my interest. The word itself has a negative connotation: one of treasonous behavior, shaken government fists, and a haughty “and stay out!” spat from some representative official. I agree with your first observation, that Said is not wrong in advocating “free-ranging criticism” but that mindset specifically refers to pre-colonial criticism. It undoubtably holds water, and is a valid way of interpreting a text, however i feel that for the purposes of this class, we would be rewarded in considering literary, societal, and political contexts.
DeleteThat being said, “exile” can also be a fantastic way to remain uneducated. Many Americans’ self-imposed alienation from foreign cultures can lead to biased and inaccurate perspectives. By fetishizing “the East”, one could say we are exiling ourselves from the truth. Consciously turning one’s back on the information around one should not be lauded merely because authors have spun their isolation into success in the past. Good writing and bad writing have come from just about every environment one can imagine. We should, regardless, strive to achieve the most informed and invested of mentalities - this will lead to cohesive and insightful literature.
As a side-note, voluntary exile can be extremely conducive to success, as seen in works like D.H. Lawrence’s Aaron’s Rod. By abandoning the doldrums of his every-day life, Lawrence notoriously left his wife behind and wandered the globe with a new lover (a friends wife). Of course, this seems counter productive to any sort of sustainable lifestyle. However, by severing specific ties that held him back, his potential was reached. This is the mindset we should keep when we decide to forego some of the ideas or constructs we are attached to.
I found Edward Said’s points about supposed “inferiority” in oriental culture quite insightful and engaging. While Western cultures have seemed to carry this negative view of Eastern cultures, what troubles me the most is the idea of Eastern cultures viewing themselves as inferior as well, and at the same time praising Western cultures to such a high extent. I was born in the Philippines, and somewhat recently, had the opportunity of visiting my home country. While there, I met people who on several instances seemed to show a sort of enhanced respect or impression of me after finding out I was from the United States. Also, many stores advertised that their products were either imported from the United States, or mimicked after American products.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that seemed to epitomize this concept I am addressing was the “skin-lightening” salons they had in the Philippines. In Western culture, most people are familiar with tanning salons, but in the Philippines darker skin is generally considered less attractive than lighter skin, consequently giving skin-lightening treatment strong appeal in the country. As a country predominately populated with dark skinned citizens, it was shocking to see this, and I viewed it almost as a lack of pride in the culture. If not that, then at the very least the praise of the Western image and society was visibly a part of Filipino culture.
Chris - the point you make here is really important. I think the effects on "Eastern" cultures themselves often get overlooked in orientalist dialogue. This makes me wonder about globalization, which is more about "Westernization" than unification. You mentioned globalization's effects on Filipino culture, particularly in marketing, which reminded me of Professor Akman's example of Camel advertising. Orientalism serves here to illustrate the "Eastern exotic", while the idea of US imports creates a "Western superiority". Orientalism permeates not only in the "West", but also has tremendous impact and sway on how the "East" knows itself - it would be interesting to look at this more as a class. While there are obviously a lot of orientalist ideas that dissolve within the "East", the sense of inferiority still resonates, as Chris/Said mention.
DeleteWhile I'm not denying how truly disturbing it is to hear about any culture debasing itself, and I certainly don't think American culture is any better or worse than any other around the globe, I got the same reaction ("Oh you're from New York?! I LOVE New York City/American Music/American cinema/etc.) the entirety of last semester when I was in Southern France. France, which is a supposedly "western" culture/country, with the history of fine cuisine and cinema and luxury--yet, whenever I met someone and introduced myself, they always had the same reaction. So is this politeness, or is it pandering to the American pride, or is it actually some kind of masochistic belief that American culture is "superior"?
DeleteWhile reading Said’s introduction and discussing it in class, I find myself questioning the degree to which this binary between the “west” and the “other” has effected me in regards to my beliefs about other countries and their ways of life. Prior to my exposure to this piece, I embarrassingly admit that I was an advocate for our occupation in other countries under the belief that their ways of living needed to be improved, and we were responsible for making that improvement. This idea of the ‘western’ world, and even the United States specifically as superior is something that is drilled into the minds of every day citizens, whether they realize it or not. Even the news, something that people generally consider to be a fairly reliable source of information, has a way of manipulating and altering information to demonize certain groups of people. A prime example of this is the ‘capture’ and ‘torture’ of Jessica Lynch, an American soldier taken prisoner of war in Iraq in 2003. News reports stated that Lynch was subjected to a number of torture techniques while being held in an Iraqi hospital including burning, stabbing, and cutting. After her rescue, it was revealed that these allegations were completely false, and that Lynch was in fact receiving the best medical treatment available to her in the hospital for injuries sustained during the explosion of her platoon’s vehicle.
ReplyDeleteI am fortunate enough that my experiences as a college student and English concentrator have allowed me to be able to look beyond stereotypes, and be critical of the information that is given to me through certain sources. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for a number of everyday citizens who are not afforded the opportunity to receive an education, therefore leaving them ignorant and blind to the stereotypes that are being reinforced to them on a constant basis, even on cigarette packs. Being an education major, I honestly believe that in order to end this cycle, teachers should incorporate literature from different regions into the curriculum in an attempt to educate our youth about different cultural practices and ways of life and also teach students to be more critical about the information they receive.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe point you make about your previous belief in the U.S. occupation and "reformation" of Middle Eastern countries is something that really struck a chord with me. From a future educator's as well as a student's perspective I know that in the majority of Social Studies classes are based upon educating students about the major accomplishments of the United States throughout history, as well as what makes our nation a world leader. We are taught to have pride in our country, but there is a significant difference in having pride and being completely ignorant to the fact that even though the U.S. is a world leader, it still has it's fair share of significant internal and external issues that I'm sure are popular topics of conversation for people elsewhere in the world. Though these issues are less serious than current events such as the Syrian Civil War, they still are significant and because of that I don't believe our nation's leaders should feel the responsibility to take it upon themselves to infiltrate nations in an attempt to reform and control, because those efforts could do wonders on our own home front- the outcome of efforts elsewhere is uncertain.
DeleteEdward Said was often criticized for being "overly Westernized" due to his time living and working in the U.S. Being "overly Westernized" was equated with not being able to possess knowledge that would allow him to share a unique and correct perspective on Orientalism. This relates to what I was saying previously because if being "overly Westernized" isn't exactly considered a positive thing, then why do we still attempt to instill our political and cultural values in the lives of others through hegemony? Why "fix" what we don't fully understand because of our own identities?
The answer? Because throughout history and still today, power is justified through knowledge. Knowledge is power. This is a major part of colonialism- a group of people who believe that they are more knowledgeable because they are "civilized" believe they have the right to rule others. Knowledge shouldn't be a means of exerting power of other people. Knowledge should be a means by which people reverse the unequal power relationship between the text and reader and take what knowledge a text shares with them and utilize it in order to end a vicious cycle of ignorance and stereotypical ideas of the unfamiliar.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I found the introduction to Edward Said to be very eye-opening and
ReplyDeleteinteresting. The authors did a good job of not merely restating their main points but
continuously connecting them to other ideas. Prior to reading this intro, I had never
really heard of the word "discourse" in this context, and it's truly fascinating to look
at the world in such a way - a conglomeration of all the things the majority believes
it to be. Orientalism is a set of beliefs that is nonetheless a part of "the machinery of cultural domination," (51) but the very need for this machine is indicative of an even broader set of beliefs that plagues the world we live in. Indeed, the way Western society views the East says more about the West than the East.
The reasons behind this need for a "machine of cultural domination" are vast,
many of which probably having to do with human nature. But as a race it is
important that we constantly strive to move past what holds us back, and human
nature is most definitely not the only thing that leads to this toxic mindset. The intro
did bring up some historical points, such as "the industrial dominance of Britain,"
and "the post-revolutionary sense of national destiny in France." Just by looking at
these two examples, we can see what has always driven Western society in the past and is most likely what drives us today: a sense of superiority and unbridled
patriotism. It is one thing to love one's country, but an entirely different thing to
believe it is inherently superior to others, and many countries are guilty of this
worldview. Perhaps, by discouraging such ideas from polluting the reality of our
equivalence to the Orient, we might be able to shut down the machine.
Looking further at the "machine of cultural domination" concept
Deletepresented in the book, I find a sentence on page 62 to be extremely
interesting. "The creation of the Orient as the 'other' is necessary
so that the Occident can define itself and strengthen its own identity
by invoking such a juxtaposition." Said even draws examples of
westerners using traditions and phenomena in the east as a means of
contrasting Occident and Orient. Said says, "the Oriental was always
like some aspect of the West; to some German Romantics, for example,
Indian religion was essentially an Oriental version of
Germano-Christian pantheism." It is as if the Occident attempts to
construct the east as a sort of negative antithesis of the west. This
view of the east through a western lens is likely one source of the
many issues in the world today, from unnecessary U.S. occupations to
wars with seemingly no purpose. When eastern religion, government,
etc is seen as a mere digression from that of the west and not simply
a difference, westerners will assume that the east is inferior. The
west uses the east-west contrast to mask difference as defiance and
thus "justify" inhumane actions against the east as positive
conversion or a way of helping people located in the east.
Furthermore, the notion of superiority that plagues western
institutions is one of many contributing factors to the hegemonic
structure created by the west which allows for the machine of cultural
domination to exist.
As someone with a background in literature and the consideration of its place and purpose in a wider world, I was very much drawn in by the introduction’s discussion of text versus context and which is truly important in literary analysis. I once held the belief that literature should be judged at face value: that its worth should be determined by the text. My justification for this was that anything that would have seeped into the text due to authorial bias was likely unintentional, and therefore would be interpreted in an entirely different manner by a reader bringing his own unique set of biases to the table. In this way, literary value would be determined by the merit of the text, and potentially valuable works would not be discredited simply because their progenitor was possessed of dubious moral integrity. The idea of worldliness in literature has disavowed me of this notion somewhat. Nietzsche’s view of the relationship between reader and texts being analogous to that of coloniser and colonised (page 23) made me rethink my view on the power of bias and cultural collateral in literary works. Especially when dealing with works that come from a dominant world power (such as American and British literature), the pieces of cultural bias that inevitable seep into texts play an important role in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes and ignorance. Intentionally or not, works that spawn from a society that is not globally savvy will assume a role similar to that of the foreign oppressor, imposing their own values and presuppositions on whomever is exposed to them. The inevitability of this occurrence means that one must always be aware of how cultural context has both informed the work one is reading as well as how that same societal bias has affected the reader himself. Analysing literature from the viewpoint of worldliness means maintaining a balanced consideration of text and context, as well as the extent to which each has created the other. By keeping in mind the extent to which literature molds society, we gain increased insight into the workings of culture, and how national bias can affect the development of the global society.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete“Hegemony…generally understood to mean ‘dominance by consent’,” an unnerving concept regardless of whether looked at from the point of view of the person in power or the person relinquishing power. While many would think that this is not such a bad concept, in execution it is problematic seeing as it encourages one group to lord their power over another.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of dominance as presented in Said is not a physical power struggle as it is often thought of, but rather a power over politics and the economy. Said points out the dominance that certain individuals feel based purely on the part of society into which they were born. Similarly Ashcroft and Ahluwalia point out the necessity of hegemony for the success of Imperialism. Because of the importance of hegemony in Imperialism, it makes sense that the dominance referred to is dominance of the colonizing culture over the colonized. This being said, it raises questions as to the rightness of any one group asserting power over another. The scary part of hegemony is how it creeps up on societies without them even noticing. Not only is it able to sneak up on the dominating countries, but those societies that assume themselves to be inferior are by default consenting to being controlled by other societies. In this not only does it lend to populations being led to think of themselves as inferior, but it encourages the prejudice seen in current society. By believing in the idea of hegemony, people are continuing to cede to the ideas of prejudice that have been present since the early days of colonization.
In current society many people believe the idea of racism to be an old fashioned one; however it is still quite prevalent in society today. In order to even begin to try and bridge the gaps seen between races and classes in today’s world, it is important for everyone to understand the idea of hegemony and how it is harmful to society.
I also found the idea of hegemony to be an unnerving concept. Dominance by consent is what led to most of the world’s historical atrocities like the Holocaust. Earlier in Edward Said on page 23, the author quoted an excerpt from Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man that really struck me: “His language, so familiar and so foreign, will always be for me an acquired language…My soul frets the shadow if his language.” The narrator felt that even the words he formed always belonged to the headmaster because they were not his native language and the way he has spoken before. He felt that he was losing his identity to the headmaster. For some reason I never really thought too much about how colonization forced people to speak the language of the hegemonic nation. Most of my westernized learning focused on how the colonizers went to spread Christianity and disease (by accident), but failed to cover other the implications that came with being colonized. Language is tied into almost every aspect of identity; our thoughts, our expressions, the way we feel and describe ourselves has everything to with our language. To force someone to use something other than their native language in their homeland is to strip them of their tools to identify themselves and disrupt the flow of their culture.
DeleteI also agree with your point about racism. Racism is primarily fueled by hegemony; we even see it today as the hegemonic majority in our country stereotype and mistreat people who make up the ethnic and socioeconomic minority. I am interested to see how racism plays out when we explore the eastern view of the west.
While reading the introduction to Edward Said I found the text to be both interesting and informative. Each of Edward Said’s ideas the authors discuss builds off each other and is connected to one another throughout this text. One of the ideas that stuck out to me was how Said’s identity allowed him to present Palestine to the world. In the beginning on page 6 it says, “… he located himself a space between a Palestinian colonial past and an American imperial present.” Said’s identity in the in between spaces allowed him to stand up for Palestine and present Palestine to Americans.
ReplyDeleteI also started thinking about how Said’s identity connects to the worldliness that comes from his theory of orientalism. For example, on page 30 it says, “Thus, when we read his analysis of orientalist discourse…the issue of worldliness of his own place in the world becomes a crucial factor. It is undoubtfully this worldliness which drives his own theory of the interactive operations of text, reader, and critic.” Said’s complicated and paradoxical identity is what drives him in his theory and own analysis. Edward Said’s personal connection shown in his works allows readers to see his unique perspective about the Middle East.
My immediate reaction to Ashcroft and Ahluwalia’s profile on Edward Said and his advocacy for criticism founded in worldliness was to apply it to the circumstances which led Said to form his literary theory. Said was born in 1935 and grew up in Cairo, where he was well-educated in schools modelled to the British’s standards of education. Given the time period of his education, it is very likely that Said was exposed to the idea of New Criticism, a theory which sought place texts within a cultural bubble and establishing them as separate entities from the influences of the author.
ReplyDeleteIf I were Said, a Cairene citizen whose education was fettered in this so-called “western” cannon and I’m being told that these works of literature are somehow “timeless” and “universal” for all, I would certainly spend my career voicing my dissent as Said did. His theories on post-colonialism and his worldliness approach are a reactionary product of the ideas proposed by New Criticism. As well, his exposure to both sides of the cultural boundary put in place by orientalism allows Edward Said the unique position of understanding the interaction between the eastern and western cultures.
I found Ashcroft and Ahluwalia’s introduction to be smart, brave and sensitive to complicated political/ethnic issues that are always controversial to write about. Their summary of Said’s “Paradox of Identity” rang especially true to me. As a person of both Northwestern Iranian and Scotch-Canadian descent, I understand that cultural identity is much more complicated than naming the country one lives in, and that compound personal identities can indeed appear to be paradoxical. I think Said voices the thoughts of many, many people of “Middle Eastern” descent when he explains and analyzes this idea. Despite the complicated and articulate presentation of the Paradox of Identity theory, I noticed that there is a huge body of criticism levelled at Said and specifically at Orientalism. Breezing through summaries of these articles, it appeared that one of the more severe and well circulated criticisms is by Malcom Kerr, who accuses Said of homogenizing “the West” as one ignorant, insidiously racist culture, even as he points out the rich diversity of regions typically considered “Eastern.” I was surprised to see that such a critique was so successful, considering that a core presumption of Said’s theory is that cultural identity can be paradoxical, meaning that many people are known to actively and simultaneously participate in conventionally “Eastern” ways of life and “Western” ways of life, meaning that there really is no Occident and Orient, just one world with people living all over it. Therefore, his indictments are not directed at a Western world that he imagines, but at people of any cultural affiliations that do imagine an East that is distinct from a West. His criticisms fall most harshly, or so it sounds thus far, on people from Middle Eastern regions that participate in the hegemony of British or French or American dominance, willingly subjecting themselves to the notion that there is an East and a West, and that the West is better than the East. Malcom Kerr’s dismissive critique of Said in this sense is completely unfounded and is missing the point by a long shot.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading about Edward Said, I was surprised to hear that he wrote his monumental work Orientalism in 1978. Although it has been 36 years since it was produced, his work is still not widely taught in English classes (as far as I can tell through my experiences at Geneseo). Although I have grown up in and received my education in a sheltered, white-dominated setting, I have always thought of myself as trying to be as progressive as possible, but the topic of orientalism remains foreign to me.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the most interesting topics to me within the reading were Said’s ideas on literary criticism. As an education major who is interested in sociolinguistics and literacy, I loved Said’s ideas of literary criticism being accessible to an audience who may not be academics. Although this does not necessarily correspond to the divide between the East and the West, it speaks to Said’s dedication to groups that are marginalized. Although I cannot speak for other countries, in America most cultures and races that are not white-dominated have a low socioeconomic status. This means that many of these cultures are not as well educated as the upper class. Literary criticism is not accessible to these cultures, meaning that the worldliness of the literature is not utilized as it could be in these settings. This is the way that I utilize what I read about Said’s criticism through my own lens as an American educator. I am looking forward to learning more about orientalism and Islam, and looking at those subjects through the same lens. I have just begun to learn about Said’s ideas of criticism, and although I am not well versed, I can already begin to apply it to my own prior schemas. This speaks for Said’s ideas and the truth that all texts are worldly.
Deven-
DeleteAs a future educator, I cannot agree more- especially in accordance with your point on the direct correlation between Western (American) minorities and the respective economic and academic deprivation. In fact I believe in our culture today, there is a certain cyclical nature in the case of the oppression of American minorities. These citizens tend to live within urban settings in which the cost of living is less than the suburban alternative. Ironically, the district budget is nearly entirely based upon the collection of school taxes, which intern are based upon the value of your home. Therefore, the schools within the wealthier neighborhoods receive more monetary support than their less well off counterparts, putting the overwhelming majority of impoverished American students at an extreme disadvantage before they even open a book. From here the cycle continues. The schools with lower funding cannot fiscally meet the educational needs of their students. They are not able to fund the essential additional support outside the general education classroom. Consequently, the students fail to achieve on the required standardized tests put into effect by the very government that fails to support their necessities. Failure to succeed in the way of these examinations means students are not receiving high school diplomas, let alone advancing to receive the collegiate degrees required to overcome the economic barriers. The present system is flawed to the point of irrationality. The only logical explanation for such a systems existence is oppression.
The only “white man’s burden” that remotely exists or should exist is our responsibility to expand our worldliness. In consideration with our privilege, we need to expand our lives, values, and perspective, to a global level. Ignorance cannot be tolerated. It is our duty- our burden, as citizens of the world. It is in this way that we should all look Said, for his accomplishments in transcending the cultural divide between East and West.
While reading Edward Said, three questions stood out the most in my mind—the first being, why does the “Western world” hold such proliferated, false cultural assumptions about ‘the East’; secondly, what does this tell us about ourselves as a nation; and thirdly, what can be done about it?
ReplyDeleteIn addressing the first question pertaining to the misguided notions and ideas our nation has accepted, in both the past and present, as “fact”—is it our historically Eurocentric prejudice that we have decidedly deemed what is almost an entire continent of different cultures, nations, and people, the ‘East’ or the ‘Orient’? Or is it simply a matter of cultural misrepresentation? I would argue it is a bit of both. It is no secret that we, as people, fear what is different—we see something as socially and/or culturally foreign to our own way of life and suddenly, as a culture, we conclude that this society, alien to our own, is in some way as threatening as it is antagonistic; as dangerously hostile as it is distinct. In short: We fear what we do not know. And what better way to greater solidify our own identity as a culture, than to define what is not objectively “us” as “other” and therefore, “inferior”? With the unquestioned assumption of cultural dominance in Western culture, many that said they had gained “knowledge” their travels and/or studies of Orientalism, soon began creating a discourse based off of their experiences—allowing many to misconstrue what, in many cases was, hearsay, myth, or simply opinion as factually grounded truths. What does that tell us about ourselves as products of a nation that has created a structure within which Orientalism is placed and thereby contained? For one, we have in the past used our knowledge as a means to inflict power and control over others both economically and militarily, under the false pretenses of a “civilizing mission”. But besides the West’s need to feed its own ego as well as the need to define itself by means of juxtaposition—the more important and final question is, what can be done about it? Can we unlearn, as Ashcroft and Ahluwalia so adequately put it, the “inherent dominative mode,”—that which has been so culturally ingrained into us? I think that if we see Orientalism for what it is—discourse—as opposed to concrete fact, then yes, we may be able to do away with the prevalent modes of thinking, thereby dissolving the boundaries between what is commonly known and identified as the “West” and the “Other”. In recognizing and identifying the prejudices that still widely affect us as a nation today, we allow ourselves the opportunity to objectively and properly reflect on our thinking processes, biases, and prejudices of cultures that are not our own—giving way to the possibility to shift our perspectives of both ourselves and the world around us.
Knowledge is power—it’s just a matter of what we do with it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete