ING604 Contemporary Approaches in Literary Criticism II

Final Paper
Introduction
Orientalism tries to answer the question of why, when we think of the Middle East for
example, we have a pre conceived notion of what kind of people live there, what they believe,
how they act. Even though we may never have been there, or indeed even met anyone from
there. More generally Orientalism asks, how do we come to understand people, strangers, who
look different to us by virtue of the color of their skin? Edward aid would say that this is
because we need the Other. !hy do we need the Other in order to understand ourselves? aid
argues that it is by means of the inferior Other that we can establish and "ustify our own
positions. #ccording to aid, the coloni$ers created stereotyped images and texts, such as
those of the Orient, in order to secure their power. %he relationship of superior to inferior
between the coloni$er and the coloni$ed became firmly established and has been maintained
ever since. &omi 'habha mentioned aid(s conflicting perceptions of Orientalism which he
saw, on the one hand, as a )topic of learning, discovery and practice* and on the other hand
as a )site of dreams, images, fantasies, myths, obsessions and requirements* +'habha, ,-./.
%his observation introduced a certain feeling of ambivalence to aid(s treatment #ccording to
'habha aid )undermines the effectivity of discourse by his polarities of intentionality* and
this resulted in gender misconceptions that were formulated within the crack opened up by
such polari$ation +,-.01/
Orientalism and The Location of Culture take up different intellectual and ideological
positions on the questions of the East as place and both colonialism and post0colonialism. 2n
this paper first part explains how culture works in both texts with specific reference to the
creation and maintenance of Orientalism and to 'habha(s idea of the unhomed home. #nd the
,
second part shows with reference to the relevant part of the texts, which theory 2 feel is
stronger and makes its case the clearest.
Part I
Edward aid !rientalism
2n his book Orientalism, aid talks about the 'ritish diplomat and administrator 3ord
4romer who makes no effort to conceal his intention of making the Orient appear inferior. 2n
his Modern Egypt, 4romer says, )2 content myself with noting the fact that somehow or other
the Oriental generally acts, speaks, and thinks in a manner exactly opposite to the European . .
. and in everything oppose the clarity, directness, and nobility of the #nglo axon race* +qtd.
in aid 15/. Elsewhere, 4romer says6 )their descendants are singularly deficient in the logical
faculty. %hey are often incapable of drawing the most obvious conclusions from any simple
premises of which they may admit the truth* +qtd. in aid 17/. On the basis of these
statements, aid makes the argument that various texts about the East have been represented
through and by the !est as a means to produce a set of stereotypes about the East. aid claims
that )knowledge of the Orient, because generated out of strength, in a sense creates the Orient,
the Oriental, and his world . . . the Oriental is depicted as something one "udges, something
one studies and depicts, something one disciplines, something one illustrates. %he point is that
in each of these cases the Oriental is contained and represented by dominating frameworks*
+8-/.
%hey said that the orients themselves were incapable of running their own government.
%he Europeans also thought that they had the right to represent the orientals in the west all by
themselves. 2n doing so, they shaped the orientals the way they perceived them or in other
words they were orientalizing the orients. 9arious teams have been sent to the east where the
orientalits silently observed the orientals by living with them: and every thing the orientals
said and did was recorded irrespective of its context, and pro"ected to the civilized world of
.
the west. %his resulted in the generali$ation. !hatever was seen by the orientals was
associated with the oriental culture, no matter if it is the irrational action of an individual.
%he most important use of orientalism to the Europeans was that they defined
themselves by defining the orientals. ;or example, qualities such as la$y, irrational,
uncivili$ed, crudeness were related to the orientals, and automatically the Europeans became
active, rational, civili$ed, sophisticated. %hus, in order to achieve this goal, it was very
necessary for the orientalists to generali$e the culture of the orients.
2n the second chapter Edward aid points the slight change in the attitude of the
Europeans towards the orientals. %he orientals were really publici$ed in the European world
especially through their literary work. Oriental land and behaviour was highly romantici$ed
by the European poets and writers and then presented to the western world. %he orientalists
had made a stage strictly for the European viewers, and the orients were presented to them
with the colour of the orientalist or other writers( perception. 2n fact, the orient lands were so
highly romantici$ed that western literary writers found it necessary to offer pilgrimage to
these exotic lands of pure sun light and clean oceans in order to experience peace of mind,
and inspiration for their writing. %he east was now perceived by the orientalist as a place of
pure human culture with no necessary evil in the society. #ctually it was this purity of the
orientals that made them inferior to the clever, witty, diplomatic, far0sighted European: thus it
was their right to rule and study such an innocent race. %he Europeans said that these people
were too naive to deal with the cruel world, and that they needed the European fatherly role to
assist them.
#nother "ustification the Europeans gave to their coloni$ation was that they were
meant to rule the orientals since they have developed sooner than the orientals as a nation,
which shows that they were biologically superior, and secondly it were the Europeans who
1
discovered the orients not the orients who discovered the Europeans. <arwin(s theories were
put forward to "ustify their superiority, biologically by the Europeans.
%he author then talks about the changing circumstances of the world politics and
changing approach to orientalism in the .-
th
century. %he main difference was that where the
earlier orientalists were more of silent observers the new orientalists took a part in the every
day life of the orients. %he earlier orientalists did not interact a lot with the orients, whereas
the new orients lived with them as if they were one of them. %his wasn(t out of appreciation
of their lifestyle but was to know more about the orients in order to rule them properly. !ith
the changing world situation especially after !orld !ar 2, orientalism took a more liberal
stance towards most of its sub"ects: but 2slamic orientalism did not en"oy this status. %here
were constant attacks to show 2slam as a weak religion, and a mixture of many religions and
thoughts.
#ll the orientalists studied the orientals to assist their government to come up with
policies for dealing with the orient countries. Edward aid concludes his book by saying that
he is not saying that the orientalists should not make generali$ation, or they should include the
orient perspective too, but creating a boundary at the first place is something which should not
be done.
"he Location o# Culture $y %ha$ha
aid focuses on the domination of the East by the !est and how !estern literary
critics have helped to maintain this domination through discourse about Oriental literature. &e
studies Orientalism as a means of resistance to the hegemonic !estern ideas. =nlike aid,
who divides the world into opposing binaries, 'habha takes a kind of deconstructionist
approach to post0colonialism. &e challenges the binary opposition of !est>?on0!est. 2nstead,
he sees post0colonial cultures as @hybrids@ identified by their own people as well as the
8
colonial power. &is concept of Orientalism can be explained by analy$ing three key concepts
which are hibridity, unhomely home and concept of mimicry.
;irst of all, 'habha introduces the idea that we need to end the monolithic
classifications based on ethnic traits. &e describes existence today as @living on the
borderlines of the ApresentA@ +5/. %odayAs society is made up of hybrids of different ethnic
backgrounds and present social experiences. &e asserts that we must move to the @beyond@ to
understand this difference. %his is the place where the crossing over of time and cultural
differences occurs and where new signs of identity are formed. ;or 'habha, hybridity is the
process by which the colonial governing authority undertakes to translate the identity of the
colonised +the Other/ within a singular universal framework, but then fails producing
something familiar but new. 'habha contends that a new hybrid identity or sub"ect0position
emerges from the interweaving of elements of the coloniser and colonised challenging the
validity and authenticity of any essentialist cultural identity.
!hen it comes to unhomely home 'habha describes how the borders between the
home and the outside world become confused6 @Brivate and public, past and present, the
psyche and the social develop an interstitial intimacy. 2t is an intimacy that questions binary
divisions through which such spheres of social experience are often spatially opposed@ +,5/.
&e refers to the invasion of the domestic sphere by the public world as the @unhomely@
moment. 2t is not a question of being @homeless,@ 'habha makes clear, but a question of
being outside of @home,@ of being forced to renegotiate oneAs place in the world. ;or 'habha,
@unhomeness@ is most readily identified in the experience of migrants and postcolonial
people, for whom geographic or cultural dislocation are defining traits either because they
have been uprooted from former places of identification or because a familiar place has
undergone radical change as a result of its colonial past or present. %he term @unhomely@
comes from ;reudAs essay @%he =ncanny,@ where he reflects upon the uneasy sense of the
C
unfamiliar within the familiar, the unhomely within the home. 2n other words the expression
of this sense means not being at home in the home.
#t last 'habha explains what concept of mimicry means. 'habha(s concept of mimicry is a
strategy of colonial power>knowledge which has a desired goal for the inhabitants of approval
and changed outlooks in terms of inclusion and exclusion. 2nclusion aims the acceptance of
)good natives* as the coloni$ers programmers and exclusion puts the goal of disavowal and
denouncing the ma"ority )bad natives*. 'habha further defines mimicry in the term of
ambivalence as similar and dissimilar. imilarity defines its resemblance to the masters,
coloni$ed sub"ects to be like masters and dissimilarity6 )then colonial mimicry is the desire
for a reformed, recogni$able Other*. +,../
aid &ersus %ha$ha
&omi D. 'habha puts an additional layer of dressing on aid(s concept of Orientalism.
'habha agrees with aid on the fundamental ideas contained in the theory of Orientalism. 2n
The Location of Culture, 'habha says, )the ob"ective of colonial discourse is to construe the
coloni$ed as a population of degenerate types on the basis of racial origin, in order to "ustify
conquest and establish systems of administration and instruction* +,-,/. &owever, he argues
that these stereotypes are not as stable as aid suggests. %o 'habha, the stereotype is a form of
)anxious colonial knowledge*. #mbivalence is central to the colonial discourses of
stereotyping. 'habha points out that the problem with a stereotype is that it fixes individuals
or groups in one place, denying their own sense of identity and presuming to understand them
on the basis of prior knowledgeE ;or instance, aid(s concept of Orientalism assumes the
Orient is one giant undifferentiated mass: he never questions the ambivalence and>or anxieties
occurring within the Orient. &owever, for 'habha, this fixed quality coexists with disorder,
something unconsciously apparent to the apparatuses of colonial power. 2n this way, 'habha
claims that the stereotype, the primary point of sub"ectification in colonial discourse, for both
F
coloni$er and coloni$ed, is the scene of a similar fantasy and defenseGthe desire for an
originality which is again threatened by the differences of race, color and culture +'habha
,-H/.
2 think Edward aid(s theory is stronger since we can see many examples of this making
the other seem bad everywhere. !estern pre"udice towards eastern countries was still very
explicit, and often they managed to generali$e most of the eastern countries because of it. ;or
example #rabs were often represented as cruel and violent people. Iapanese were always
associated with karate where as the Muslims were always considered to be terrorists. %hus,
this goes on to show that even with increasing globali$ation and awareness, such bias was
found in the people of the developed countries.
# recent example of this is given by the &ollywood movie 1--, released in .--H,
which relates the resistance of a handful of partans warriors against the Bersian invasion
during the battle of %hermopylae. 2n this #merican blockbuster the massive J#sian( horde of
invaders is depicted as barbaric and monstrous. %his crass caricature of the Bersian army
caused a strong reaction of 2ranian authorities at a time of heightened tensions with its
#merican counterpart, so much that the issue came to the fore in international institutions like
the =?. %he representation of the JOther(, especially visually, is indeed a very sensitive
matter. aid argued that the canon of Middle Eastern studies, then labeled )Orientalism,* had
created and perpetuated a stereotypical view of the Middle East and 2slam as a religion as
backwards, despotic and lacking in civili$ation. Renan says thatsince Mohammed
was viewed as the disseminator of a false Revelation, he becomes as well
the epitome of lechery, debauchery, sodomy, and a whole battery of
assorted treacheries, all of which derived logically from his doctrinal
impostures. (qtd. in aid, !"# therefore $rabia was according to Madeleine
%. &'avid on the fridge of the (histian world, a natural asylum for heretical
H
outlaws* +qtd. in aid, F1/. ;ilms especially depict @#rab men as barbaric, violent, gaudy,
lascivious, and of Muslim ma"ority countries as uncivili$ed, misogynistic, irrational, and
undemocratic
%he current popularity of 2slamophobia represents one adaptation of traditional
Orientalism, into an 2slamophobic discourse which appears more )legitimate* than
Orientalism because it ostensibly focuses on religion, rather than race or ethnicity.
2slamophobia is applied to the entire Muslim community without distinction, and hostility
towards 2slam is used to "ustify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and the exclusion
of Muslims from mainstream society. Orientalist portrayals of 2slam ignore 2slam(s history as
a lived religion that has changed over time, and denigrate the ideal of )submission to Kod*
which is sacred to billions of Muslims. Lather western media, especially in #merica and
'ritain, describe Muslims as fundamentalists, extremists, terrorists, and fanatics especially
after 5>,, . %hroughout the !est, 2slam is identified with violence. %he 'oston Marathon
bombings and the soldier killing in 'ritain are the most recent acts of violence which are
being linked to )2slamic terrorism,* and even mainstream commentators are taking the easy
route and blaming it on 2slam. %his bias in media showing 2slam as barbaric, backward, and
violent goes back hundreds of years and is not new, but the ease with how this is happening is
shocking and disturbing. 2n modern times, the answer for why this is occurring lies
in Orientalist perspectives of 2slam, and how they have consistently distorted the 2slam and
Muslim world.
Conclusion
%he central argument about Orient is that the way that we acquire this knowledge is not
innocent or ob"ective but the end result of a process that reflects certain interests. pecifically
aid argues that the way the !est, Europe and the =.. looks at the countries and peoples of
the Middle East is through a lens that distorts the actual reality of those places and those
7
people. &e calls this lens through which we view that part of the world Orientalism, a
framework that we use to understand the unfamiliar and the strange: to make the peoples of
the Middle East appear different and threatening.
5
'or(s Cited
'habha, &omi D. The Location of Culture. ?ew Mork6 Loutledge, .--8. Brint.
aid, Edward !. Orientalism. ?ew Mork6 Landom &ouse, ,5H7. Brint.
,-