JIHAD FOR ‘THE TRUTH’: AN ANALYSIS OF
EDWARD SAID’S INTELLECTUAL JOURNEY
Political Science BSc: Bachelor thesis
University of Amsterdam
Lucian Alexander Campbell Bickerton
June 21
st2017
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Word count: 6460
Introduction
“At some point, Sufis began to speak of spiritual discipline as a form of jihād or ‘struggle’ – what many jurists themselves came to recognise as the ‘greater jihād’, distinct from and more important than the ‘lesser jihād’ of holy war” (Berkey, 2010: p. 53).
People living in the West, by which I refer to “Western Europe, the United States, and other countries of European settlement” (McLean & McMillan, 2009: p. 562), often associate the concept of jihād with a ‘holy war’, violence and terrorism. This form of jihād is referred to by many moderate Muslims as the ‘lesser jihād’ and is the notion that a holy war against non-believers must be waged to establish a state ruled by Islam. However, most moderate Muslims - defined as those who “do not oppose the West” or Western values (Ibrahim, 2016) - believe in the ‘greater jihād’. This is an inner struggle to become the best Muslim possible, and can only be achieved in a peaceful manner. It is seen as the superior form by moderate Muslims, and yet it is relatively unknown in the West. In my opinion, this perfectly illustrates how the West’s view of the Orient is shaped by how Western media, science and politics talk and write about it. The title I have chosen for this thesis also refers to jihād as an inner struggle, but in this case, I will be describing Edward Said’s intellectual inner struggle for ‘the truth’, a truth that I too would like to discover.
Edward Said’s Orientalism (1979) was one of the first books to address the skewed view the West has of the Orient. Because of this, it has become the base for the debate about differences between ‘the Occident’ and ‘the Orient’. With ‘the Occident’ Said means the Western world and the United States and Europe in particular. He defines ‘the Orient’ as the Eastern world, but his main focus is on the Levant and countries in the East that had been colonised by Europeans (1979: pp.4-5). The main argument in Orientalism is that the Occident
has created an incorrect framework about the Orient (Said, 1979: p.2). I will further elaborate on the exact meaning of Orientalism later, but an example is that Islam is portrayed by some scholars as a violent religion based on hatred. Among these scholars is Bernard Lewis, a historian and commenter on the Middle-East, who is seen as one of the chief experts on the topic of Middle-Eastern studies. In his article ‘The roots of Muslim rage: why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified’ (1990) Lewis makes the following claim:
“There is something in the religious culture of Islam which inspired in even the humblest peasant or peddler, a dignity and a courtesy toward others never exceeded and rarely equalled in other civilizations. And yet, in moments of upheaval and disruptions, when the deeper passions are stirred, this dignity and courtesy toward others can give way to an explosive mixture of rage and hatred” (Lewis, 1990: p. 59).
Quotes like these, written by Western academics, are the exact reason for Edward Said’s book. In fact, there was a well-known rivalry between Said and Lewis (Adiong, 2008). That rivalry continues today, but now between critics and advocates of the two scholars’ views, confirming that the topic is still contemporary and relevant. I will elaborate on the topic’s relevance later.
You could say that I am on the same ‘Jihad for ‘the truth’’ as Said. By analysing Said’s intellectual journey, I hope to get closer to tackling the problem Said discusses in Orientalism. We live in a time in which differences between the Occident and the Orient are constantly highlighted, and divisions are growing as a consequence. As a consequence of Orientalism the dominant ideology in society is to divide these two cultures. Finding a way to show that these differences aren’t as large as they seem is essential to escaping this ideology. In my thesis, I defend the claim that Edward Said’s Orientalism is alive and well and that this ideology must
be escaped in order to prevent further polarisation between the Occident and the Orient. But before I can make a statement about why this claim is relevant and true, I must focus on a few different things: firstly, I will analyse Said’s intellectual journey by looking at the main subjects he tackles and how these have developed over time; secondly, I will give a deeper explanation as to why Said’s Orientalism is relevant by looking at recent developments; thirdly, I will seek to answer my thesis’ central question and challenge ‘how can we escape the West’s false ideology of the Orient?’; and lastly, I will summarize my findings and come to a conclusion.
Edward Said’s intellectual journey
Before I can describe and analyse Edward Said’s intellectual journey I must first explain the concept of Orientalism and then look at what he writes about it in his famous book. According to Said, Orientalism has two meanings: an academic meaning, and an imaginative meaning. The academic meaning consists out of the notion that everyone who has written about or done research regarding the Orient is automatically classified as an Orientalist. However, this term is not preferred by academics because of its colonial connotation. The term was coined in a time that large parts of the Orient were still colonised by European countries. The imaginative, and more general, meaning of Orientalism is that it is a style of thought in which the distinction between the Occident and the Orient is used as a base for describing the Orient (Said, 1979: pp. 2-3).
In Said’s eyes, these two main definitions do not cover what Orientalism really means and the origin of the term. So, Said comes with a third definition, which is based on more materialistic and historical grounds. According to this third meaning, Orientalism is a way the West dominates, restructures and retains authority over the Orient, as it has been since the start of colonialism (Said, 1979: p. 3). In other words, knowledge is used as a ‘vehicle’ by the Occident to keep the power it has over the Orient in place. However, the knowledge that is used
to maintain the Occident’s position is not necessarily true. Said believes that the limitations of Orientalism make it impossible for scientists from Europe or the United States to fully understand, and as a result correctly describe, the Orient. In fact, Said believes that the differences between Oriental and Western culture were used to strengthen Western culture itself. This was done by describing Oriental culture as different and inferior to Western culture, which became the base for the Occident’s perceived cultural superiority over the Orient. As a consequence, this became the dominant ideology in the Occident.
In order to describe Edward Said’s intellectual journey, I will zoom in on a couple of key subjects about which Said frequently talks. Understanding how Said developed his ideas about these subjects over the course of his academic career is crucial if I want successfully analyse the way he thinks. I will not only take a closer look at the ideas themselves, but I will also try to find the source of his ideas, for I feel that this is also of great importance in fully analysing his intellectual journey. The most important subjects Said discusses can be derived from a third definition of Orientalism about which he talks. However, to be able to ensure that these subjects were constant themes throughout his academic career I have chosen to look at one of the essays from Said’s book Reflections On Exile and Other Essays (2000), which is titled ‘Orientalism Reconsidered’. In this essay, he looks back at the ideas he posed in Orientalism, 25 years after he wrote the book.
In ‘Orientalism Reconsidered’ Said states that the first main issue in Orientalism is the representation of other cultures, societies and histories (Said, 2000: p. 198). This is of course highlighted by Said in comparing ‘The Orient’ with ‘The Occident’, and more specifically how the Orient is seen by the Occident. It is important to note that Said believes that the framework that the West built of the Orient is unique (Said, 2000: p. 205). In other words, the Orient does not see the West like the West sees the Orient. The manner in which this ‘false framework’ is constructed is unique to the West, and no other society constructs frameworks in the same way.
This is because of the West’s colonial history and the superior position it acquired as a result. The second main subject Said talks about in Orientalism and again in ‘Orientalism Reconsidered’ is the relationship between power and knowledge (Said, 2000: p. 198). Discourse theory, which was largely developed by Michel Foucault (Said, 2000: p. 239), plays a large role in this aspect of Said’s thinking. Dunne, Kurki and Smith define the concept of discourse as “the language and representations through which we describe and understand the world, and through which meanings, identities, and social relations are produced” (2013: p. 352). However, the way in which this is interpreted can make a huge difference to what discourse theory actually means for different scholars. Said and Foucault have very different interpretations of discourse theory and how it shapes the way power is seen, for instance. I will take a closer look at these two subjects, starting with the subject for which Orientalism is best known: the representation of the Orient by the West.
As well as ‘Orientalism Reconsidered’, Reflections On Exile and Other Essays (2000) also includes a piece on how Samuel Huntington’s famous essay ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ shaped the way the Orient is perceived by the West. The essay in which Said talks about Huntington’s theory is a play on words, namely; ‘The Clash of Definitions’. This, of course, refers to what most of Orientalism is about: definitions of the Orient that are fabricated by Western academics. The essay, of course, refers to a major aspect of Said’s thinking and its influence on scholars and universities in the West (it was one of the first texts I had to read when I started studying international relations) makes it highly relevant, in my opinion.
It seems that Said sees in Huntington the archetypical Orientalist. According to him Huntington assumes that other civilisations “necessarily clash with the West” and the West has to “continue winning” no matter the cost. Furthermore, he condemns Huntington’s conclusion that “not only will conflict continue […] but "conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evolution of conflict in the modern world" (Said, 2000: pp. 570-571). Huntington’s
selfishness must have been what worried Said. He makes no attempt to look at possible chances to bridge differences. Instead he concludes the exact opposite: that conflict between the West and the Orient is unavoidable.
As I said before, Huntington’s piece has greatly influenced scholars and universities, and therefore it has also influenced the dominant ideology in the West concerning the Orient. Politicians use theories like Huntington’s to propagate a political climate in which differences are used to divide people from the West and the Orient. Theories like Huntington’s create a framework which determines political agendas. According to Said, Huntington’s ideas are biased from the outset and Huntington is “far from being an arbiter between civilizations, therefore, Huntington is a partisan, an advocate of one so called civilization over all others” (2000: p. 573). Again, I’d stress that Said sees these types of ideas as unique to Western civilisation. The idea that the West is seen as superior to other cultures and societies has been embedded in Western society due to Orientalists like Huntington. I agree with Said that the idea of superiority is inherent to Western society, and to Western society alone. Any society that is wealthier than all others will become arrogant over time. The wealth and power of the West facilitated its dominance, but so did its ideas.
But how are these ideas constructed? According to Said, Orientalism should be seen as a discourse if one is to fully understand “the systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage and even produce the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively” (Said, 1979: p. 3). In other words, the idea of Orientalism, which is constructed by Europeans, determines how the Orient is seen by these same Europeans. So, the way the Orient is seen is in the first place a reflection of the colonial history of the Occident. Seeing Orientalism as a set of ideas that construct this reality is essential to understanding it. So, how is it that, through language (which discourses are constructed out of), the Occident has come to be in a position of power over the Orient?
This brings me to the second important subject in Said’s work: the relationship between power and knowledge. The dominant framework that the West has created of the Orient can be maintained because of the West’s ‘knowledge’. This does not necessarily mean that the knowledge has to be correct. The knowledge is seen as legitimate because its source, in this case scientists, academics and scholars, has a certain authority. This legitimacy lends it a certain power. Because most people think the ‘knowledge’ comes from legitimate scientists, they automatically believe it to be true. Or, in Said’s words: “It is sometimes of paramount importance not so much what is said, but who speaks.” (2000: p. 244). So, the origin of this ‘knowledge’ is more important than the actual knowledge itself. If the source is seen as legitimate, the ideology will remain dominant. This is how dominant discourse, such as the framework determining how the West sees the Orient, is maintained.
With regards to the concept of discourse, French philosopher Michel Foucault was of great importance during Edward Said’s intellectual journey. However, Said’s view on discourse is slightly different to Foucault’s. Said talks about Foucault and the concepts of discourse and power in his essay ‘Foucault and the Imagination of Power’ (2000: pp. 239-246). For Foucault power and discourse is “everywhere” and “overcoming, co-opting, infinitely detailed, and ineluctable in the growth of its domination” (Said, 2000: p. 241). In Foucault’s mind, power is a structure that counts for all; it is a web from which one cannot escape. Individuals are subject to this power structure, which is consolidated within institutions. On this crucial point, Said and Foucault differ in their opinions. Whereas, according to Foucault, the role of the individual is of minor importance, Said appears to suggest the opposite. For Said power is “something someone possesses and there is always an intention or a will using, exploiting, abusing power relations” (Racevskis, 2005: p. 92). So, in Said’s case power is instrumental, it can be used by a person. There is no great web of power that overrides the power of the individual, the agent. An example of such an individual could be Samuel Huntington, or even Edward Said himself.
Huntington developed a theory that has now become part of dominant discourse, his ‘Clash of Civilizations’. The same can be said of Said’s book; certainly, it has stirred up the discussion about Orientalism.
At the end of his essay Said uses a quote by Raymond Williams to further debunk Foucault’s theory of power:
“Williams says that "however dominant a social system may be, the very meaning of its domination involves a limitation or selection of the activities it covers, so that by definition it cannot exhaust all social experience, which therefore always potentially contains space for alternative acts and alternative intentions which are not yet articulated as a social institution or even project” (2000: p.245).
This, for me, is the best description of power. In quoting Williams, Said does not deny that power structures exist. However, power is not an all-engulfing entity from which its subjects cannot escape, as Foucault argues. What Said says here is that the individual does have the power to change things. In other words, there is a structure of power which is consolidated in institutions, but it is not impossible for an individual to change this structure. As I said, writers like Edward Said are changing the structure. Before Said wrote Orientalism the way the West perceived the Orient was never questioned, it was simply accepted. So, Said’s book did affect the dominant discourse – albeit slightly. However, a great deal more is needed to change it entirely.
To conclude this section, I will give a brief overview of Said’s intellectual journey. The most common definitions of Orientalism did not describe it well enough, according to Said. He sees Orientalism as a way by which the Occident can remain dominant and authoritative over the Orient. This position is maintained by the dominant discourse the Occident has built around
the Orient. Furthermore, it is of major importance to note that the concept of Orientalism is unique to Western society, because of its colonial history. This history has created space for Orientalists, like Samuel Huntington, to influence the dominant ideology about the Orient. Orientalism can only be understood when one looks at the surrounding discourse. Only then is it possible to see the relationship between knowledge and power. Said accepts that power is consolidated in institutions, but also highlights the role of the individual. So, it is possible for individuals to influence the web of power in which Foucault says they are trapped. In other words, the individual can play a role in countering Orientalism.
Relevance
Now that I have described Edward Said’s intellectual journey it is important to look at what relevance Orientalism has today. After all, Said’s book was written almost forty years ago, and the world has changed. In the meantime, the relationship between the Occident and the Orient has deteriorated. An apt example is rising tensions between the West and the Middle-East (Alghamdi, 2015: p. 198). I will begin this section on a personal note, because I feel I have encountered Orientalism and Orientalists myself during my studies. After this I will give a more general overview of current developments regarding Orientalism, focusing on the role played by the media and politics .
During my studies at the University of Amsterdam, I studied Arabic culture and language, combined with several courses on the subject of Political Islam and the Middle-East. It was during this time that I discovered how naive I had been towards the Arabic culture. I never saw myself as a person who judged people on the basis of where they are from, and yet, when I started studying the Arabic language and culture, I found out how little I knew about it. This became more apparent on reading Edward Said’s Orientalism. Said’s main point is that the Arabic culture cannot be understood if one is not a part of this culture. For me, the fact that
his main hypothesis was confirmed by my personal experience, greatly added to the book’s legitimacy. Studying Arabic language and culture made me feel more connected with and empathetic towards people that live in, or are from, the Middle-East. I believe that gaining an insight into other cultures helps bridge differences between cultures. In my opinion, the process of humanisation of other cultures is only possible if one makes an effort to understand them. However, the exact opposite is happening at the moment: differences between Occidental and Oriental culture are being highlighted in a very negative manner. As a consequence, the way Westerners see the Orient bears little relation to reality.
For example, in Darryl Li’s article ‘A Jihadism Anti-Primer’ he counters the claim made by many Western scientist, whom Said would call Orientalists, that all Muslims are violent. According to Li there is an “enormous body of scholarship in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies demolishing the myth that Muslims are inherently or irrationally violent” (2016). The point he makes is similar to Said’s main argument in Orientalism. Because of the way the West perceives Islam and the Middle-East, Muslims are all seen as the same. The fact that there are violent Muslims does not mean that all Muslims are violent. Furthermore, Li says that “not all Muslims are pious, not all pious Muslims are Islamists, not all Islamists are violent and not all violent Islamists are at war with the West (or other Muslims they dislike)” (2016). Most citizens of Western countries are not aware that there are a lot of different types of Muslims, as there are a lot of different types of Christians. A small group of Muslims categorises itself as fundamentalists, and an even smaller group of these fundamentalists is violent. These violent fundamentalists are the only ones who would act on the ‘lesser jihād’ or holy war. The vast majority of Muslims - the moderate Muslims that I talked about in the introduction - see religion as personal and would never engage in the ‘lesser jihād’ (Ibrahim, 2016). In their eyes, the ‘greater jihād’ is seen as the superior jihād, hence ‘greater’. The fact that authors like Darryl Li are still pointing this out in 2016 further confirms my suspicion that Said’s Orientalism is still
relevant. There is clearly still a vast gap between the Occident and the Orient, a gap created by unknowingness and misinterpretation of the Orient.
Next to this societal aspect of unknowingness, Said’s book is also relevant from a political point of view. In the introduction, I briefly mentioned that I feel that politics and media shape the way the West sees the Orient. Said also mentions this in Orientalism. He believes that the “stereotypes by which the Orient is viewed” are reinforced by modern media, “forcing information into more and more standardised moulds” (1979: p. 26). So, Said also recognises the role the media plays in reinforcing the view the West has of the Orient. In other words, it was not just Western scientists who were responsible for this framework, but also modern media.
Because the media is of such influence, negative perceptions of Islam and the Middle-East are constantly reinforced. A number of factors serve to reinforce this: firstly, terrorist attacks committed by Islamic fundamentalists in Western countries have increased. While still a fraction of the number of terrorist attacks in the Middle-East, it is nonetheless a relative rise. These attacks are widely reported in Western media, strengthening the already existing framework around the Middle-East and Islam (Alghamdi, 2015: p. 198). Secondly, the number of immigrants coming from the Middle-East to Europe has risen. Following the civil war and the conflict in Syria hundreds of thousands of people fled their homes and have come to Europe (Van Spanje, 2010: p. 563). Lastly, the rise of populist parties in Europe has taken advantage of these developments and some have even made ‘less Islam in Europe’ a main campaign platform (Inglehart & Norris, 2016: p.2). Negative attitudes towards Islam and the Middle-East are reported by media outlets on a daily basis, and politicians are using this as a way to win votes. Instead of bringing two cultures together, politicians and the media are in effect further polarising them. This would have been one of Edward Said’s greatest fears.
However, it is important to note that the media landscape is changing. Use of social media is ubiquitous, and as a consequence, the popularity and influence of ‘traditional’ media is fading. One of the first times that this was noticeable was during the Arab Spring (Hänska-Ahy, 2016: p. 100). With this change comes a different role for the people. Because social media is increasingly seen as a legitimate source of news, people who post online – bloggers, for instance - have the chance to influence the media, and subsequently the dominant discourse concerning the Orient. This can even go as far as influencing politics and policy. A caveat I should mention is that it is also easy to spread negativity and misinformation via social media, influencing the dominant ideology in the wrong way. However, I do think that the rise of social media provides an opportunity for people to build bridges rather than divisions between cultures
So, in summary, is Said’s book still relevant? I would argue yes, and very much so. However, its relevance is shifted to large parts of the Middle-East, instable countries like Syria and Iraq in particular, rather then to the entire Orient. One reason for this is that colonisation no longer plays a role and, as a consequence, the West does not involve itself in the internal affairs of large areas of the Orient. However, the Middle-East is in conflict. The three primary reasons for this are: the increasing number of terrorist attacks in the West by fundamentalist Muslims; the involvement of the West among other parts of the world in the conflict in Syria; and the refugees that have had to flee to Europe because of this conflict. These three factors make the consequences of Orientalism more relevant than ever.
Escaping ideology
How do we ‘escape’ the false ideology of the Orient fabricated by ‘the West’? This may have been the main question on Said’s mind during his academic career, and there is no disputing his efforts to make clear that the way the Orient is perceived by the West is wrong. However, it is not up to one person alone to change this problem. The dominant ideology has to be
changed from within society. That means that current dominant values and ideas have to be changed. In the next section I will look at Edward Said’s solutions for this problem.
“The life of an Arab Palestinian in the West, particularly in America, is disheartening. There exists here an almost unanimous consensus that politically he does not exist, and when it is allowed that he does, it is either as a nuisance or as an Oriental. The web of racism, cultural stereotypes, political imperialism, dehumanizing ideology holding in the Arab or the Muslim is very strong indeed, and it is this web which every Palestinian has come to feel as his uniquely punishing destiny” (Said, 1979: p. 27).
The quote above is from Orientalism’s introduction and gives an insight into how people from the Orient are seen in the West. After reading this quote one can presume that Said’s inspiration for the book came from him witnessing acts of unrighteousness against people from the Orient. Because of perceived cultural differences, people from the Orient are seen as less important than Westerners in Western society. Although my experience with people from the Orient being treated unfairly is not quite the same as Said’s, I too have had my eyes opened by personal experiences highlighting the way the West sees the Arabic world. I think many Westerners share my naivety. The current developments I talked about earlier create a political climate in which we are not getting closer together, but are drifting farther apart. If the way the West sees the Orient is to change, it is crucial to demonstrate that the differences are not as big as they may appear. Education can potentially build understanding and that requires debate and discussion in order to learn from each other’s cultures.
In Said’s essay ‘Orientalism Reconsidered’ he talks about how to defeat Orientalism. He writes that there is “a need for greater crossing of boundaries” (2000: p. 215). These boundaries between the Occident and the Orient can only be crossed by creating awareness of
the concept of Orientalism and the many different factors from which it is constructed namely “political, methodological, social and cultural” (Said, 2000: p. 215). So, Said believes that Orientalism can only be stopped if the source of Orientalism is identified and if we become aware of the destructive framework of the Orient that this source creates. Merely critiquing Orientalism is not enough. A methodological and political commitment to replace the current dominant discourse is needed in order to change it. This should be done collectively, because an individual cannot change the structure alone.
Said also highlights the role the intellectual can play in changing the dominant discourse, inspired by Italian scholar Antonio Gramsci’s book essay ‘The Intellectuals’ which is part of his Prison Notebooks (1971). Gramsci’s main argument in his essay ‘The Intellectuals’ is that “the notion of ‘the intellectual’ as a distinct social category independent of class is a myth. All men are potentially intellectual in the sense of having an intellect and using it, but not all are intellectuals by social function” (Gramsci, 1971: p. 1). In other words, all men have the possibility to influence the dominant ideology by convincing academics of an opposite to this ideology. Gramsci divides these intellectuals in two groups. The first consists of ‘functional intellectuals’. These are intellectuals by function: academics, for instance. The other group is made up of ‘organic intellectuals’: intellectuals that represent the ideas of the class of which they are a part (1971: p. 1). So, it is up to the ‘organic intellectuals’ to convince the ‘functional intellectuals’ of their ideas. Because, according to Gramsci, the ‘functional intellectuals’ determine the dominant ideology in society (1971; p. 10). Said believes that the role the intellectual plays in defeating Orientalism lies both in “the defining of a context and changing it” (2000: p. 215), for it is of major importance that the dominant ideology is to be changed and this starts with the intellectual.
To further illustrate the role that Gramsci’s intellectuals play in escaping the ideology of Orientalism I will return to the example of the Palestinian living in the United States with
which I started this section. The Palestinian is not seen as a part of American society, but as an outsider. If he is to become a part of American society, he must become conscious of the unjust way he is being treated. The only way for him to solve the problem of not being a part of American society is to first recognize the problem. This is where Gramsci’s intellectuals come in. An ‘organic intellectual’ is needed for the liberation of the Palestinian. This person has to change the status quo and subsequently ‘free’ the Palestinian from “the web of racism, cultural stereotypes, political imperialism and dehumanizing ideology” that Said talks about in the first place (Said, 1979: p.27). So, changing the dominant ideology starts with the creation of awareness by intellectuals.
After awareness has been created, it is then up to the people to bring about a change. It should become clear that it is not only parties of the radical right and their followers which have a false view of the Orient. Yes, they use Anti-Islamism as a way to win votes and therefore the perception is created that that only those on the extreme right of the political spectrum share such ideas. However, Said would argue that this view is inherent to Western society as a whole, and therefore not restricted to those in far-right politics and its followers (Said, 1975: p. 28). Only if Orientalism is seen as a problem that affects the whole of society, can it truly be changed. This is because of the dominant idea that Westerners have of the Orient. Because it is inherent to Western society, people are subconsciously biased towards the West and automatically favour Western countries above countries in the Middle-East, for instance. To counter this, people must be open towards and interested in Oriental culture, and sceptical and critical of how Western politicians and media outlets portray it. Instead of dehumanising by spreading of negativity by politics and media, a process of humanisation should begin. If people in the West can realise that people from the Orient are not as different from themselves as they imagined, we may be closer to solving the problem of Orientalism.
Or is it really that easy? Are the solutions Said suggests sufficient? Can we truly free ourselves from the trap of Orientalism? According to Said, it cannot be escaped completely, and I am inclined to agree with him. To escape one must be part of Oriental culture, and it is perhaps hoping for the impossible for a Westerner to shake off a bias towards the Orient. As I said before, I base this insight not only from my reading of Said, but personal experience. During the course of my studies, and again in writing this thesis, I was confronted with the fact that my own Western identity means that I will never be able to fully understand Oriental culture. I will always have my Western upbringing, education, roots, family and friends, and, whether I like it or not, these elements will always be a part of how I judge others. So, perhaps Orientalism cannot be escaped, at least not entirely. But this albeit rather pessimistic view does not excuse the need for effort, engagement and dialogue to build understanding.
Conclusion
I have examined the ideology of Orientalism and I have defended the claim that it is still relevant today and must be escaped in order to prevent further polarisation between the Occident and the Orient. However, before I could defend this claim I had to analyse Edward Said’s intellectual journey in order to gain an understanding of the most important subjects about which Said talks, and how these subjects developed over the course of his academic career. In the beginning of the book two general definitions of Orientalism are introduced, neither of which adequately describes what it is really about, according to Said. Said provides a third definition, that Orientalism is a way in which the West dominates, restructures and retains authority over the Orient, which they have been doing since the start of colonialism (Said, 1979: p. 3). So, Orientalism is used by the Occident to retain its dominance of the Orient. Subsequently, I looked at the two key themes Said discusses throughout his academic career: the representation of other cultures, societies and histories; and the relationship between
knowledge and power. It is of great importance to note that the way the West represents other cultures is unique to the West. The West is the only culture that creates these kinds of frameworks of other cultures, so the concept of Orientalism in all its facets is unique to the West. It is also crucial to look at the discourse surrounding Orientalism in order to understand it. I hope to have shown that this is necessary in order to understand the relationship between knowledge and power. Said does not deny the power of institutions, but his main focus is on the role played by the individual. According to him, it is possible for individuals to influence the dominant discourse.
After describing and analysing Said’s intellectual journey I set out to answer the question: is Orientalism still relevant? Said’s book was written almost forty years ago, and the world has changed. I concluded that what he wrote then is indeed still relevant today, but the focus has shifted towards large parts of the Middle-East rather than the whole of the Orient. The reasons for this shift are increased terrorist attacks in Western countries, Western involvement in the conflict in Syria and the fact that refugees that have come to Europe because of this conflict. Because of these reasons, negative contact between the West and the Middle-East has grown, highlighting differences. Therefore, I would argue that the issue of Orientalism is more relevant today than ever. As a consequence of the rise of social media, the dominant ideology that the West has of the Orient is reinforced in real time. But there is also a role for social media to play in bridging differences by spreading positivity. Either way, in the current environment differences between the Occident and the Orient are still being highlighted. In order to bridge these differences, we need to escape Orientalism.
But is it even possible to escape Orientalism if we wanted to? To answer this question, I looked at Said’s essay ‘Orientalism Reconsidered’ in which he looks back at his famous book and offers solutions for the problem of Orientalism. Said says that boundaries between the Occident and the Orient have to be crossed in order to fight Orientalism. This can only be done
by creating awareness. We must become aware of this problem, because it cannot be changed otherwise. For us to become aware, there must be someone to pave the way. This role is filled by the intellectuals. They created the problem of Orientalism in the first place, so they have the power to make a change for the better. If they can make clear to the people that Orientalism is a problem that is inherent to Western society, and not just to the radical right, it is up to the people to act on this. They have to be more open to Oriental culture for a process of humanisation to start. The intellectuals must work collectively in order to achieve this.
However, I do not think that the solutions Said poses are enough. It is indeed possible to be more open towards other cultures and educate yourself about a culture, but unless one is part of this culture it is never possible to fully understand it. Disheartening as this conclusion may be, it should not be the end of it. There is still a lot of ground to be gained and progress to be made in bridging differences between cultures using the methods that I have described. Even while I doubt it is possible for the issue of Orientalism to be resolved entirely, every small step towards unity instead of division is helpful. From personal experience, I realise that I had been naive in my views of Arabic culture. Only from studying it did I have the feeling that I had gained a greater understanding. Even in my research for this thesis I was often confronted by the fact that I cannot fully understand Oriental culture, perhaps because I am not a part of it. In the end, that is what really opened my eyes. When I set out on this quest I had imagined I had a reasonable understanding of the Orient. It turned out that I had a lot to learn. I made mistakes in interpreting facets of Oriental culture while studying academic pieces for this thesis. Ironically, this makes me an Orientalist. But I like to think that, in recognising that and acknowledging the need to change, I have at least taken a small step in my intellectual journey for truth.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alghamdi, E. A. (2015) The Representation of Islam in Western Media: The Coverage of Norway Terrorist Attacks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(2), pp. 198-204.
Berkey, J. (2010). Islam. In R. Irwin (Ed.), The New Cambridge History of Islam (pp.17-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (2013) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971) Prison Notebooks, Lawrence and Wishart: London.
Hänska-Ahy, M. (2016) Networked Communication and the Arab Spring: Linking Broadcast and Social Media. New Media & Society, 18(1), pp. 99-116.
Ibrahim, K. (2016, May 25th) "Radical" vs. "Moderate" Islam: A Muslim View. Retrieved on May 29th 2017 from https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8101/radical-moderate-islam Inglehart, R.F., Norris, P. (2016), Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic
Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard Kennedy School, 16(26), pp. 1-48.
Lewis, B. (1990) The roots of Muslim rage: why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified. The Atlantic, pp. 47-60.
Li, D. (2016) A Jihadism Anti-Primer. Middle-Eastern Report: On ISIS, 276(45).
McLean, I. & McMillan, A. (2009) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Racevskis, K. (2005) Edward Said and Michel Foucault: Affinities and Dissonances. Research in African Literatures, 36(3), pp. 83-97.
Said, E.W. (2000) Reflections On Exile and Other Essays. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Van Spanje, J. (2010) Anti-Immigration Parties and Their Impact on Other Parties’ Immigration Stances in Contemporary Western Europe. Party Politics, 16(5), pp. 563-586.
