Over thirty years since its publication, and ten since the death of its author Edward Said, Orientalism (1978) continues to have a profound effect on Middle East studies. Orientalism positioned Said as one of the founders and chief authorities in postcolonial criticism, opening the ‘floodgate[s] . . . that breached the authority of Western scholarship on Other societies’ (Prakash, 1995: 99); consequently work produced in the field since has often been in response to Said’s scholarship (Sullivan, Ismael,1991: 2). Discovering the true or underlying implications of Orientalism for the social scientific study of the Middle East will be the remit of this essay.
Table of Contents
1. The implications of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) for the social scientific study of the contemporary Middle East
2. The Implications of Said’s Orientalism
3. The Underlying Implications of Said’s Orientalism
4. Conclusion: Moving Forward
Objectives & Core Topics
This essay aims to critically evaluate the implications of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) for the social scientific study of the Middle East. It examines whether Said’s theory—which posits that Western knowledge of the Orient is inherently linked to power and imperial interests—renders objective study of the region impossible, while proposing a more nuanced "underlying" interpretation that addresses the flaws in his original argument.
- The impact of Said’s Orientalism on Middle East studies.
- The relationship between Western discourse, knowledge, and imperial power.
- Critical assessment of Said’s methodology, use of sources, and generalizations.
- The possibility of achieving objective social scientific research in the contemporary Middle East.
- Shifting from a dichotomous "us vs. them" dialogue toward mutuality.
Excerpt from the Book
The Implications of Said’s Orientalism
For Said, ‘Orientalism is a style of thought based upon the ontological and epistemological distinction made between “the Orient” and (most of the time) “the Occident.”’ (ibid: 2). This style of thought, the acceptance of a distinction between Orient and Occident (with the Orient as the antithesis of the ‘civilised’, ‘cultured’ Occident, or West), encompasses a ‘large mass of writers’, including ‘poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists and imperial administrators.’ (ibid: 3); thus creating a ‘political vision of reality’ promoting a very real difference ‘between the familiar (Europe, the West, “us”) and the strange (the Orient, the East, “them”)’ (ibid: 43). Said argues that this discourse has existed from the time of Homer to Marx, right through to the present day. Thus a ‘corporate institution’ has been created by the West, which defines and deals with the Orient, ‘by making statements about it, teaching it, settling it, ruling over it’; in brief, a Western discourse ‘for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient’ (ibid: 1-3). Therefore the Orient cannot be a subject that involves freedom of thought.
Chapter Summaries
1. The implications of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) for the social scientific study of the contemporary Middle East: This section introduces Said’s work as a foundational text in postcolonial criticism and establishes the essay's intent to explore its implications for objective research.
2. The Implications of Said’s Orientalism: This section details Said’s primary arguments, specifically the "corporate institution" of Orientalism and the inherent connection he draws between Western knowledge and imperial power.
3. The Underlying Implications of Said’s Orientalism: This section critically analyzes Said’s theory, exposing flaws in his source usage and his essentialization of the Occident, while identifying more rational, underlying conclusions for social scientists.
4. Conclusion: Moving Forward: The final section synthesizes the analysis, arguing that while Said’s text remains a keystone, social scientists must look beyond the "us vs. them" dichotomy to foster a more objective, dialogic approach to Middle Eastern studies.
Keywords
Orientalism, Edward Said, Middle East Studies, Occident, Orient, Discourse, Postcolonialism, Power, Imperialism, Social Science, Representation, Knowledge, Essentialism, Methodology, Objective Research
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic work?
The work examines the impact of Edward Said’s 1978 book, Orientalism, specifically questioning how his theory of Western discourse affects the potential for objective social scientific study of the Middle East.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The essay covers postcolonial theory, the relationship between knowledge and political power (Foucault), Western imperialism, the misrepresentation of the "Other," and the evolution of academic research practices.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to determine if Said’s assertion—that Western research on the Orient is inherently flawed and biased—is entirely accurate, or if an "underlying" interpretation allows for objective study.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a two-pronged approach: first, summarizing and applying Said’s theory as a holistic framework, and second, applying critical scholarship to test that framework for internal contradictions and methodological faults.
What is the main subject matter of the main body?
The main body deconstructs Said’s key claims, such as the claim that knowledge equals power, and critiques his selective use of sources and his generalized view of Western writers.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Orientalism, Discourse, Power, Imperialism, Essentialism, and Objectivity in social science.
How does the author evaluate the use of Karl Marx in Said’s work?
The author identifies a specific instance of source misuse, noting that Said incorrectly cites Marx’s analysis of 19th-century French peasants to justify a theory about the representation of the Orient.
Why does the author consider German Orientalism a counterexample?
German Orientalism is highlighted because Germany lacked a significant imperial presence in the Orient, proving that knowledge and scholarly inquiry did not always lead to power in the way Said claims.
What is the author's final recommendation for social scientists?
The author suggests that instead of abandoning the study of the Middle East, social scientists must approach literature and research with greater scrutiny to avoid perpetuating biased, dichotomous discourse.
- Quote paper
- Matthew Vickery (Author), 2012, Implications of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) for the social scientific study of the contemporary Middle East, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/208957
