Talk:Orientalism

a===Neutral Point of View (abused)=== My attempt to note that many scholars would question what this page merely asserts was met with reverts. So, I ask, if I can't say that some scholars think "Orientalism" is nonsense, may I assert without qualification, that Ingres' work is "arty soft-core cryptopornography"?

PS: Despite the quip, "Sofa" is a Turkish word, just like Divan. But then actually learning an "Oriental" language takes precious time away from learning to theorize.

• Hi, 209.94.133.143. Here at the Wikipedia, we approach all articles from a Neutral point of view. No exceptions. Your statement dismissed the previous paragraphs without so much as a single rebuttal. You don't know how much research and deliberation went into making the article, so you can't just do that. If you have something to add (say, a "criticisms of orientalism" section), then let's flesh it out right here; the talk page is the right place to discuss such issues. Now, what are your problems with the current article? Which scholars would question it, and why? Let's work together to make the article better. --Ardonik 08:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I would be terribly interested if someone wrote a paragraph naming exactly which scholars actually think that orientalism is non-sense and what their criticisms are. The "usual suspects" (i.e. Alan Bloom and Dinesh D'Souza) seem pretty profoundly uninterested in the topic. There is a *HUGE* controversy over Said himself, but this doesn't as far as I know extend to his work.

One of the main points of orientalism is that Europeans of the early 19th century tended to lump together China, India, and the Middle East into one category with a presumed uniform history. I don't know of any recent scholar that (1) denies that Europeans of the early 19th century did this and (2) thinks that lumping together China, India, and the Middle East into one category is useful or generally a good idea.

Roadrunner 08:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You sound like someone informed on the subject of Orientalism (unlike me). The new paragraph is a vast improvment, I think; would either of you mind if I moved this stuff into a rudimentary "criticisms of Orientalism" section? --Ardonik 09:05, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I've noticed the word "oriental" used as a derogatory term in the last bunch of decades - is this a wrong impression I have? Should the text perhaps have some examples of this?

Usually it's not used directly as an insult but the term generalizes people from a HUGE geographic region and that generality tends to help with marginalizing their experiences. I've seen situations where that type of thinking results in some racial slurs that turn out to be inaccurate and the insulted "Oriental" ends up laughing at the ignorant bigot. Although it's really no laughing manner since I think "oriental" is closely tied in with the thinking that they all look alike, so there's no need to differentiate between the "oriental" races. Frankly, that is why I have a strong reaction against any attempts to try label "orientalism" as a valid scholarly pursuit as it seems to be an affirmation of the Eurocentric and Western-biased thinking that has colored this academic pursuit from the start. -kainee, 19:04 April 28 2005

The article lists the publication date of Said's book Orientalism as 1979, yet the article Edward Said lists it as 1978. The University of California at Irvine's Critical Theory website shows the book being published by Pantheon in 1978, and has an entry for 1977, most likely a shorter article with the same title (a precursor to the book?). I'm going to change the publication date to 1978, but it would be nice if someone could clarify the relationship of the Georgia Review article of the same name (or perhaps that belongs on the Said page). Mykej 05:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the opening section because it confuses several issues. 'Colonialism' was not exclusive to the east - which was known for a long time before colonialism itself. Secondly the East was not simply 'the other' (a problematic concept), since there was also Africa, the Americas and other parts of the world that were characterised differently.

The following notion as expressed above by 'Roadrunner' seems to me to be false, "One of the main points of orientalism is that Europeans of the early 19th century tended to lump together China, India, and the Middle East into one category with a presumed uniform history." Not as far as I'm aware! From the late 18th century there was extensive research into this area. Of course knowledge of these areas was patchy and developed slowly, and no doubt there were generalised ideas of Eastern culture - as there are among many people today, in whom the generalised West/East opposition persists. Paul B 11:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly suspicious about the concepts described here. Clearly Westerners were fascinated by the Orient as they gradually became aware of it. Attitudes were not universally negative - though some were - the idea of the "Inscrutable Oriental" for example. Out-and-out racism developed later on as "scientific" racialism took hold, but was directed at Africans rather than Asians whom racists generally took to be on a higher plane of development and civilisation (if not quite on the level of white Europeans). In the 20th C the rise of Japan was seen as a threat to European and American hegemony and this encouraged a fear of the "yellow peril" - echoed again in Western attitudes to Communist China, North Korea and North Vietnam.

But all this seems to be quite different to the way that Orientalism is said by Said and his followers to be akin to Islamophobia or imperialism. China and Japan, the main objects of Orientalism, were never colonised (India and SE Asia were). The Middle East only was occupied by Western powers for a brief period after World War I. During the 19thC it was part of the Ottoman Empire and was not seen as an area where Western colonisation was a practical possibility. Orientalism IMO desribes an attitude to a culture which was a rival to the West in its long history of civilisation and sophisticated arts, crafts and philosophy - an attitude which was very mixed.

Totally my own POV so doesn't belong in the article but surely Said's interpretation doesn't have the field to itself?

Something should surely also be said about Eastern attitudes to the West in this period. To ignore this appears itself somewhat culturally biased!

Exile 17:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find the use of the words "orient" or "oriental" very anachronistic as it seems very based in the mentality of Marco Polo's journey to the "Orient." I would say that most so called "Oriental" people refer to themselves in more ethnic and nationalistic terms like Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, etc. Hence, the reason for the splitting of the old Oriental Studies into more regional studies. It's akin to scholarly pursuit about Western cultures- it would be terribly insensitive for there to just be a "White Studies" that just lumps everyone in the same category and talks in generalities about culture and custom. Usually there would also be the same sort of specialization in a specific region's language, culture and society. Of course this is all my opinion but I see using the term "orient" or "oriental" as inaccurate and reflective of the old bias of an eurocentric view. It can actually be construed as disrespect and callousness. Also, before reading this article, I had no idea "occidental" was the term used opposite "oriental." I think that goes to show something about the bias here. -kainee, 13:48, April 27 2005 (EST)

Hi Kainee.

I don't think there is "a bias here". The article is about the Western scholarly and cultural tradition of interest in Eastern cultures, which has traditionally beeen called "Orientalism". I see no reason why people in the East can't also have had a generic concept of "Western studies", or why that would be "insensitive" to the West. "Orient" is just a word, in itself is no different from "Asian" in that it "lumps everyone in the same category". We have both big/inclusive and narrow/specific concepts in many areas. Obviously specialists will exist who will have a more thorough knowledge of distinct cultures. The main problem with "Oriental" as a concept in our globalised culture is the fact that it presupposes that a Western point of view. The fact that term has taken on some specific cultural meanings is also relevant to the article. Paul B 18:20, Apr 27 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry as I should clarify. I meant "a bias here" to point to the usage of Orient and Oriental since in the definition, it was deemed necessary to point out that it was coined by Westerners. I felt the bias in the name (not in the article) was in how it was first created and by whom. I think it is a term that shouldn't be used as it is an anachronism. Exile's post earlier that points out that China and Japan weren't colonised seems to gloss over the fact that those two countries still suffered from the imperialistic policies of the European countries who certainly in many cases had no respect for the sovereignty of the native government. Also, the label of "occidental" is considered antiquated so why can't "Oriental" be considered an anachronism too? -kainee 14:32, April 27 2005

'Occidental' is simply antiquated in relation to Western, which is the identical term, except in English. People talk about 'Western culture' all the time without thinking it is demeaning. I don't think the word's the real problem. Paul B 18:58, Apr 27 2005 (UTC)

Then why can't it just be Eastern studies? There seems to be a persistent insistence to use this specific label of "Orient" and frankly, the only time I hear this word used is when Westerners use it to describe an Eastern culture. It's weird to see this dichotomy in usage. All I'm trying to point out is that the term Oriental seems to be falling into disuse and except for a few cheap marketing schemes, it doesn't seem to be viewed as a very scholarly name by the different people and cultures "Orientalism" is supposed to focus on. It just seems to me like the people editing this entry are determined to keep the label, Oriental, no matter what valid points might be brought up such as the negative connotations/stereotypes that this label has taken on. -kainee 06:10, Apr 28 2005

Let's look at the original text....

I think that some basic essential points are not present in this conversation and the post.

Orientalism (1978) is so important because it articulated the idea that the colonizers (mainly Britain and France in Said's example) used the idea of the Orient to contrast their own image, idea, personality, experience (pg. 2). He defines Orientalism as, "a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made betwee "the Orient" and (most of the time) "the Occident."" (pg. 2).

It's an academic tradition, which is where/why it gains discursive power. As a result, the Orient is bound by the ideas of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories and landscapes (pg. 1) that the colonizing West projected and created, therefore calling into being on "the Orient".

The thing I find missing is the concept of mutual definition exemplified by Orientalism: The colonizerItalic textreliesItalic text on the exotic Other to define Italic texthimItalic textself [gendered language intentional].

Said, Edward. (1978). Italic textOrientalismItalic text. New York: Vintage Books.