Book Review: “Orientalism” by Edward Said
Though Orientalism by Edward Said is a foundational text for post-colonial studies, it is not necessarily a shining example of critical analysis, especially not one which ostensibly sets out from a Marxist basis. The basic thesis of the text, that “knowledge” produced by Europeans about the “Orient” will be tied directly to the relation of the West to it, including imperialism, holds true. Though it appears as obvious to many of us today, it is still important to emphasize, particularly given the presently ramping up of a new Cold War, where orientalist tropes are used, explicitly and implicitly, to cast the “Red East,” “oriental despots” and so on as the greatest threat to global society in existence.
This does not mean we should settle solely for Said’s analysis and framing of orientalism. He is limited in methodology by eclecticism. At the same time that he borrows from the all-critical lens of Michel Foucault, he takes up the banner of radical humanism. His use of Foucault becomes odd and in contradiction with the rest of the text when Said over-emphasizes continuity between eras. Said fails to differentiate between the xenophobia of medieval and early modern Europe from the racism of contemporary Europe. Rather, he paints it all with the same brush, apparently as an ever-present essence in “Western” culture.
Though this appears to be radical in being critical of the West, it naturalizes orientalism and de-emphasizes the importance of development and rupture in social relations. The orientalism of capitalist-imperialist Europe is not the same as the orientalism of feudal Europe because the two are not the exact same societies. Though there is some continuity of the framing of orientalism, this is true of all aspects of European cultures. That Said projects 19th and 20th century European imperialism so far back throughout centuries is incompatible with Foucault’s famous emphasis of discontinuity of “epistemes,” or guiding ideological logics of an era, and of proper historicization. In terms of time and space, Said fails to justify his projection. He does not either prove sameness in the orientalism applied to West Asia and North Africa with that applied to East Asia, nor does he make an attempt to condition his claims with distinguishing them.
At the same time that Said critiques European academia for essentializing the East as irrational, superstitious, and weak and the West as rational, strong, and efficient, he engages in his own essentialisms. Said describes the entire culture of WANA with “Arab-Islamic” cultures. This completely erases the history and living existence of non-Arab and non-Muslim minorities in the region, such as Armenians, Imazighen, Baháʼís, Mizrahim, and Assyrians.
Said’s critique is not without merit. But it is essentially a basic and flawed critique of European orientalism in WANA. It overextends itself through trans-historical claims and essentialism, losing sight of changes in the world-system. These are issues that Samir Amin points out in his book Eurocentrism, which deals with this topic much more successfully. Amin properly historicizes these concepts, demonstrating the shift in the world-system from WANA as the core and Europe as the periphery to the opposite. We would recommend Amin’s book as the superior alternative to Said’s.