Orientalism

[acharya]

The Dysfunction of Orientalism: An Immoral Paradigm

As Americans, we are the inheritors of a dangerous cultural and historical paradigm of misrepresentation that has been constructed over long centuries; one that has ingrained itself in our society as a base of both knowledge and power. In the current state of the world, and the possible war we now face, this essentialist presupposition threatens to inspire choices, reactions, and even human casualties beyond the scope of moral reason. Edward Said, in his 1978 book titled by the same name, called this system “Orientalism,” an interdependent series of systems by which the “West” establishes its own essence over that of the “East,” governing social, political, and academic issues involving “European culture…setting itself off against the “Orient” as a sort of surrogate and even underground self; an ongoing discourse perpetuated by the basic assumption of the Orient as mysterious, unchanging, unable to represent itself, and ultimately inferior” (Said 4-5). As a global capitalist system forms, there remains a conspicuously Western framework patterned along legacies of imperialism and colonization, which can be shown through logical argument to be morally unsustainable.

The proposed argument consists of the following premises:

1) The established paradigm of “Orientalism” enables and perpetuates glaringly inconsistent political action and social views on the part of America that comprise the root of unnecessary suffering endured by Arab and Asiatic peoples.

2) Any system that enables and perpetuates glaringly inconsistent political action and social views on the part of America that comprise the root of unnecessary suffering endured by Arab and Asiatic peoples is an immoral system.

3) “Orientalism” is an immoral system.

The two theoretical entities of the “West” as “Self” and the “East” as “Other” have long been assumed by Americans to be ultimate and irreducible, comprising an assumed cultural essence contained in the constructed representation of the “Western mind” differentiated from the “Oriental mind” (Northrop 455). This very assumption guides many interdependent and related American foundations of knowledge and power, including the multimedia, mass culture, and the foreign policy decisions of the American government. This influential ideological force is the inheritance of a long history of cultural interaction between Europe and Asia, involving anti-Muslim crusades, imperialism and colonization (Pannikar 481). From the beginning of this interaction, a dichotomy was set into place: even with the later historical developments of nationalism, Marxism, and capitalism, social identities worldwide remained largely a matter of Eurocentric discourse (Prakash 1475).

The world since WW II has undergone a colonial aftermath in which newly independent states were formed by the dozens. In the wake of this blossoming of worldwide nationalism, an Orientalist outlook on behalf of America led quickly to sustained invasion and occupation of Palestinian Arab land. The Arabs were quickly marginalized and stereotyped, their autonomy and birthright to the inherent human freedoms America claims to uphold being steadily denied in the face of Zionism. To this day American Orientalist representations involving dehumanization of Arab people reveals a disproportionate and inconsistent foreign policy that runs contrary to international law.

Asia also was an inheritor to the enforcement of Orientalist doctrine. The world quickly became an arena for ideological pugilism with American capitalism in one corner facing Russian communism in the other. Both voices were matters of Eurocentric discourse, and all other voices in Asia were subsequently categorized and forced to place bets. While Ho Chi Minh carried a copy of the American Declaration of Independence to France, stating the independent ideal of his homeland, America fervently denied this right, while having fervently enforced it on Japan for already a decade. The Orientalist paradigm enabled such policy decisions through the basic perpetuation of a mentality that Marx himself even adhered to: “They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented” (Said 1).

These inconsistencies lead all the way up to the present day, from the military backing of the ruthlessly fundamentalist Afghani Taliban in their struggle against Russia to the backing of thoroughly corrupt political entities such as the Iranian Shah and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Any morally consistent paradigm would not overturn itself in a matter of two decades, but the Orientalist mindset of containment and forced representation requires such shifts, exemplified in all three of the above nations. Thus, the premise of inconsistency caused by the current paradigm is shown; the suffering, malnutrition, poverty, and amount of civilian deaths as a result of these chess-game maneuvers is unmistakably a disproportionate amount sustained by Arab and Asian peoples.

If the Orientalist mindset was not the basic framework for American global hegemony or for a global capitalist system defined, led, and perpetuated by America’s self-justified conspicuous consumption, then various human cultures around the globe would be approached on an equal footing. As one among dozens of equal human cultures engaging in coexistence, America would claim no rightful domain over any Arab or Asian people, and certainly would no longer feel required to represent, rule, or use military force in distant battlefields the world over. Thus, the policies, impacts, and results of musical-chair military intervention could all be laid to rest in an emerging community of globally-informed, moral communities, perfectly capable of defining and carrying out their own pursuit of freedom. A moral option not of isolationism, but of mutual respect and noninterference, is within human reach and can be realized; as Foucault said, “To unlearn is one of the important tasks of self-cultivation” (Foucault 97).

However, even though the current American paradigm of Orientalism can be shown to be morally inconsistent and can lead to profoundly negative and arbitrary international impacts, the process of dismantling such an ingrained view is daunting. A newspaper photograph of the Holy Koran appears after an act of terrorism, and Arabs across America are subject to assault, abuse, and even murder. One editorial appears about the Arab and/or Asian disregard for American, individualistic definitions of freedom and human rights, and a view of the people in question as hopelessly backwards, inferior, and dangerous is set into motion. The biggest potential immorality enabled and perpetuated by American Orientalism may indeed be the oncoming retaliatory war in response to the terror attacks of New York and Washington.

This paradigm is as cumbersome and self-perpetuating as it is morally flawed, falling into Foucault’s definition of a “discursive practice” which “takes shape in technical ensembles, in institutions, in behavioral schemes, in types of transmission and dissemination, in pedagogical forms that both inform and maintain them” (Foucault 12). As Americans, the views of our media and our government, our academia and our own mindsets are being informed and maintained by a paradigm with significant moral flaws. “Orientalism,” since the initial engagement of Arab and Asian societies elsewhere in the world, has been soaked in the blood and the misery of the “Other” by which we have defined the “Self.”
Works Cited

Foucault, Michel. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Trans. Robert Hurley. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: The New Press, 1997.

Northrop, F.S.C. The Meeting of East and West. New York: Collier Books, 1966.

Panikkar, K.M. Asia and Western Dominance. New York: The John Day Co., 1946.

Prakash, Gyan. “Subaltern Studies As Postcolonial Criticism.” The American Historical Review. 99 (1994): 1475-1490.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.

-Fall 2001

http://www.mindground.net/orientalism.html

http://www.mindground.net/westphil.html
Research On Ancient Western Philosophy

Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and the Atomists

In Search of Aristotle’s Soul

Of Emptiness and Being: A Comparative Analysis of Parmenides and Nagarjuna

Timaeus and His Cosmos

The Good Of the Whole: Stoic Ethics and Cosmology

Stoic Cognition: To Grasp the Truth

Recommended Readings:

PHILOSOPHY LEGENDS ARCHIVE GRECO-ROMAN TEACHINGS

Related Links:

ANCIENT WESTERN PHILOSOPHY LINKS


Research On Modern Western Philosophy

Views of Science Changed and Confirmed

Wisdom’s Cataracts: Descartes’ Investigation of Human Imperfection

The Shadow Play of “Uninterrupted Continuance”: A Critique of Locke and Reid On Personal Identity

The Necessary Existence of God: Theological Debate in Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

When the Blade Meets the Wood: Kant’s Practical Philosophy

The Discourse Between Art and Politics: 1830-2001

Identity and Ethnicity in E.L. Doctorow’s Ragtime

The Dysfunction of Orientalism: An Immoral Paradigm

Cursing the Carriage For Not Pulling the Horse: The Neutrality of “Orientalism”

“Orientalism” and the West: The Carriage and Its Driver

The Nature of Spinoza: A Reassurance and a Dare

The Soul’s Cultivation: Education and Human Perfectibility in Wollstonecraft’s Vindication

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->“Orientalism” and the West: The Carriage and Its Driver

              As Americans, we are the inheritors of a dangerous cultural and historical paradigm of misrepresentation that has been constructed over long centuries; one that has ingrained itself in our society as a base of both knowledge and power.  In the current state of the world, and the “war against terrorism,” this presupposition threatens to inspire choices, reactions, and even human casualties beyond the scope of moral reason.  Edward Said, in his 1978 book titled by the same name, called this system “Orientalism,” an interdependent series of systems by which the “West” establishes its own essence over that of the “East,” governing social, political, and academic issues involving “European culture…setting itself off against the “Orient” as a sort of surrogate and even underground self; an ongoing discourse perpetuated by the basic assumption of the Orient as mysterious, unchanging, unable to represent itself, and ultimately inferior” (Said 4-5).  As a global capitalist system forms, there remains a conspicuously Western framework patterned along legacies of imperialism and colonization, which can be shown through logical argument to be morally unsustainable.

              The proposed argument consists of the following premises:

1)        The established paradigm of “Orientalism” enables and perpetuates glaringly inconsistent political action and social views on the part of America that comprise the root of unnecessary suffering endured by Arab and Asiatic peoples.

2)      Any system that enables and perpetuates glaringly inconsistent political action and social views on the part of America that comprise the root of unnecessary suffering endured by Arab and Asiatic peoples is an immoral system.

3)      “Orientalism” is an immoral system.

                The two theoretical entities of the “West” as “Self” and the “East” as “Other” have long been assumed by Americans to be ultimate and irreducible, comprising an assumed cultural essence contained in the constructed representation of the “Western mind” differentiated from the “Oriental mind” (Northrop 455).  This very assumption guides many interdependent and related American foundations of knowledge and power, including the multimedia, mass culture, and the foreign policy decisions of the American government.  This influential ideological force is the inheritance of a long history of cultural interaction between Europe and Asia, involving anti-Muslim crusades, imperialism and colonization (Pannikar 481).  From the beginning of this interaction, a dichotomy was set into place: even with the later historical developments of nationalism, Marxism, and capitalism, social identities worldwide remained largely a matter of Eurocentric discourse (Prakash 1475).

                The world since WW II has undergone a colonial aftermath in which newly independent states were formed by the dozens.  In the wake of this blossoming of worldwide nationalism, an “Orientalist” outlook on behalf of America led quickly to sustained invasion and occupation of Palestinian Arab land.  The Arabs were quickly marginalized and stereotyped, their autonomy and birthright to the inherent human freedoms America claims to uphold being steadily denied in the face of Zionism.  To this day American “Orientalist” representations involving dehumanization of Arab people reveals a disproportionate and inconsistent foreign policy that runs contrary to international law.

                Asia also was an inheritor to the enforcement of “Orientalist” doctrine.  The world quickly became an arena for ideological pugilism with American capitalism in one corner facing Russian communism in the other.  Both voices were matters of Eurocentric discourse, and all other voices in Asia were subsequently categorized and forced to place bets.  While Ho Chi Minh carried a copy of the American Declaration of Independence to France, stating the independent ideal of his homeland, America fervently denied this right, while having fervently enforced it on Japan for already a decade.  The “Orientalist” paradigm enabled such policy decisions through the basic perpetuation of a mentality that Marx himself even adhered to:  “They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented” (Said 1).

                These inconsistencies lead all the way up to the present day, from the military backing of the ruthlessly fundamentalist Afghani Taliban in their struggle against Russia to the backing of thoroughly corrupt political entities such as the Iranian Shah and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.  Any morally consistent paradigm would not overturn itself in a matter of two decades, but the “Orientalist” mindset of containment and forced representation requires such shifts, exemplified in all three of the above nations.  Thus, the premise of inconsistency caused by the current paradigm (the second premise in this argument) is shown; the suffering, malnutrition, poverty, and amount of civilian deaths as a result of these chess-game maneuvers is unmistakably a disproportionate amount sustained by Arab and Asian peoples.

                If the “Orientalist” mindset was not the basic framework for American global hegemony or for a global capitalist system defined, led, and perpetuated by America’s self-justified conspicuous consumption, then various human cultures around the globe would be approached on an equal footing.  As one among dozens of equal human cultures engaging in coexistence, America would claim no rightful domain over any Arab or Asian people, and certainly would no longer feel required to represent, rule, or use military force in distant battlefields the world over.  Thus, the policies, impacts, and results of musical-chair military intervention could all be laid to rest in an emerging community of globally-informed, moral communities, perfectly capable of defining and carrying out their own pursuit of freedom.  A moral option not of isolationism, but of mutual respect and noninterference, is within human reach and can be realized; as Foucault said, “To unlearn is one of the important tasks of self-cultivation” (Foucault 97).

                However, even though the current American paradigm of “Orientalism” can be shown to be morally inconsistent and can lead to profoundly negative and arbitrary international impacts, the process of dismantling such an ingrained view is daunting.  A newspaper photograph of the Holy Koran appears after an act of terrorism, and Arabs across America are subject to assault, abuse, and even murder.  One editorial appears about the Arab and/or Asian disregard for American, individualistic definitions of freedom and human rights, and a view of the people in question as hopelessly backwards, inferior, and dangerous is set into motion.  The biggest potential immorality enabled and perpetuated by American “Orientalism” may indeed be the ongoing retaliatory war in response to the terror attacks of New York and Washington.

                This paradigm is as cumbersome and self-perpetuating as it is morally flawed, falling into Foucault’s definition of a “discursive practice” which “takes shape in technical ensembles, in institutions, in behavioral schemes, in types of transmission and dissemination, in pedagogical forms that both inform and maintain them” (Foucault 12).  As Americans, the views of our media and our government, our academia and our own mindsets are being informed and maintained by a paradigm with significant moral flaws.  “Orientalism,” since the initial engagement of Arab and Asian societies elsewhere in the world, has been soaked in the blood and the misery of the “Other” by which we have defined the “Self.”

                A critic of my position might offer the following argument:

1)        The system of “Orientalist” discourse is driven by issues of capitalism and nationalism which contain their own moral worth (or lack of it), and the definition of the “West” and the “East” is informed along the way without itself containing a certain moral value.

2)      Any system that is driven by issues which contain their own moral worth (or lack of it) without itself containing a certain moral value cannot be said to be immoral.

3)      Therefore, “Orientalism” cannot be said to be immoral.

This argument claims that the dichotomy of Orient and Occident emerges out of a neutral moral state, a misrepresentation that is itself a natural process in all cultures in dealing with the initial strangeness of other cultures.  It is apparent that many political actions and social views of America inconsistently favor and sustain, inflict and cultivate unnecessary suffering endured by Arab and Asiatic peoples. The roots of this bias, however, deal with a complex interflow between systems of capitalism, wealth distribution, and nationalist issues of power, as opposed to an oversimplified ideological discourse, according to the above argument.  In this sense, “Orientalism” is not something that can be isolated and cursed on its own.  Rather, the “horse” that pulls this “carriage” controls its moral direction; the carriage itself is stationary and morally neutral.

                This neutral carriage is comprised of the initial definitions of “Self” and “Other” involved with an “Orientalist” view that leads to other dichotomous attributes,such as “known/ mysterious,” “West/East,” “frontier/homeland,” etc.  However, no moral evaluation can be made until this view begins to apply both quantitative and qualitative values to the equation, such as “rich/poor,” “fortunate/downtrodden,” “advanced/backward,” or “superior/inferior.”  These evaluations are made only when the initial theory of “Orientalism” becomes informed by factors which contain certain amounts (or deficiencies) of morality.  These factors invariably include both capitalism and nationalism, world systems that transcend the bounds of any region-specific view such as “Orientalism,” while informing such views to the extent that they are overshadowed by these larger forces at play.

                Departing from the value claims intrinsic to “Orientalist” theory may at first seem like a process of deconstruction or dissection of the original ideas of Said and others.  But a close look can illustrate that the very fuels that drove and continue to drive “Orientalism” as a whole do not leave it as an independent entity that can be judged or evaluated on its own grounds.  The various world systems through which we are informed of our “Western Selves” and, concurrently, define the “Eastern Others” simultaneously transcend and steer these perceptions, presenting the illusion that the original dichotomy is to blame.

                For example, some of the most fundamental driving factors in “Orientalism” as it is practiced by the “West”, such as colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, and nationalism, take place on a worldwide scale that renders “West vs. East” as only a small aspect of a much larger equation.  The empire of Japan is one of the most prominent examples.  Japan cannot be attributed a wholly “Western” status, neither through geographical location nor through its unique culture.  Yet, this country has had a long legacy of colonial and imperial impulses in Asia, and even today follows the winds of global capital and consumer culture very closely, while still retaining a very particular form of nationalism.  Every inconsistent political action and social view on the part of America that could be said to perpetuate “Orientalism” has been practiced and perpetuated in its own way in Japan.  Examples are replete, from the puppet government of Manchukuo during WWII (to rule over the “inferior” Chinese people) to the rape of the forests of Malaysia (forests with infinitely less importance than Japan’s own), from the sexual enslavement of “comfort women” who were kidnapped all across Asia during the war (who have yet to receive an apology) to consistent discrimination against both the indigenous Ainu people of North Japan and the internal lower caste known as the Bakumin (ancient family lineages stigmatized for their trade in leather goods, thought of as an unclean Japanese race).

                Other world issues that run on “Orientalist” fuels yet remain beyond the realm of such a discourse, bringing into question the moral accountability of the discourse in and of itself, include the political action and social views America has employed towards Central, Latin, and South America.  From brutal and oppressive puppet regimes to notorious sweat shops, from an ingrained preference of power for half-white “mestizo” races to fervent support of aggressive capitalist policies, every tendency that could be described as “Orientalist” has been practiced towards this world region, which is a marginalized “Western” region, but certainly not an example of America’s representational model of the “Orient.”

                The ideological horses pulling the carriage of “Orientalism” as it is practiced by America, therefore, can only be morally evaluated on a worldwide basis.  The same Americans who killed Panamanian civilians are now killing Afghani civilians.  The same irrational preference for and support of corrupt or sadistic governments to achieve unrealistic ideals can be seen in both Columbia and Israel.  An inconsistent amount of suffering, malnourishment, poverty, and death perpetuated by American foreign policy is indeed sustained by Asian and Arab peoples; tragically, however, this trend extends well beyond American concepts of “Eastern” or “Oriental” cultures, and such injustice is employed by any country that wields enough power, as can be seen in the example of Japan.

                Therefore, a process for positive change in regard to America’s “Orientalist” foreign policies must take into account that its very moral questionability does not lie in the simple dichotomy of “Self” and “Other,” “East” and “West,” which incidentally are necessary for discourse between regional cultures to continue.  Instead, the moral accountability of the larger forces at hand must be brought to the scrutiny of a larger justice, including those of global capitalism, nationalistic narrow-mindedness, and cultural delusions of superiority.  All three of these horses pull the carriage, without which “Orientalism” would remain on the morally neutral ground of one culture engaging in discourse with another.

                Although this second argument is a valid one, and constructs a solid framework for the concept that “Orientalism” itself cannot be said to be immoral, the initial analogy and subsequently the first premise can be shown to be unsound.  The “carriage” of “Orientalism” is undeniably pulled by the “horses” of capitalism, nationalism, and cultural superiority, but these horses are guided and informed in certain directions by an intrinsic part of the carriage that does contain a certain moral value: the driver.

                Said’s claim from the very beginning is that European culture is both the builder and the driver of the carriage of “Orientalism,” giving focus and drive to the horses mentioned above.  The quantitative and qualitative values mentioned in my critic’s argument, such as “rich/poor,” “fortunate/downtrodden,” “advanced/backward,” or “superior/inferior,” are thoroughly infused with the original and neutral dichotomy of “Self” and “Other” because of the “Self” involved, mainly European/American culture.  In this way, the assertion in the first premise of my critic’s argument, that “the definition of the ‘West’ and the ‘East’ is informed along the way without itself containing a certain moral value,” is unsound.  The very definition is informed upon its creation, namely by the culture claiming Selfhood as opposed to Otherness.

                The initial dichotomy therefore absorbs the same moral value of the driver’s horses; “Orientalism,” created by the West, is inevitably infused with a certain context of capitalistic, nationalistic, and cultural values.  It actually is the horses themselves, capitalism itself, nationalism itself, etc., that cannot be said to contain their own moral worth (or lack of it); for they are harnessed, controlled, maintained and guided not by a stationary carriage, but by its driver and builder.

                As far as my critic’s examples of Japan and America’s Southern Hemisphere go, they do indeed fall outside or beyond “Orientalist” discourse; this is undeniable.  But Imperial Japan could be said to have raised its own horses of colonialism and nationalism; likewise, European and American culture may have built more than one carriage, more than one ideological justification to uphold its own drive towards dominance.

                Through these observations, the original argument holds up; “Orientalism” cannot be said to be morally neutral, and in fact enables and perpetuates glaringly inconsistent political actions and social views on the part of America that comprise the root of unnecessary suffering endured by Arabic and Asian peoples.  The logical conclusion is that the carriage itself, “Orientalism” itself, built and driven by the driver, running on the strength and motion of the horses of capitalism, nationalism, and cultural superiority, is an immoral system. With well-oiled wheels, the carriage is logically traveling in the same direction as the horses and the carriage.  Examples such as the “war on terrorism,” the blind support of Israel’s breaching of international law, and the arbitrary embargos and bombing of Iraq, show that “Orientalism” is raging full-speed ahead, with severe repercussions in store for the Frankenstein who constructed this monster. 


<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


http://www.mindground.net/modwestphil.html