Summary
Highlights
Edward Said starts by asserting that the Orient is not an inert fact of nature but a man-made geographical and cultural entity, similar to the Occident. He references Vico, explaining that what people know, they have made, applying this to geographic and cultural entities. Said clarifies that while the Orient is a real place with its own history and people, his study in 'Orientalism' is not to describe this reality, but to analyze how the West constructed the idea of the Orient. He emphasizes that critics often misunderstand his project by assuming he denies the Orient's existence.
Said introduces the second qualification for his study: understanding the configuration of power is crucial to studying ideas, cultures, and histories. He argues that the 'Orientalizing' of the Orient wasn't just an act of imagination but was enabled by a power dynamic where the West had the authority to define and shape perceptions of the East. He uses the example of Flaubert's portrayal of a courtesan as a typical Oriental woman, highlighting how Flaubert's position of power allowed him to represent her, rather than her speaking for herself. This individual interaction serves as a metaphor for the broader power imbalance between the East and West in the discourse of Orientalism.
Said's third qualification is that Orientalism should not be dismissed as mere lies or myths. He states it's a 'veridical discourse' about the Orient, claiming truthfulness and possessing considerable material investment. He employs Gramsci's distinction between civil and political society to explain how Orientalism's ideas gain durability and strength through cultural hegemony. Cultural forms and ideas about the Orient become pervasive through non-coercive affiliations like schools and shared cultural understanding, rather than direct domination, creating a collective consent among Europeans about the perceived inferiority of non-European cultures.
Said explains how the hegemonic idea of European superiority, juxtaposed against an 'oriental backwardness,' shaped the understanding of the Orient. This framework allowed for the academic study, display in museums, and theoretical illustrations of the Orient in various fields. He acknowledges the existence of great Orientalist scholarship but also points out that racist ideas and pornographic novels emerged from the same cultural impulse. Finally, Said addresses the methodological problems in his study: the risk of being too general and creating a polemic, or being too specific and losing sight of the broader patterns. He aims to find a balance between these two extremes to accurately portray Orientalism's complex nature.