Summary
Highlights
The lecturer introduces the second section of Edward Said's 'Orientalism' Introduction, 'The Methodological Question.' Said explains his choices regarding the starting point of his study and the specific works and nations he focuses on. He emphasizes the importance of methodological self-reflection for scholars, relating it to his own experience in manuscript revision. Said uses his previous work, 'Beginnings: Intention and Method,' to articulate that beginnings are not given but are actively constructed, involving a necessary act of delimitation.
Said references Louis Althusser's idea of the 'problematic' to explain how a concept exists within a specific theoretical or ideological framework. Unlike Althusser's study of Marx, Said's 'Orientalism' involves a broad range of authors from various imperial nations. He highlights the complexity of delimiting his inquiry, deciding what to include and exclude, and justifying these choices, particularly concerning the temporality and spatiality of orientalist discourse, focusing on the Islamic Orient (Middle East).
Said explicitly states his intention to study French, British, and American Orientalist archives, arguing against a comprehensive, encyclopedic narrative due to the vastness of material and his critical aims. He prioritizes texts dealing with the Middle East (Islamic Orient) but acknowledges the interconnectedness with other regions like India and Persia due to colonial interests. He explains that British and French scholars were pioneers in Oriental studies, establishing political and intellectual networks that America later inherited after World War II.
Said addresses the omission of German Orientalist contributions, acknowledging it as a potential weakness in his study. He justifies this by explaining that while German scholarship had attained prominence, it lacked the direct political and imperial involvement that characterized British and French engagement with the Orient. German Orientalism, he argues, was more academic and theoretical, often relying on research gathered by British and French imperial efforts, rather than direct onsite experience.
Said reiterates that despite the significance of German Orientalism, its lack of direct connection to imperial power and on-the-ground engagement differentiates it from the French, British, and later American works. He points out that even renowned German works often relied on research conducted in French and British libraries, highlighting reliance on the imperial powers' collected materials. Said concludes by re-emphasizing that his work's focus is on the intricate connection between power, knowledge, and the representation of the Orient, which was most evident in the Anglo-French-American imperial contexts.