Today in class we started to define/describe the term “orientalism,” using the “Introduction” to Edward Said’s Orientalism (1977) and (lurking in the background) the entry for this term in New Keywords.
In his introduction to Orientalism, Said discusses how he will use this term, focusing on how one society (“European”) defines another (“the Orient”) in terms of what is “different” about it, so that “European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self” (Said 3). In other words, by defining “the Orient” as everything that is NOT “European,” Western identity can claim to be both coherent and superior.
Please add to, contest, and generally build up our sense of this term in a comment to this post. In your comment, you might:
- Quote important passages or summarize key ideas from Said
- Quote important passages or summarize key ideas from the “Orientalism” entry in New Keywords, by Nicholas Dirks
- Point out differences between Said and New Keywords
- Refer us to other entries in New Keywords that complement the entry for “Orientalism”
- Link us up to definitions or discussions on the web that illuminate ideas, words or names used by Said in Orientalism or Dirks in New Keywords
- Discuss how “Orientalism” complicates our picture of culture—or, specifically, how it interferes with the “art-culture system” in Clifford
1 comment:
To add to the point about Orientalism being determined by European society, Said says that "Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as...a Western style for dominating, restructure, and having authority over the Orient" (3). In this way, the West gives itself the power to rule the Orient.
Post a Comment