Orientalism

Frank Steinberg

Imperialism

Essay # 1

Prof. Evans

Edward Said in his essay/study "Orientalism," puts forth the notion that "the Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, and experience." I agree with Said and recognize that through their administration of the so-called Orient the administrating European becomes superior in his governing, culture, society, and logic. The mere fact that he is able to do this reinforces his superiority and gives him the liberty to create an image of those colonized as to be dependent and wanting of that process, in addition, to himself as righteous and well-doing in his administration. The modern colonialist is able to create himself in direct opposition to the colonized. The colonizer builds his image up off of the subject who needs his colonization and guidance. European identity was shaped by their colonial endeavors and their subjugation of the Orient as a model and superior civilization primed and able to undertake these acts based on their knowledge of themselves and the "Orientals" they governed over.

From the very beginning of Said's essay he cites the "power relationships" which colonization allowed. I am unwilling to accept the west as a superior race though they were able to subjugate the diverse Orientals. However, it were these "power relationships" that provided the West with the context within to build itself up culturally through its position in relation to the east. The text is littered with adjectives describing the "Orientals." Anything from lethargic, lazy, and disorderly, to despotic, irrational and uncivilized. The colonizers were those who gave these descriptions. Their self-proclaimed "knowledge" of the colonies and ability to control them made it possible. "They are a subject race, dominated by a race that knows them and what is good for them better than they could possibly know themselves." (P.35) As a result they deem themselves opposite of the inferior "Orientals." They are civilized, logical, industrious, democratic, articulate, and modern. Their "orientalism" and imperialism combined with their self-righteous attitudes of their global empire and the world abroad created a medium with which they could designate themselves and the other in whichever manner they saw most beneficial.

The west built itself up on the notion of their inferior colonial subjects. "For Orientalism was ultimately a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference between the familiar (Europe, the west "us") and the strange (the Orient, the East, "them")" (p.43) All this provided the backdrop for the general mentality of the Orient which is accepted to today. The west because of its domineering position has been in control of the knowledge and the interpretations of the other. This provided them with an unfair advantage as is concerned with the discourse between the two opposing cultures. As the writers and observers they choose to note only which reinforces their so-called position. We "have raised Egypt from the lowest pitch of social and economic degradation until it now stands among Oriental nations, I believe, absolutely alone in its prosperity, financial and moral." (P.35) Lord Cromer, a colonial administrator of Egypt for Great Britain as well as Lord Balfour's rhetoric on the Orient feed directly into this notion. It is if they believe the divine had put them there to carry the torch for civilization.