Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Superiority and Separation
In a world divided and made unequal by economic and military subjugation we need to think about points of commonality
Is all enquiry into other cultures problematic? Though Edward Said's original text of Orientalism was evasive on this question, in a later preface, Said made the clear distinction between knowledge "that is the result of understanding, compassion, careful study and analysis" and "knowledge that is part of an overall campaign of self-affirmation".
Self-affirmation of this kind is everywhere and it is not harmless. Thirty years after Orientalism identified this phenomenon as one that was used to justify imperialism and invasion, "liberal" white British commentators still make magisterial pronouncements plucked from nowhere on the plight of Asian/Muslim/non-western women with no awareness of or, indeed, the slightest interest in, the history of women's activism in these regions. Others call for war-ravaged societies to be partitioned on religious lines, oblivious to complex histories of co-existence, oblivious to the ways that polarities get sharpened by invasion and imperialism and, of course, the disastrous consequences of partitions in various former colonies. Then there are the endless encomiums to freedom and progress as distinctively "western" values to be protected as such. (Why do they let residual political correctness stop them short of making a genetic case?)
Orientalism argued that uneven power relations "between two unequal halves" distort knowledge. Even in progressive milieus, non-EuroAmerican cultures and peoples remain, for the most part, objects of discussion rather than equal participants in a global dialogue. If they are heard at all, it is selectively, through their loudest and most retrograde voices. This then bolsters self-affirming claims that those cultures are inherently despotic/violent/intolerant (fill in the blanks). The result is a near-total lack of awareness of egalitarian and liberationist traditions in other cultures. Let's say this again: the "west" did not invent freedom and tolerance, far from it. In suggesting otherwise, both the so-called liberal commentator and the radical religious preacher participate in a false and damaging codification of inherently diverse cultures into homogeneous and unchanging entities. This co-operative mutual hostility does great disservice to real people and actually existing cultures.
And that includes the heterogeneous cultures of Britain, Europe and North America. A couple of years ago, then Labour education minister Charles Clarke attacked what he called the "medieval concept of the university as a community of scholars seeking truth" as well as non-productive disciplines [ie the humanities] which didn't benefit the economy in some obvious way. This kind of emphasis on quantifiable productive output at the expense of wide reading and critical thinking was the larger problem addressed by Orientalism. When knowledge is whittled down to manageable bytes of information and corporatised "applied" skills, both "our" and "their" cultures get reduced to meaningless generalisations that stress difference over connectedness.
Such segregationist thinking -- in a world divided and made unequal by economic and military subjugation -- remains the biggest challenge for our troubled times. We need to be thinking about points of commonality and intersection instead of endlessly reiterating differences. In a non-Orientalist framework, knowledge would be a shared enterprise rather than a weapon of superiority and separation. Said himself remained hopeful, arguing that "there was never a misinterpretation that could not be revised, improved or overturned".
Priyamvada Gopal teaches postcolonial studies at Cambridge University.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
9 Comments so far
Show AllThe role of proselytizers of hate, such as the Orientalist scholar who coined the term "Clash of Civilizations", in keeping the hate going needs is often underestimated, imho. In general, the worst elements of the professoriat--the target of Edward Said's book Orientalism--who lent their scholarship to the "the most monstrous exploitations, industrial or military" have tended to get away lightly given their role in brewing conflict. As John Maynard Keynes put it:
...the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
Riane Eisler, author of Chalice and the Blade...and her latest book, The Real Wealth of Nations...creating a caring economy exposes the 'dominator' value system that so pervades every system on this planet. Men over women, rich over poor, white over black, etc. We are all part of this value system--yet very few realize it. But once you do, then everything can change.
There is another option--a new value system based on caring for humans and the planet and building an economy that honors the most important work of all--caring for ourselves and the planet we live on.
www.realwealtheconomy.com
www.partnershipway.org
"Thirty years after Orientalism identified this phenomenon as one that was used to justify imperialism and invasion, "liberal" white British commentators still make magisterial pronouncements plucked from nowhere on the plight of Asian/Muslim/non-western women with no awareness of or, indeed, the slightest interest in, the history of women's activism in these regions."
See Layla Anwars blog for confirmation of this view:
http://tinyurl.com/6ftkeo
SOLUTIONS2: Good post.
The Chalice and the Blade is one of my favorite books, along with The Alphabet and the Goddess
Thanks for letting me know about Eisler's new book, i look forward to reading it soon
New economic theories replace the old funeral by funeral.
solutions2 I would like to thank you for those links. We need to transform our economies from the "dominator" system as you put it.
I have had this gut feeling that the whole thing haywire for longer then I can remember.
Humans as a species cannot advance or survive if we continue to base an individuals wealth and their own survival on the exploitation of others.
I will give those books a read as I had not heard of this author before and have been desperately searching for others who think the same way I do.
It can get awful lonely :)
Arab culture is backwards and barbaric, and should be kept out of decent places. If saying this (obvious) thing makes me an "orientalist", so be it.
"Others call for war-ravaged societies to be partitioned on religious lines, oblivious to complex histories of co-existence, oblivious to the ways that polarities get sharpened by invasion and imperialism and, of course, the disastrous consequences of partitions in various former colonies."
Meaning 'divide and conquer'.
"both the so-called liberal commentator and the radical religious preacher participate in a false and damaging codification of inherently diverse cultures into homogeneous and unchanging entities."
Or 'scratch a liberal and you find a fascist' Joe Orton, English Playwright.