Previous
Summary
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Orientalism, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
The West’s View of the Eastern World
Knowledge and Power
Belief, Consensus, and Reality
The Persistence of Racism
The Personal as Political
Summary
Analysis
Said opens with the allegation that there is a long history of Europe (mostly France and Great Britain) defining itself by comparison to “the Orient”—which mostly coincides with the part of the world typically identified as the “Middle East” or “West Asia and North Africa” in 21st-century parlance. Said names this attitude “Orientalism,” and he explains that it has three related, mutually self-reinforcing meanings. One is a field of academic studies related to the countries and civilizations of the Near East; the second is a “style of thought” that divides the world into the Orient (the East) and the Occident (the West); and the third is discourse West has employed to exert control over the Orient and justify doing so. Orientalism’s history is so deep and pervasive that it colors all engagements between the West and the East.
Said begins by identifying what he sees as a serious problem in the contemporary world. Received ideas about and attitudes toward the part of the world he loosely defines as “the Orient” exercise outsized influence on the cultural imagination and geopolitical aims of Europe and North America—the West. And this has political, social, and economic consequences for the people who live in the Orient. By naming this set of received ideas “Orientalism,” Said identifies it as a discourse—a complex of ideas and attitudes—rather than a good faith attempt to understand or describe the world. His careful definition takes into account that, in the mid-20th century moment in which he was writing, “Orientalism” was the name of a scholarly field, as well as a discourse. And he tells readers that he will spend his book examining the way this discourse has shaped reality and how it has been used as a tool for powerful interests.
Themes
Western discourse creates and maintains the idea of the “Orient.” Although it maps onto real places with real people and cultures, Orientalism is more invested in its own ideas about these people and cultures than in their reality. And the discourse of Orientalism serves political, social, and military power structures. Moreover, Orientalism itself is a complex system that has been and must be rigorously maintained by its beneficiaries—European or Western hegemony (the social and political ideas that hold people together). Because Orientalism is a tool of Western hegemony, Said claims that it says more about the “desires, repressions, investments, and projections” of the West than anything else.
One part of Said’s project involves debunking the assertions of Orientalist discourse. Another part involves showing his readers how and why discourses form in the first place, and how those who have power can use discourse to manipulate others. This includes not only the Oriental subjects who were the most direct victims of Orientalist ideology, but also ordinary citizens, who are encouraged to believe in fictions that serve their leaders and the ideologies they uphold. By showing how discourses serve entrenched power structures, Said hopes to empower his readers to think critically about the cultures in which they live, and the ideas they hold.
Themes
Western cultural hegemony is predicated on the idea of European superiority, especially—although not exclusively—over the Orient and its peoples. Thus, the Orient emerges from ideas about who or what is Oriental (as opposed to Occidental) and is maintained by a self-perpetuating logic that says more about the “desires, repressions, investments, and projections” of the West than anything else.
Because it is defined by and in contrast to the West, the Orient is created as an inherently negative and impoverished place. This is part of what makes Orientalism a discourse rather than an academic endeavor in Said’s view. In essence, Western assertions of superiority are built on and serve to maintain racialized stereotypes and prejudices.
Themes
The fact that Orientalism as a discourse was and is created in a political context means that there are three important ideas underpinning Said’s study of it: that all knowledge is political to some degree; that the study of anything is limited by the researcher’s methodology; and that a researcher’s personal investments affect the way they go about their study.
Orientalist discourse as defined by Said serves the geopolitical interests of Western powers. In this context, it is important to understand the relationship of knowledge and power and for researchers to remember that their interests and investments are to at least some degree determined by their culture, whether this is conscious or subconscious.
Themes
Get the entire Orientalism LitChart as a printable PDF.
Said first explores the idea that all knowledge is inherently political. This is because the leaders of any society give a sense of urgency to subjects important to their society’s political interests. Discourses like Orientalism affect civil society’s interests and beliefs by “distribut[ing …] geopolitical awareness” (specifically, Britain’s, France’s, and the United State’s colonial ambitions in the Orient) onto artistic and scholarly work. Orientalist discourse mediates political, intellectual, and cultural power. Thus, studying it reveals far more about Western “political-intellectual culture” than the Orient itself.
Because everyone lives in a culture, no one can fully separate themselves from the concerns or interests of that society. So, when Western powers like Britain, France, or America decide that they want to achieve a certain goal (colonizing Egypt or securing a steady supply of crude oil, for instance), they can most effectively achieve this aim when they get everybody on board by manipulating discourse to support their goals.
Themes
In answer to literary and humanities scholars who want to avoid responsibility by saying that they aren’t trained in “politics or ideological analysis,” Said points out the ubiquity of allegedly political issues like empire, race, and class in literature and the arts. In fact, he says, political interest has been a key driver of creativity and imagination. Studying Orientalism is thus key to understanding Western societies, because it is an intentional—if unacknowledged—project. And because responsible scholarship requires understanding the connection between original sources or ideas, the subject matter they explore, and their historical context.
Said claims that Orientalism is both deeply contextual and deeply ingrained in the psyches of Western subjects. Thus, part of his critique involves pointing out the ways in which he feels humanities scholars have tried to ignore the political dimensions of the texts they explore, especially imperialism. His analysis of literary works in later chapters will develop the idea that almost everything created by a colonial society will reflect that society’s ideas about colonialism.
Themes
The next limitation on Said’s study has to do with methodology—how he decides what to include and exclude from analysis. Pointing out that the starting point of any intellectual inquiry is always somewhat arbitrary, he explains why he feels the limitations he has chosen are appropriate. He considers his starting point—one among many possibilities—the “Anglo-French-American experience of the Arabs and Islam” because of Britain and France’s dominance in the Near East between the 17th and 20th centuries, as well as America’s deepening geopolitical interests there following the end of World War II. Moreover, since about the 9th century, the Orient has served as a handy Western shorthand for both Arabs and Islam.
Said mentions some of the specific reasons that he’s interested in the relationship between the West and Arab people (or Islam) elsewhere: the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine and American attempts to ensure its access to oil reserves in the Near East. He thus looks backwards from his vantage point and limits his study to what will help him explain how Orientalism operates in this context. This isn’t the only or even necessarily the best way to limit his study, but that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that he outlines the boundaries clearly so that readers can better understand—and assess—his claims.
Themes
The main characteristic of Anglo-French and American Orientalism is “intellectual authority” over the Orient. Analyzing how authorities on the Orient locate themselves relative to their subject, Said intends to explore how academic Orientalists represent—literally, re-present or recreate—an image of the Orient that suits the preconceived ideas of the discourse rather than reflecting reality. In the way it creates (rather than reflects) the world, Orientalism denies Oriental subjects the ability or the right to represent themselves. Because of this, Orientalism reflects and explains more about Western culture than the people it claims to study.
Here, Said outlines the central claim of this book: that the Orient as it is used both by academic Orientalism and by political powers has very little, if any, correspondence with reality. To be able to make their claims without contest or dissent, Orientalists must silence Oriental subjects. Thus, their intellectual project doesn’t just serve power structures, it is a power structure in its own right. And it’s a power structure Said challenges not just as a scholar, but as an Oriental subject.
Themes
Because Orientalist discourse is so internally consistent, Said feels comfortable selecting a few representative examples, including the scholarly work of Edward William Lane, Ernest Renan, Silvestre de Sacy, and the literary work of Alphonse Lamartine, Gustave Flaubert, and others. Yet, because the topic is so broad, the present study will necessarily be incomplete. Said hopes that in the future, others from his intended audience—literary and political science scholars, governmental policymakers, and even interested general readers—will take up and expand on his ideas, especially about the “structure […] dangers and temptations” of colonial cultural domination.
The internal consistency of Orientalism is one of its most salient features—indeed, it is the basis for a large part of Said’s argument that Orientalism is a discourse rather than the neutral academic enterprise as which it has historically understood itself. But Said doesn’t want readers to take his as the last word—he doesn’t want the ideas in his book Orientalism to become an uncritical discourse themselves. Instead, he encourages others to grapple with, challenge, and expand his ideas in the future.
Themes
The final limitation on scholarly study is the scholar’s personal investments. To this end, Said points out that he is himself an Oriental subject. He grew up and was educated in two British colonies (Palestine and Egypt) and now lives in America. He is personally affected by the Cold War divisions between East and West, the increasing strategic importance of the Orient, and the stigmatizing of Arabs and Islam in Western popular culture. But while Orientalism is thus not an “exclusively academic mater” for him, he still considers his work primarily as an intellectual (rather than political) project that aims to improve the way academic scholarship is produced.
One of Said’s most consistent critiques of the Orientalists whose work he considers is that none of them acknowledge their political commitments—or even seem to recognize that they might have political and personal investments that influence their work. By setting out his own—that, as a Palestinian, he is an Oriental subject; that as a Palestinian, he has a personal investment in the Israel-Palestine conflict; that as a scholar, he is personally involved in the creation and maintenance of various academic discourses—he seeks to avoid that same pitfall and to forestall criticism that his scholarship is purely political.
Themes
