What is Orientalism? Outline and evaluate Edward Saids arguments.

What implications does his

line of argument have? (Discuss with reference to EITHER media coverage of Middle East issues,
government policies towards a Middle Eastern state OR IR theories.)

Orientalism in the 21st Century: The Clash of False Perceptions

1. Introduction

A few years after the end of the Cold War, Samuel Huntington published a famous article

entitled The Clash of Civilisations? in Foreign Affairs. His article ignited controversy and

represents one of the most important works published in the field of International Studies.

Huntington (1993) argues that, in the post-Cold War world formed of seven or eight major

civilisations, the fundamental source of conflict will not be primarily ideological or

economic, but rather cultural, representing the dominating division among humankind.

Edward Said (2001) heavily criticized Huntingtons article for being an Orientalist piece of

Western academic thought and a tool aimed at labelling and articulating the image of the

Other. Huntingtons (1993: 31-32) Clash of Civilisations theory labels the Arab world as

being a different civilisation that is mostly prone for war, especially against the West. The

division between the West and the Rest is very clear, and Huntington deepens it by stating

that the old Iron Curtain line moved several miles to the east, separating the peoples of

Western Christianity from Muslim peoples (Huntington, 2002: 28). Therefore, not only

does Huntington illustrate a Western system of thought, but he also facilitates specific political

action and policy making, such as the War on Terror doctrine initiated by President Bush in

September 2001.

The aim of this essay is to understand why such a controversial academic work has the

power to influence how policy-makers perceive and react to the Middle East. Therefore, the

essay will start by broadly defining Orientalism. It will then critically present Saids arguments,

1
their implications and weaknesses, while analysing the connection between knowledge and

power through a comprehensive theoretical framework. Lastly, it will explain how false

perceptions can impact the connection between the production of knowledge and power,

through an analysis of Huntingtons Clash of Civilisations theory and the War on Terror

doctrine.

2. What is Orientalism?

When Edward Said published his most prominent work, Orientalism, he shook the main

foundations and assumptions at the centre of Western-based academic work on the Middle

East. His work sparked a necessary debate that challenged the way knowledge and

information about the Middle East was (and still is) relayed. Said (1995: 12) underlines the fact

that Orientalism is not only a mere political subject or field that is reflected passively by

culture, scholarship and institutions, but rather a will or intention to understand, sometimes

even manipulate, a different world. He concludes that Orientalism represents a

considerable dimension of modern political-intellectual culture (Said, 1995: 12).

According to Said (1995: 2), Orientalism can be defined in three ways. First, it embodies

acts of representation within the Western academic literature. Secondly, it is a style of

thought based upon a distinction made between the Orient and the Occident, which has a

defining purpose. And lastly, he claims that Orientalism represents a corporate institution for

dealing with the Orient, arguing that it can be seen as a Western veridic discourse for

dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Middle East (Said, 1995: 3). These

definitions cannot be understood independently, as Orientalism is a theory that permits the

West to continuously reassert its power and affirm its identity through the creation of political

and cultural structures. Therefore, Orientalism should be analysed from both its ontological

2
perspective (structure and condition of power) and its epistemological perspective (academic

writings and systems of thought) (Azzez, 2016: 715).

This following section will now critically outline and evaluate Saids main arguments, their

weaknesses and present the implications of his line of reasoning. According to Milton-Edwards

(2000: 6-7), Said first criticizes Western scholarship for its essentialist perspective of the region

and for how it both treats and presents Muslim society as a homogenous and monolithic mass.

Further on, Said adds that the scholarship is politically and economically motivated,

associating Western ambitions with colonialism and imperialism. Lastly, he underlines that

this Western scholarship has created an ensemble of authoritarian truths that must be

challenged. Additionally, according to Azzez (2016: 715) and returning to the epistemological

and ontological perspectives of Orientalism, Said implies that the connection between power

and the Western production of knowledge has a singular purpose, namely the subjectivation

or thingification of the Oriental subject, which represents the core of his line of arguments.

According to Hart (W. D. Hart mentioned in Azzez, 2016: 715), Said employs Foucaults ideas

of discipline and power/knowledge: both authors are referring to methods of modern punitive

power that establish meticulous control and assure constant subjection by imposing a

relation of docility-utility between two groups.

In order to further investigate and understand the connection between the Western

production of knowledge and power, a comprehensive theoretical framework will be

presented. According to Foucault (1991: 72-73), truth truth meaning all knowledge

produced within a society is a thing of this world, produced only by virtue of multiple

constraints and inducing regular effects of power. Any system of power will attempt to

produce and maintain a series of truths in order to secure and advance its hegemonic position,

thus creating a regime of truth. A regime of truth represents a system of ordered

3
procedures and it is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and

sustain it (Foucault, 1991: 74). Orientalism, as presented by Said, is part of a system of power

relations whereby the West endeavours to subjugate the Other. In this instance, Orientalism

itself becomes a regime of truth as the West attempts to dominate and exercise its authority

over the Orient through the production of knowledge.

It is important at this point to highlight some weaknesses that arise in Saids analysis. First

of all, the omission and difficulty of defining the truth, in the context of Orientalism,

represents a serious weakness. Said (1995: 104) applies the Foucauldian examination where

Orientalism, as a discourse, constructs the Orient as a different reality, which is produced

by the West. He argues that the Orient of the Western scholar is not the Orient as it is, but

the Orient as it has been Orientalized (Said, 1995: 104). Therefore, he suggests that there is

a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of an empirical reality, leaving space for a

subjective discourse to emerge. The question arising is whether there is an objective Orient

or just a plain subjective discourse describing the Other.

Secondly, power can be defined as the capacity to influence or control the behaviour of a

certain group of people (Schein and Greiner, 1988). Within the sphere of power relations, as

described by Foucault (1976: 95), it is essential for some resistance to exist and manifest itself.

Said does not present any form of resistance in Orientalism. However, Saids work generated

a field of post-Orientalist scholarship challenging former assumptions and knowledge, which

can be regarded as a form of resistance in itself (Milton-Edwards, 2000: 7).

Furthermore, while Foucault sees power as omnipresent and diffused, Gramsci, in

comparison, understands power as a dual relation between a leader and a led, operating

in the sphere of hegemony (Gramsci, 1980). Laurie (2015) claims that Gramsci uses the word

hegemony to refer to how a governing power wins consent to rule from those it actually

4
subjugates. This consent is achieved through a subjective discourse, which becomes an

apparatus (or dispositif in French) as explained by Agamben (2009), who was inspired by

one of Foucaults interviews in 1977. Agamben (2009: 2) summarizes the essence of the

apparatus in three main points. Firstly, it is a heterogeneous set that includes virtually

anything (i.e. institutions, discourses, laws, etc.) and represents the network established

between these elements. Secondly, the apparatus always has a concrete strategic function

and is constantly located in a power relation. And lastly, it appears at the intersection of

power relations and knowledge. In Orientalism, hegemony manifests itself through an

apparatus emerging from the governmental powers, mass-media and academia, which

reinforces false perceptions about the Other.

Considering the above, it can be argued that Foucault, Gramsci and Agamben provide a

comprehensive theoretical framework facilitating the understanding of the connection

between power and knowledge. Foucault starts by explaining the production of knowledge

through the creation of regimes of truth. Further on, Gramsci simplifies the understanding

of the concept of hegemony and Agambens explanations of the apparatus highlight the

actual connection between power and knowledge. These theories lead to a better

understanding of Orientalism, while helping to fill some of Saids theoretical gaps at the same

time.

3. The Clash of False Perceptions

In this section, the essay will look at how false perceptions can impact the production of

knowledge, taking into consideration Huntingtons Clash of Civilisations theory and the

subsequent emergence of the War on Terror doctrine. A brief historical framework of

United States (U.S.)-Middle East relations will be presented before continuing the analysis.

According to Little (2002: 194), the American dominance within the Middle East was under

5
threat once Arab nationalistic movements started to gain more success during the 1950s. In

order to contain these movements, the US encouraged a process of democratisation and

reforms, through which the traditional perception of the Orient mystic and exotic had

begun to be replaced by the one of a place of decline, in need of drastic support. The 9/11

terrorist attacks represent another turning point in the discourse and practices of the

American government towards the Middle East. These events were perceived as a direct

attack to American values, while at the same time shaking the hegemonic status of the U.S.

President Bush (2001) expressed that the enemies of freedom are a dangerous group of

terrorists and every government that supports them. The demonization of Arab people

changed the perception of the Middle East, from a place in need to be civilised to the axis of

evil and terrorism representing a threat to American values (Little, 2002). According to Said

(2001), the carefully planned and horrendous, pathologically motivated suicide attacks and

mass slaughter of 9/11, carried out by a small group of deranged militants, has been turned

into an evidence sustaining Huntingtons thesis, transforming it into a self-fulfilled prophecy.

Radical Islamism is a reality that is rejected by the big majority of Muslim people, but it

unfortunately created a negative perception of Muslims in the U.S., reinforcing the basic

paradigm of the West versus the rest (Said, 2001).

Consequently, as a result of the terrible attacks of September 11 th, 2001, the fracture

between the West and the Arab world deepened and led to military interventions, such as the

Operation Iraqi Freedom, legitimised though the War on Terror doctrine. Fear, insecurity

and uncertainty, but also ignorance, led to the resurface of the Othering process in the

contemporary world, thus vindicating Edward Saids warning. According to Laclau and Mouffe

(1985: 113), all identity is relational, meaning that one identity gains strength by interacting

with the other and by settling itself off against it as a sort of surrogate or even underground

6
self (Said, 1995: 3). In other words, the West envisages the Orient as its contrasting image,

idea, personality and experience (Said, 1995: 1-2). Considering the aforementioned

arguments, I believe that the way the West perceives the Orient is often based on false

perceptions accumulated over time, due to political frustrations, bad decisions, ignorance,

insufficient communication and fear on both sides. These false perceptions led to the

resurface of the Othering, by presenting a biased view, through academic scholarship, which

can influence policy-makers and lead to short-sighted decisions.

In order to connect the theoretical and empirical frameworks, Huntingtons article will be

considered as the result of a production of knowledge representing a truth that, in relation

with devices of power, creates an apparatus represented by the War on Terror policy.

Saids (2001) The Clash of Ignorance article, presented as a rebuttal to Huntingtons Clash

of Civilisations theory, claims that labels like Islam and the West serve only to confuse

about a disorderly reality. Huntingtons article, according to Said (2001), was intended to

provide Americans with an original thesis about a new phase in world politics. Huntingtons

assumptions seemed large and bold, even visionary at the time, arguing that the biggest

challenge for policy-makers is to ensure that the West gets stronger and fights off all the

others, Islam in particular (Said, 2001). In combating Huntingtons perspective, Said (2001)

states that:

Huntington is an ideologist, one who wants to transform civilisations and identities

into what they are not: () sealed-off entities () that over centuries have made it

possible not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of

exchange, cross-fertilisation and sharing.

7
 In agreement with Said (2010), Gl (2010) argues that Huntingtons theory is a self-

fulfilled prophecy, based on the implicit assumption that the Orient is a monolithic and

homogenous civilisation. Furthermore, Gl (2010) continues criticizing Huntingtons theory by

stating that his uncritical approach refrains from analysing the asymmetry in existing power

structures and wrongdoings of Western foreign policy, both in the Middle East and the Global

South. After the end of the Cold War, the Western model of liberal states and democracy has

been envisaged as the only option in the search of international order. At the same time, the

use of military and political interventions, such as the Operation Iraqi Freedom, has failed to

produce significant change, this failure being then blamed on the rigidity of strongly religious

and traditional Muslim societies (Gl, 2010). Additionally, Gl (2010) argues that the War

on Terror doctrine is best understood as a mode of including hegemonic discourse in the

internal affairs of the Others, a political praxis that legitimises the old principles of

imperialism and a new discourse that reproduces the representations of Orientalism in the

21st century. Hence, when false perceptions clash, they impact the production of knowledge

and influence policy-makers to create a rather harmful apparatus resulting in an endless war

against a global and invisible opponent, whose strategies are unfortunately better prepared

than anticipated.

Therefore, both Huntingtons article and the War on Terror doctrine are relevant

examples of Orientalism. First of all, Huntingtons article shows the existence of a Western

academic literature that produces knowledge and assumptions about the Arab world through

false perceptions accumulated over time. Secondly, the War on Terror doctrine illustrates

the power relations between the West and the Orient, more specifically the authoritative

status of the U.S. and its continuous involvement in regional affairs, like in Iraq. Thirdly, in

both examples, there is a style of thought trying to define the Other, envisaging the Arabs

8
as inferior, barbaric and uncivilised while the Westerners are presented as rational and

developed. Considering the information presented, it can be argued that there is a power

relationship between the U.S. and the Arab world, portrayed though a Western Oriental

discourse justifying intervention and domination.

4. Conclusion

It can be concluded that, by taking into account the biased Western discourse on the Arab

world, Orientalism is a practical method of understanding how this region and its people are

perceived by others. Within the analysis, a couple of gaps were identified in Saids theory,

such as the lack of resistance and the missing definition of truth in the Orientalist discourse.

The essay also aimed at expanding Saids theory and at filling some of its gaps, by employing

Foucaults regime of truth theory, Gramscis hegemony and Agambens apparatus

concept. Lastly, it tried to explain that false perceptions on the Orient moving from an exotic

place in need to be civilised to the axis of terror can influence academic scholarship. This

scholarship can further on impact the way policy makers create policy. Huntingtons

controversial article has the power to influence policy makers, because it was turned into a

self-fulfilled prophecy after the events of 9/11, due to a clash of false perceptions, ignorance

and fear. This self-fulfilled prophecy legitimised the creation of the War on Terror doctrine,

which represents a new discourse and praxis reproducing the representations of Orientalism

in the 21st century, and creating an endless war waged against an invisible enemy.

For further research, it would be beneficial to take into consideration President Trumps

changes to the War on Terror doctrine and analyse their possible impact on the Western

Orientalist discourse.

9
Bibliography

Agamben, G. (2009), What is an Apparatus? And other essays, Sanford: Stanford

University Press.

Azzez, G. H. (2016), Beyond Edward Said: An Outlook on Postcolonialism and Middle

Eastern Studies, Social Epistemology, Vol. 30, Issue 5-6, pp. 710-727. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2016.1172360. Accessed on:
30.09.2017.

Bush, G. W. (2001), Transcript of President Bushs address, CNN. Available at:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/. Accessed on: 01.10.2017.

Foucault, M. (1991), Truth and Power in Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault Reader, New
York: Pantheon Books.

French, D. (2017), Trump Makes Two Promising Moves in the War on Terror, National
Review. Available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451645/donald-trump-
war-terror-new-policy-changes-smart-promising. Accessed on: 10.10.2017.

Gl, A. (2010), The War on Terror and the Rise of Neo-Orientalism in the 21st Century,
E-International Relations. Available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2010/03/18/the-war-on-
terror-and-the-rise-of-neo-orientalism-in-the-21st-century/. Accessed on. 29.09.2017.

Gramsci, A. (1980), Selections from the Prison Notebooks, New York: International
Publishers. Available at: http://solomon.soth.alexanderstreet.com/cgi-
bin/asp/philo/soth/getdoc.pl?S10019883-D000028. Accessed on: 29.09.2017.

Greiner, L. E. & Schein, V. E. (1988), Power and organization development: mobilizing

power to implement change, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Hunter, S. T. (1998), The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful
Coexistence?, Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Huntington, S. (1993), The Clash of Civilizations?, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 22-
49. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20045621. Accessed on: 29.09.2017.

Huntington, S. (2002), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,
London: Free Press.

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics, London: Verso.

Laurie, T. (2015), Masculinity Studies and the Jargon of Strategy: Hegemony, Tautology,
Sense, Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, Vol. 20, Issue 1. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0969725X.2015.1017373. Accessed on
01.10.2017.

10
Levine, M. (2010), The Real War on Terror Must Begin, Global Policy Forum. Available
at: https://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism/49446.html. Accessed on:
02.10.2017.

Lewis, B. (1990), The Roots of Muslim Rage, The Atlantic. Available at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199009/muslim-rage. Accessed on: 29.09.2017

Little, D. (2003), American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Milton-Edwards, B. (2000), Contemporary Politics in the Middle East, Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Said, E. (1995), Orientalism, London: Penguin Books.

Said, E. (1997), Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See
the Rest of the World, London: Vintage.

Said, E. (2001), The Clash of Ignorance, The Nation. Available at:

https://www.thenation.com/article/clash-ignorance/. Accessed on: 29.09.2017.

11