Orientalist structuring and Restructuring

I

Redrawn Frontiers, Redefined

Issues, Secularized Religion

Post-colonial theory owes a lot to works of two intellectuals i.e. Franz Fanon with his

Wretched of the Earth and Edward Said's Orientalism. Although a lot of criticism has been

directed at Edward’s nearly one-dimensional portrayal of the European Imperialism and its

debated, but his feat really lies in successfully redefining the term Orientalism to mean

myriad of false assumptions constructed by West about the East. The book revolutionized the

way Western scholars and critics viewed the representations of the non-Western subjects and

cultures.

Edward Said through example of Gustave Flaubert's unfinished comic novel, comes to

highlight "discipline or type of knowledge changes from hope and power into disorder, ruin

and sorrow". The Western mind of nineteenth century envisioned quite naively, a Europe

regenerated by Asia, a sort of Romantic ideals, an utopist imagining of a reconstructive world

according to some scientific or secular religion. And roots of such reconstructive outlook can

be traced back to late eighteenth century romanticism which idealized the concept of death

and rebirth, of paradise lost and paradise regained in Christian beliefs, and sought to revive

them by reconstituting them in a secular light; that they be intellectually acceptable in the

context of newly enlightened minds of Enlightenment period. Thus this idea of " regeneration

of Europe by Asia" is essentially a Romantic ideal; which pervaded the mindset of early

Orientalists hose hopes of rejuvenation of European Occidental culture, lied in studying

Orient; They believe it could defeat the materialism that plagued the culture by bringing back

the sense of "holy mission" they had now lost, basically bringing back their lost Christian

identity under the mask of secularized enlightenment.

However, this idealism was flawed as both Flaubert and Edward point out by an

unconscious arrogance for what mattered was not Asia, rather its "use to modern Europe",

Europe defined itself in relation to Orient, just as it had created Orient. At the end of the day,

it was "our Europe" and "our Asia" which was to be pragmatically divided into smaller,

manageable geographical units and ruled. What these visionaries failed to consider was that

their utopian theories could not be reconciled with reality. For example, the power their

scientific advancement had bestowed upon them was not without vanity or ego. Europe

considering itself superior was not about to deal with the primitive Orient as equals. As such

there could be no regeneration of Europe by Asia.

Said has been influenced by Foucault's notion of power and knowledge and Gramsci's

concept of hegemony; which manifests itself in his Orientalism where he exposes how

knowledge has been constructed, either wittingly or unwittingly, Orientalists have been a part

of this Foucauldian discourse which has ascribed meaning to orient and defend the stereotype

associated with it of being sensual, irrational, primitive, exotic, wild undisciplined and

backward. These stereotypes have been unchallenged in every succeeding generation of so-

called Orientalists who have only uncritically rephrased these discourses. They have nothing

original to offer as their whole field of Oriental studies has from the very beginning been

based on reconstructing and repetition of stereotypes. What this unvaryingly biased study of

orient managed was that complex with imperial power it was presented as absolute

knowledge imposing negative meaning upon the orient. It justified the imperialist expansion

of the west and also worked to convince the natives of their backwardness, whilst the Western

culture represented the universal culture. Such was the general scope? of Orientalism till start

of eighteenth century, when Orient was generally associate with Islamic Middle East and

these notions were passed down medieval and Renaissance period. However during

eighteenth century a newer and more modern view of orient came into being owing to

expansion of European exploration and colonies beyond Muslim lands, widening their

horizon with exploration of India China, Japan etc which introduced them to Sumer,

Buddhism, Sanskrit, Zoroastrian and Manu. Thus the Christianity or Judaism no longer

formed a framework of European outlook. however, Europe's ethnocentric perspective were

fortified as colonies were created through companies like East India Company, for Europe

remained in the privileged center as the main observe, "othering" the rest of the world. The

second Factor that helped form the modern oriental view was the fact that history was viewed

through a perspective other then Judeo-Christian one, which was a shift towards objectivity,

something historical narratives of past lacked and history being solely subjective to

imagination and biases of historians narrating it. Now however, Europe instead of educing

these oriental histories allowed them to speak for themselves. Arab history! As dealt with in

terms of their sources, Holy Quran commented upon by Islamic religious scholars. This

detachment where previously they had had antagonism was probably motivated by European

man's curiosity to "know himself better". He thus employed the overly simplistic technique of

comparatism, which only served the marginalization of the other. The differences were only

ever taken to be abnormal, even in this newfound objectivity. On the other hand there was a

kind of selective identification with different cultures and with the common "spirit" which

binds them all together. This sympathetic attitude in comparison, led to e possibility of seeing

beyond the limiting borders of doctrines or religions between West and Islam and establishing

a kinship between West and Orient. Representation of Orient varied vivid images of luxury

and exoticism was still associated with orient. It was still mainly a region of "sensuality,

promise, terror, sublimity, idyllic pleasure, intense energy". Thus "Oriental was referred to

"chamelion-like quality. The pre-romantic notions of Orient still existed.

The forth element which played a part in forming the modern Orientalist structure was

classification of human beings further beyond the binary of Christian and non-Christian, (or

gentile sacred nations vs. barbarians). The nations were classified on basis of race, color,

origin, temperament and character. particular characteristics, both physical and moral, were

associated with particular races e.g. the American is "red, choleric, erect" , an Asian is

"yellow, melancholy, rigid" and the African is "black, phlegmatic, lax". By nineteenth century

these classification gather power and authority as they became attached to genetic type. Thus

an Oriental was genetically "primitive".

Even as the view of Orient was modernized and somewhat secularized, old religious

dogmas still haunted the field of study. 18th century patterns of religious framework of

history weren't discarded but reconstituted; it remained alive in the undercurrent of Oriental

discourse, through structures of language and vocabulary it had created for Orient. The

modern Orientalist may congratulate himself for saving the Orient from so-called historical

obscurity and bringing to light the alienated and strange cultures but in fact this cultural

decoding at best managed to reconstruct the classical Orient. He was to become the authority

on Orient, speaking for the Orient, such are the ways power and knowledge operate: "it put

into cultural circulation a form of discursive currency by whose presence the Orient

henceforth would be spoken for". By the end of First World War, 85% of the world had been

colonized and Orientalism formed a major part of this encroachment. From intellectual

accumulation West went on to accumulate both human beings and territories of Orient.

II

Silvestre de Sacy and Ernest Renan:

Rational Anthropology and Philological Laboratory

Modern Orientalism owes its initial credit to Silvestre de Sacy and Ernest Renan.

Sacy’s works are known for their ‘heroic effort’ and ‘rational utility’. As a master of Arabic,

he had a good exposure of the orient. He laid the foundations of modern Orientalism by

giving it a systematic shape. His work based this institution on educational grounds and

scholarly tradition. For the first time, the subject matter was taken from the Orient itself.

Most of his works are not novel rather revised form of the earlier material. He wrote with a

didactic purpose and with the intention of conveying the best for his students. He attempted

to bring into limelight the facts about the Orient which have remained hidden from Europe.

By using ‘powerful’ examples from the Orient, which have the ability to signify it, he has

displayed the Orient for his disciples.

Sacy introduced a historical consciousness in the study of Orientalism. In this

continuum, he wrote the book Tableau historique de l’erudition francaise, which brought the

knowledge about the Orient within the range of the people. A great addition was done by

Napoleon’s expeditions of the Orient, which helped to enhance the modern geographical

knowledge. In addition to that, the relationship between an Orientalist and his ‘subject matter’

was explained as well. Sacy introduced a well-defined vocabulary in this field that was to lay

foundations of modern Orientalism. As a result, formal methods were defined to study the

Orient and such examples were quotes ‘that even Orientals didn’t have’. Designing the

Orientalism as a field is on Sacy’s credit.

Sacy explained how the Arabic poetry needed to be transformed to suit the taste of

the Europeans’ and it was the job of the Orientalist to take this pain. He also believed that the

Orient was too crude to appreciate the high interests and taste of the Europe. He introduced

his theory of fragmentation which stated that since Orient could not be presented as a whole,

only fragments should be picked up that are appropriate for the interest of the European

audience. Hence a new genre, namely ‘chrestomathy’, was introduced. His anthologies

expertly cover the censorship carried by the Orientalists and give an impression of

naturalness despite being a collection of the fragments. Thus the reader only takes in the

reconstructed image of the Orient as portrayed by the Orientalist. The thin distinction

between the original Orient and that of the Orientalist becomes indistinguishable. Sacy’s

works ‘canonized the Orient’. Pioneer of this field though he was, however, he was soon

replaced by the newer versions of the Orientalists after many texts from the Orient were

translated.

Philology has been defined by Renan as "science of humanity" whereas Nietzsche

considered himself a philologist. Words and the history of the impressions and indentations in

meanings they have gone through, for him conveyed an adventure. Philology provided the

insight into language where history of words have both aesthetic and historical power. Renan

was interested in the scientific historical narration philology offered as opposed to

constructed history propagated by Catholic Church (Renan once considered clergy as a

career). He saw philology and modern culture intertwined stating "the founders of modern

minds are philologists". Philology offered "rationalism, criticism, liberalism" and as a

comparative discipline it clearly sees through supernaturalism (of religion) to reality of

scientific developments. And Above all else it offers a powerful position to philologists who

through "judging, comparing, combining, inducing" arrive at the system of things. Philology

studies evolution of language, when language itself is a symbol of power, forming the very

structures through which power operates , indirectly it is a study of evolution of power. In this

view, Renan's contribution to Orientalism is significant, for Orientalism was developed on

scientific and rational basis. The claim of divine origin of language was discarded

philologically, and Sanskrit was found to out-date Hebrew. Renan studied Orient

philologically and infused into the field a scientific attitude. Orientalism owes much of its

technical terminology and vocabulary to him

Up till now, India and China was considered to constitute the Orient but now Renin

opted to devise another form, which came to be known as Semitic Orient. He aimed to bring

the previously unknown ‘inferior’ languages of the Semitic into limelight and study them as a

science. He was of the view that Semite and Semitic were the ‘creation’ of philosophy.

Creation was taken in the sense that these languages were taken out of their hidden places and

given voice. They were also made available for comparison by devising a system for

classifying languages into Indo-European and Semitic. To study about the origins of

Christianity and Semitics was his field of specialization.

Semitic, considered to be a crude phenomenon held the central position as a branch of

the Orient. It was placed in the inverse relation to the ‘normal languages’. In this discourse,

Renan achieved expertise through extensive reading along with observation. However, Renan

treats everything related to the Orient or the Semitic to be below the standards. The Semitic

was, therefore, he declares to be inferior to human race in every course of life. At the same

time, he reminds his readers that his depictions are merely on ‘prototypes’ rather than

anything from real life. Hence, the tenants of Semitic are reduced to laboratory ‘specimens’

instead of being regarded living creatures.

In his book Histoire generale et systeme compare des languages semitiques, Renan

draws an analogy between anatomy and linguistics. Like anatomy discovers the internal

arrangement of things which is mostly hypothetical, linguistics constructs the paradigm of

proto-Sematic and Proto-Indo-European. They are the products of laboratory available in the

exaggerated form for the public. The Orientalists take out only those examples of the Orient

which depict their inferiority and then use it as a base to give their verdict on it. Since

linguistics does not have the ability to classify like anatomy, it uses the binary structure of

comparative nature for this purpose. This makes the Indo-European and the Semitic stand in

contrast to each other where the former is more live; in fact, ‘organic’ while the latter,

‘inorganic’.

In Renan’s view, Semitic is all about comparing the infant phenomenon with more

developed languages of rest of the world. Ironically, on one hand he preaches that all

languages belong to the people of the nature, while on the other, he completely discards the

Semitic as a ‘live language’ or Semites as ‘live creatures’. The Orientalist scientist, thus,

‘constructs’ a vision that keeps these polar phenomenon at one place. This authority to define

the world reflects the imperial power Europe enjoys and the philological laboratories are the

powerhouse of generating ethnocentrism. Renan’s genius, however, lies in the fact that he

gives life to the artificially fabricated image of the Orient so much so that it seems real.

Appearing in textual form, such images have a glimpse of live cultures.

Philology changed in its nature from being the ‘study of words’ to a more complex arena

of knowledge and philosophy. Renan believed in the power of words as they shackled the

otherwise ‘free Man’ into the chains of morality and other forms of awareness. It was the lab

of this philology, which declared the culture to be a constructed phenomenon, hence denying

the Orient any right to generate itself on its own. It was the philological laboratory that Renan

introduced new aspects of culture and society but added to the lucidity in the subject matter

of the Orient and gave it a scholarly shape. However, this lab failed to maintain an objective

view in the presence of its sense of superiority.

III

Oriental Residence and Scholarship:

The Requirements of Lexicography and Imagination

Renan’s views of Oriental Semite belong, less to prejudice and common anti-Semitism and

more too scientific Oriental philology. Both Renan and Saucy’s works observe the way

cultural generalization had begun to acquire a new phase of scientific statement and

corrective study. Modern Orientalism defines its subject matter in a viselike grip which held a

power to sustain everything. Thus a new vocabulary and its function developed and placed

Orient in a comparative frame work which is rarely descriptive and more evaluative and

explanatory. Renan comparing involve analogies of Indo- European families as ‘what a pencil

sketch is to painting, it lacks that variety, that amplitude, that abundance of life which is the

condition of perfectibility’. Renan view Indo-Europeans as an incomplete race which has

never been able to achieve height of sensibility and maturity attained by Indo-Germanic

races. Renan and Saucy reduce the Orient to a kind of human flatness by removing from it its

humanity, which easily expose its characteristics to scrutiny. Renan took his concepts from

philology, in which ideological beliefs encourage the reduction of language to its roots and

connect these linguistics roots to race, mind, and temperament. In Renan works there are

many anti-Semitic strictures. His works attack on the sensitive issues like Islam as in one of

his work he says that “the sword of Muhammad and the Kor’an, are the most stubborn

enemies of Civilization, Liberty, and the Truth which the world has yet known”. The

professional Orientalist job is to piece together a portrait of the Orient, their work is only

confine to supply the material, but the narrative shape, continuity and figures are constructed

by the scholars. Their scholarship consists of avoiding the unruly (un-Occidental) nonhistory

of the Orient with orderly chronicles, portraits and plots. Many of the earliest amateur

Orientals began by welcoming the Orient as a beneficial ‘derangement’ of their European

habits of mind and spirit. The Orient was misinterpreted for its pantheism, its spirituality, its

stability, its longevity, its primitivity, and so forth. Orientalism as a profession grew out of

compensation, and correction based on inequality

Caussin de Perceval’s Essai sur Phistoire des Arabes avant Plslamise, pendant de Mahomet,

is one such example which is wholly professional in nature. The information present in the

book depends for its sources on documents made available internally to the field by other

Orientalists or documents like ibn-Khaldun. Caussin’s thesis is that the Arabs were made a

people by Mohammed, Islam being essentially a political instrument, not by any means a

spiritual one. The consequences that merge out of the study of Islam are quite literally one

dimensional portrait of Mohammed. A nonprofessional correspondent to Caussin’s

Mohammad is Carlyle’s, a Mohammed. In a quite different light he overlooked all the

historical and cultural circumstances. His essay argues on some general ideas like sincerity,

heroism, and prophet hood.

Within the comparative field that Orientalism became after philological revolution of the

early nineteenth century, the Orient in itself was subordinated intellectually to the West. The

Orient acquired all the marks of an inherent weakness, and became a subject to various

theories. Many orientalists used Oriental Islam justifying the British intrusion in the Crimean

War. The Orient was usefully employed as conversation in the various salons of Paris. What

the early Orientalist achieve, what the non-Orientalist in the West exploited, was the reduced

model of Orient suitable for the prevalent dominant culture. Karl Marx identified the notion

of an Asiatic economic system in his 1853 analysis of British rule in India and beside that the

human plunder introduce into this system by English colonial outright cruelty and

interference. His articles pose conviction to the idea that even after destroying Asia, Britain

was making possible there a real social revolution. Marx style focuses on the difficulty of

reconciling our natural hatred as fellow creatures to the suffering of Orientals while their

societies are transformed violently by the historical necessities. “Oriental despotism has

restrained the human mind with in the smallest compass making it the unresisting tool of

superstition enslaving it beneath the traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and

historical energies […] England was the conscious tool of history in bringing about the

revolution”. In the end Marx conception about the Orient had Romantic or messianic sources.

Even though Marx had sympathy for human misery but his analysis were perfectly fitted for

the Orientalist lens advocating Romantic Orientalist views. “England has to fulfill a double

mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating __the annihilation of the Asiatic

society and the laying of the material foundations of Western society in Asia”. The idea of

regenerating fundamentally lifeless India is purely a Romantic Orientalism. The reason why

Marx left his sympathy and dispatched himself to Goethe as a source of wisdom on the Orient

was the individual mind was overpowered with precollective and preofficial individuality in

Asia.

In nineteenth century a modern professional terminology and practice were created whose

existence dominated discourse about the Orients, whether by Orientalist or non-Orientalist.

An arduous mechanism was created specifically for Orient which consists of omnicompetent

definitions based solely on personal human experiences. There is another tradition that

claimed its lawfulness from the peculiarly compelling fact of residence in actual existential

contact with Orient. The Napoleonic expedition defines the tradition’s earlier contours which

influence all Orientalist residence later on. To reside in the Orient is to live the privileged life,

not of an ordinary citizen, but of representative European whose empire (French or British)

contains the Orient in its military, economic, and above all, cultural arms Oriental residence.

These scholarly fruits fed into the bookish tradition of the textual attitudes found in Renan

and Sacy. These personal events and testimony gets converted into official codes of

Orientalist science.

To be a European in the Orient always involves being a consciousness set apart from, and

unequal with, its surroundings and the main thing is to note the intention of this

consciousness. There are small number of intentional categories which proposed themselves

systematically. One: the writer who intend to use his residence for a specific task of providing

professional Orientalism with specific material, taking his residence as a form of scientific

observation. Two: the writer who intends the same purpose but is less willing to sacrifice the

eccentricity and style of his individual consciousness to impersonal Oriental definitions.

Three: the writer for whom a real or metaphorical trip to the Orient is the fulfillment of some

deeply felt and urgent project. His text is therefore built on personal aesthetic, fed and

informed by the project. These three categories are not so separate from each other as they

rely upon the sheer egoistic powers of the Europeans at their center. The vision of Orient is

seen as a place of pilgrimage, or as a spectacle.

Lane’s book on the Egyptians was influential as it established its author’s reputation as an

eminent figure in Orientalism scholarship. He is quoted as a source ok knowledge about

Egypt or Arabia. The function of author in his book Modern Egyptians is less strong as his

work was disseminated into profession and institutionalized. Lane was able to submerge

himself among the natives to live as they did to conform their habits, and “to escape exciting,

in strangers any suspicion of… being a person who had no right to intrude among them”. He

lives among them as a native and wrote about them for the Europeans observing their rituals,

festivals, customs, adulthood and burial. As a narrator Lane is working on both scale he is

exhibiting and exhibitor, winning both confidences at once: the Oriental one for engaging

companionship and the Western one for authoritative useful knowledge.

On the one hand Orientalism acquired Orient as literally and as widely as possible; on the

other hand, it domesticated the knowledge of Orient to the West for the West. Thus the Orient

was converted from the personal testimony of valiant voyager and residents into impersonal

definitions of scientific workers. By the middle of the nineteenth century the Orient had

become, as Disreali said, a career, one in which one could remake and restore not only the

Orient but also oneself.