Orientals, Orientalism, and Reason
It’s to my absolute dismay and utter embarrassment to say that, though a graduated Middle Eastern Studies and Arabic Language major, I am just finally turning to Edward Said’s seminal work: Orientalism. Whew- I said it. Yes, I am just now reading the work that is the preeminent critical analysis on my own body of academic enquiry. The fact that I am now about three years late in this task was painfully highlighted by Said’s preface to the 2003 edition of the book. While reading that whole preface, I felt like I was some sort of intense boxing fan cheering Said as he boxed his imaginary opponents, mimicking his punches in the air, and yelling “Yeah, get’em, get’em.”
But the purpose of this post is not to laud Said’s work, necessarily, though I would happily do that. No, something specific in the book, along with a couple of recent conversations struck me pretty deeply as having to do with the common U.S. (and I realize I generalize almost unforgivably here… almost) perception of the Middle East. In Said’s case, this is the Orient; an Orient which is conceptualized and discussed and debated, as if it is some “thing” or concept to be grappled with and ultimately subdued. Said’s point is that originally “Orientalism” was just that: an academic endeavor to “conquer,” so to speak, the idea of the Orient. This academic endeavor eventually-or as he says, inevitably- turned into the physical manifestation of that academic subjugation of the Orient as an idea: meaning the academic turned into a political endeavor and thereby the people of the Orient were essentially subjugated for the whims of the Occident.
The specific idea that struck me so personally is the Western perception of “Oriental” powers of reason. In the early part of the 1900’s Lord Evelyn Baring Cromer was England’s “Representative” (essentially Governor) in Egypt. In his work Modern Egypt, Lord Cromer explained the “Oriental mind”:
Accuracy is abhorrent to the Oriental mind…..Want of accuracy, which easily degenerates into untruthfulness, is in fact the main characteristic of the Oriental mind….. Although the ancient Arabs acquired in a somewhat higher degree the science of dialectics, their descendants are singularly deficient in the logical faculty.
(*note: this quote is directly taken from Edward Said’s work, pg. 38)
Pretty stark? Slightly racist? Of course, we wouldn’t make such a similar mistake today. Would we? In the 1970’s Henry Kissinger wrote an essay in which he expressed his view of the “developing world” (meaning Africa and the Middle East, among some other regions):
Cultures which escaped the early impact of Newtonian thinking have retained the essentially pre-Newtonian view that the real world is almost completely internal to the observer…. Empirical reality has a much different significance…
(*note: again, this quote is extracted directly from Said’s work, pg. 47)
I’ve heard the argument expressed in many different ways, from many different people, each with varying degrees of experience in the Middle East (the “Orient”). The argument is wrong, unequivocally.
Most important in my view is the unsaid implication of the argument. The argument, when boiled down, says only this:
“We” are logical and “They” are not.
It took me all of about five seconds to blow all sorts of holes in that assertion.
Logic is a much more complex system than is commonly conceived; anyone who has taken any form of philosophy course has probably experienced and grappled with the trials and travails of an “argument” and its requisite logic train.
As someone who has spent about two out of the last five years in the Middle East, I can say from personal experience that people here engage in logical fallacies no more or less frequently than people do so in the United States. While the education system here may not be the same as in the United States or other Western countries, that fact does not lend itself to a racial determination of Western superiority in the faculties of logic.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the common U.S. citizen’s perception of the Middle East and its people belies just as poor a faculty for logic as that which the West tends to attribute to the people of the Middle East. Ironic, huh. Controversial? Probably, and I may get some criticism for that observation. Nevertheless, it’s something I’ve observed.
As my case-in-point, I would love to use the Glenn Beck Farcical Logic Train, but I’m afraid that would be just too easy. Because Glenn Beck’s arguments, along with those arguments of some pundits who fall along the same ideological vein, are not logical; they are a demonstrable farce.
Rather, the example that popped up in my mind was a small debate that was the result of a survey in which U.S. citizens were asked their religious affiliation and then asked basic questions about beliefs and traditions of world religions. The survey found that those people asserting to be Atheist or Agnostic demonstrated the most accurate knowledge about religion in general as well as overall specifics of world religions. The research seemed well done and comprehensive, with breakdowns by not only religious affiliation, but also by race, income, geographical location… etc.
Yet the immediate debate was more interesting to me than the poll itself. The first general conclusion by a number of people claiming to be Atheist was this research validated Atheism. Or in other words, their argument seemed to go: because “we” know more about religion in general, our perspective is the truth or the closest to it. Q.E.D.
Yet anyone can see that argument does not logically make sense; it’s a totally invalid argument. The debate degenerated further as other people, in defense of religiosity, simply dismissed the whole poll, its implications, and its subsequent debate by simply asserting “we just know based on faith and nothing else matters.”
Again, my point in this post is to say only this: the belief that any “other” group of people has a weaker capacity for logic is false. It amounts to a massive case of Actor-Observer Bias.* If, as one would hope, people want to interact for their mutual benefit and without creating animosity, then those people have to be able to conceive of each other as equals. I would argue that the tendency in the West and in Western media to view the Middle East as full of generally illogical people does exactly the opposite of that and it has a tangible detrimental effect on Western dealings in the Middle East in general.
I need to add, a day after I originally posted this update, something that has been festering, for lack of a better word, in my mind. I'm going to take a side here, a political side in American politics. I know that might make some people uncomfortable; but I need to take this side. This is in regard to the question posed by President George W. Bush immediately following the September 11, 2001, attacks: "Why do they hate us?" The question is ultimately a poor one, being highly misleading and founded on vague assumptions. But most insidious of all was the answer he proferred to that very poor question: "They hate our freedoms." I have to ask, is that logical? I'm not asking if the answer is poorly supported. I'm asking if, on an emotional level, that answer makes sense? To say "yes" would be to commit the same error that I describe in the post above: one would be saying that "They" are illogical. In addition, not only does that answer assume "they" are of a lower capacity for logic, for establishing the truth, that answer is totally and completely wrong.
Thank you for your interest, I appreciate any thoughts or comments on my argument.
-Brennan
It’s to my absolute dismay and utter embarrassment to say that, though a graduated Middle Eastern Studies and Arabic Language major, I am just finally turning to Edward Said’s seminal work: Orientalism. Whew- I said it. Yes, I am just now reading the work that is the preeminent critical analysis on my own body of academic enquiry. The fact that I am now about three years late in this task was painfully highlighted by Said’s preface to the 2003 edition of the book. While reading that whole preface, I felt like I was some sort of intense boxing fan cheering Said as he boxed his imaginary opponents, mimicking his punches in the air, and yelling “Yeah, get’em, get’em.”
But the purpose of this post is not to laud Said’s work, necessarily, though I would happily do that. No, something specific in the book, along with a couple of recent conversations struck me pretty deeply as having to do with the common U.S. (and I realize I generalize almost unforgivably here… almost) perception of the Middle East. In Said’s case, this is the Orient; an Orient which is conceptualized and discussed and debated, as if it is some “thing” or concept to be grappled with and ultimately subdued. Said’s point is that originally “Orientalism” was just that: an academic endeavor to “conquer,” so to speak, the idea of the Orient. This academic endeavor eventually-or as he says, inevitably- turned into the physical manifestation of that academic subjugation of the Orient as an idea: meaning the academic turned into a political endeavor and thereby the people of the Orient were essentially subjugated for the whims of the Occident.
The specific idea that struck me so personally is the Western perception of “Oriental” powers of reason. In the early part of the 1900’s Lord Evelyn Baring Cromer was England’s “Representative” (essentially Governor) in Egypt. In his work Modern Egypt, Lord Cromer explained the “Oriental mind”:
Accuracy is abhorrent to the Oriental mind…..Want of accuracy, which easily degenerates into untruthfulness, is in fact the main characteristic of the Oriental mind….. Although the ancient Arabs acquired in a somewhat higher degree the science of dialectics, their descendants are singularly deficient in the logical faculty.
(*note: this quote is directly taken from Edward Said’s work, pg. 38)
Pretty stark? Slightly racist? Of course, we wouldn’t make such a similar mistake today. Would we? In the 1970’s Henry Kissinger wrote an essay in which he expressed his view of the “developing world” (meaning Africa and the Middle East, among some other regions):
Cultures which escaped the early impact of Newtonian thinking have retained the essentially pre-Newtonian view that the real world is almost completely internal to the observer…. Empirical reality has a much different significance…
(*note: again, this quote is extracted directly from Said’s work, pg. 47)
I’ve heard the argument expressed in many different ways, from many different people, each with varying degrees of experience in the Middle East (the “Orient”). The argument is wrong, unequivocally.
Most important in my view is the unsaid implication of the argument. The argument, when boiled down, says only this:
“We” are logical and “They” are not.
It took me all of about five seconds to blow all sorts of holes in that assertion.
Logic is a much more complex system than is commonly conceived; anyone who has taken any form of philosophy course has probably experienced and grappled with the trials and travails of an “argument” and its requisite logic train.
As someone who has spent about two out of the last five years in the Middle East, I can say from personal experience that people here engage in logical fallacies no more or less frequently than people do so in the United States. While the education system here may not be the same as in the United States or other Western countries, that fact does not lend itself to a racial determination of Western superiority in the faculties of logic.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the common U.S. citizen’s perception of the Middle East and its people belies just as poor a faculty for logic as that which the West tends to attribute to the people of the Middle East. Ironic, huh. Controversial? Probably, and I may get some criticism for that observation. Nevertheless, it’s something I’ve observed.
As my case-in-point, I would love to use the Glenn Beck Farcical Logic Train, but I’m afraid that would be just too easy. Because Glenn Beck’s arguments, along with those arguments of some pundits who fall along the same ideological vein, are not logical; they are a demonstrable farce.
Rather, the example that popped up in my mind was a small debate that was the result of a survey in which U.S. citizens were asked their religious affiliation and then asked basic questions about beliefs and traditions of world religions. The survey found that those people asserting to be Atheist or Agnostic demonstrated the most accurate knowledge about religion in general as well as overall specifics of world religions. The research seemed well done and comprehensive, with breakdowns by not only religious affiliation, but also by race, income, geographical location… etc.
Yet the immediate debate was more interesting to me than the poll itself. The first general conclusion by a number of people claiming to be Atheist was this research validated Atheism. Or in other words, their argument seemed to go: because “we” know more about religion in general, our perspective is the truth or the closest to it. Q.E.D.
Yet anyone can see that argument does not logically make sense; it’s a totally invalid argument. The debate degenerated further as other people, in defense of religiosity, simply dismissed the whole poll, its implications, and its subsequent debate by simply asserting “we just know based on faith and nothing else matters.”
Again, my point in this post is to say only this: the belief that any “other” group of people has a weaker capacity for logic is false. It amounts to a massive case of Actor-Observer Bias.* If, as one would hope, people want to interact for their mutual benefit and without creating animosity, then those people have to be able to conceive of each other as equals. I would argue that the tendency in the West and in Western media to view the Middle East as full of generally illogical people does exactly the opposite of that and it has a tangible detrimental effect on Western dealings in the Middle East in general.
I need to add, a day after I originally posted this update, something that has been festering, for lack of a better word, in my mind. I'm going to take a side here, a political side in American politics. I know that might make some people uncomfortable; but I need to take this side. This is in regard to the question posed by President George W. Bush immediately following the September 11, 2001, attacks: "Why do they hate us?" The question is ultimately a poor one, being highly misleading and founded on vague assumptions. But most insidious of all was the answer he proferred to that very poor question: "They hate our freedoms." I have to ask, is that logical? I'm not asking if the answer is poorly supported. I'm asking if, on an emotional level, that answer makes sense? To say "yes" would be to commit the same error that I describe in the post above: one would be saying that "They" are illogical. In addition, not only does that answer assume "they" are of a lower capacity for logic, for establishing the truth, that answer is totally and completely wrong.
Thank you for your interest, I appreciate any thoughts or comments on my argument.
-Brennan
*note: Actor-Observer Bias apparently falls into something of a larger and developing psychological theory, thus it may not be an entirely accurate designation; but as I'm not completely up to date on theory in psychology I'm using the term as I learned it about five years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment