Orientalism (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
First edition cover, a detail of The Snake Charmer (1880), an Orientalist painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824–1904).
Author Edward W. Said
Country United States
Language English
Subject Post-colonialism
Genre Non-fiction
Publisher Vintage Books
Publication date
Media type Print (Paperback)
ISBN ISBN 0-394-74067-X
OCLC 4831769
LC Class DS12 .S24 1979

Orientalism (1978), by Edward W. Said, is a critical study of the cultural representations that are the bases of Orientalism, the West’s patronizing perceptions and fictional depictions of “the East” — the societies and peoples who inhabit the places of Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East. That Orientalism, Western scholarship about the Eastern World, was and remains inextricably tied to the imperialist societies who produced it, which makes much Orientalist work inherently political and servile to power, and thus intellectually suspect.[1]

That in the Middle East, the social, economic, and cultural practices of the ruling Arab élites indicate they are imperial satraps who have internalized the romanticized “Arab Culture” created by British and American Orientalists; the examples include critical analyses of the colonial literature of Joseph Conrad, which conflates a people, a time, and a place into a narrative of incident and adventure in an exotic land.[2]

The critical application of post-structuralism in the scholarship of Orientalism influenced the development of literary theory, cultural criticism, and the field of Middle Eastern studies, especially regarding how academics practice their intellectual enquiry when examining, describing, and explaining the Middle East.[3] The scope of Said’s scholarship established Orientalism as a foundation text in the field of Post-colonial Culture Studies, which examines the denotations and connotations of Orientalism, and the history of a country’s post-colonial period.[4] For subsequent editions of Orientalism (1978), Said wrote an “Afterword” (1995)[5] and a “Preface” (2003) addressing criticisms of the content, substance, and style of the work as cultural criticism.[6] As a public intellectual, Edward Said debated Orientalism with historians and scholars of area studies, notably, the Orientalist and historian Bernard Lewis, who disagreed with the controversial thesis of the book Orientalism.[7]


Orientalism is the source of the inaccurate, cultural representations that are the foundations of Western thought and perception of the Eastern world, specifically about the region of the Middle East. The principal characteristic of Orientalism is a “subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arab–Islamic peoples and their culture”, which prejudice derives from Western images (representations) that reduce the Orient to the fictional essences of “Oriental peoples” and “the places of the Orient”; such cultural representations dominate the communications (discourse) of Western peoples with non–Western peoples.[8]

In practice, the imperial and colonial enterprises of the West are facilitated by collaborating régimes of Europeanized Arab élites who have internalized the fictional, romanticized representations of Arabic culture — the Orientalism invented by Anglo–American Orientalists.[9] As such, Orientalist stereotypes of the cultures of the Eastern world have served, and continue to serve, as implicit justifications for the colonial ambitions and the imperial endeavours of the U.S. and the European powers. In that vein, about contemporary Orientalist stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, Said said:

So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Moslems and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab–Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have, instead, is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world, presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.

— “Islam Through Western Eyes” (1980) The Nation magazine.[10]

The thesis of Orientalism (1978) proposes that much of the Western study of Islamic civilization was an exercise in political intellectualism; a psychological exercise in the self-affirmation of “European identity”; not an objective exercise of intellectual enquiry and the academic study of Eastern cultures. Therefore, Orientalism was a method of practical and cultural discrimination that was applied to non-European societies and peoples in order to establish European imperial domination. In justification of empire, the Orientalist claims to know more — essential and definitive knowledge — about the Orient than do the Orientals.[11] That Western writings about the Orient, the perceptions of the East presented in Orientalism, cannot be taken at face value, because they are cultural representations based upon fictional, Western images of the Orient. That the history of European colonial rule and political domination of Eastern civilizations, distorts the intellectual objectivity of even the most knowledgeable, well-meaning, and culturally sympathetic Western Orientalist; thus did the term "Orientalism" become a pejorative word regarding non–Western peoples and cultures:[12]

I doubt if it is controversial, for example, to say that an Englishman in India, or Egypt, in the later nineteenth century, took an interest in those countries, which was never far from their status, in his mind, as British colonies. To say this may seem quite different from saying that all academic knowledge about India and Egypt is somehow tinged and impressed with, violated by, the gross political fact — and yet that is what I am saying in this study of Orientalism.

— Orientalism (1978) p. 11.[13]

Said said that the Western world dominated the Eastern world for more than 2,000 years, since Classical antiquity (8th c. BC – AD 6th c.), the time of the play The Persians (472 BC), by Aeschylus, which celebrates a Greek victory (Battle of Salamis, 480 BC) against the Persians in the course of the Persian Wars (499–449 BC) — imperial conflict between the Greek West and the Persian East.[14][15] Europe's long, military domination of Asia (empire and hegemony) made unreliable most Western texts about the Eastern world, because of the implicit cultural bias that permeates most Orientalism, which was not recognized by most Western scholars. In the course of empire, after the physical-and-political conquest, there followed intellectual conquest of a people, whereby Western scholars appropriated for themselves (as European intellectual property) the interpretation and translation of Oriental languages, and the critical study of the cultures and histories of the Oriental world.[16] In that way, by using Orientalism as the intellectual norm for cultural judgement, Europeans wrote the history of Asia, and invented the “exotic East” and the “inscrutable Orient”, which are cultural representations of peoples and things considered inferior to the peoples and things of the West.[17]

The romanticized Orient: The Reception of the Ambassadors in Damascus (1511) depicts the "Arabic culture" of 16th-century Syria.

The thesis of Orientalism concluded that “Western knowledge of the Eastern world”, i.e. Orientalism, fictionally depicts the Orient as an irrational, weak, and feminized, non-European Other, which is negatively contrasted with the rational, strong, and masculine West. Such a binary relation, in a hierarchy of weakness and strength, derives from the European psychological need to create a difference of cultural inequality, between West and East, which is attributable to “immutable cultural essences" inherent to Oriental peoples and things.[18] The binary relationship of strong-West-and-weak-East reinforces the cultural stereotypes invented with literary, cultural, and historical texts that are more fictitious than factual, which give the reader of Orientalist texts (history, travelogue, anthropology, etc.) a limited understanding of life in the Middle East, because Orientalism conflates the different societies of the Eastern world, into the homogeneous world of “the Orient”.[19]

The greatest intellectual impact of Orientalism (1978) was upon the fields of literary theory, cultural studies, and human geography, by way of which originated the field of Post-colonial studies. Edward Said's method of post-structuralist analysis derived from the analytic techniques of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault; and the perspectives to Orientalism presented by Abdul Latif Tibawi,[20] Anouar Abdel-Malek,[21] Maxime Rodinson,[22] and Richard William Southern,[23] The historical impact of Orientalism (1978) was in explaining the How? and the Why? of imperial impotence, because, in the late 1970s, to journalists, academics, and Orientalists, the Yom Kippur war (6–25 October 1973) and the OPEC petroleum embargo (October 1973 – March 1974) were recent modern history. The Western world had been surprised, by the pro-active and decisive actions of non–Western peoples, whom the ideology of Orientalism had defined as weak societies and impotent countries; the geopolitical reality of their actions, of military and economic warfare, voided the fictional nature of Orientalist representations, attitudes, and opinions about the non-Western Other self.[24]


The philosopher and theorist Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak, wrote the essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?”, which also is a foundational document of Post-colonialism.
The Eastern world depicted in The Snake Charmer (1880), by Jean-Léon Gérôme, illustrates the fictional beauty and mystery of the exotic Orient.

As a work of cultural criticism, Orientalism (1978) is the foundation document of the field of Post-colonialism, because the thesis proved historically factual, true, and accurate for the periods studied; and for the “How?” and the “Why?” of the cultural representations of "Orientals" and "The Orient" presented in the mass communications media of the Western world.[25] Post-colonial theory studies the power and the continued dominance of Western ways of intellectual enquiry and of knowing, in the academic, intellectual, and cultural spheres of the de-colonised country. Said's survey concentrated upon the British and the French varieties of Orientalism that supported the British Empire and the French Empire as commercial enterprises constructed from colonialism, and gave perfunctory coverage, discussion, and analyses of German Orientalist scholarship. Such disproportional investigation provoked criticism from opponents and embarrassment for supporters; in the magazine article "Orientalism Reconsidered" (1985), Said said that no-one opponent provided a rationale, by which limited coverage of German Orientalism limits either the scholarly value or the practical application of Orientalism as cultural study.[26] In the Afterword to the 1995 edition of Orientalism, Said presented follow-up refutations of the criticisms that the Orientalist and historian Bernard Lewis made against the book's first edition (1978).[27][28]

In the fields of literary criticism and of cultural studies, the notable Indian scholars of post-colonialism were Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, 1987),[29] Homi K. Bhabha (Nation and Narration, 1990),[30] Ronald Inden (Imagining India, 1990),[31] Gyan Prakash ("Writing Post–Orientalist Histories of the Third World: Perspectives from Indian Historiography", 1990),[32] Nicholas Dirks (Castes of Mind, 2001),[33] and Hamid Dabashi (Iran: A People Interrupted, 2007). In White Mythologies: Writing History and the West (1990), Robert J. C. Young reported Post-colonial explanations of the “How?” and the “Why?” of the nature of the post-colonial world, the peoples, and their discontents;[34][35] which verify the efficacy of the critical method applied in Orientalism (1978), especially in the field of Middle Eastern studies.[3]

In the late 1970s, the survey range of Orientalism (1978) did not include the genre of Orientalist painting or any other visual arts, despite the book-cover featuring a detail-image of The Snake Charmer (1880), a popular, 19th-century Orientalist painting — to which the writer Linda Nochlin applied Said's method of critical analysis “with uneven results”.[36] In the field of epistemological studies, Orientalism is an extended application of methods of critical analysis developed by the philosopher Michel Foucault.[37] The anthropologist Talal Asad said that Orientalism is “not only a catalogue of Western prejudices about and misrepresentations of Arabs and Muslims” . . . but an investigation and analysis of the “authoritative structure of Orientalist discourse — the closed, self-evident, self-confirming character of that distinctive discourse, which is reproduced, again and again, through scholarly texts, travelogues, literary works of imagination, and the obiter dicta of public men-of-affairs”.[38] The historian G. Prakash said that Orientalism describes how “the hallowed image of the Orientalist, as an austere figure, unconcerned with the world and immersed in the mystery of foreign scripts and languages, has acquired a dark hue as the murky business of ruling other peoples, now forms the essential and enabling background of his or her scholarship” about the Orient; without colonial imperialism, there would be no Orientalism.[39]

In Eastern Europe, Milica Bakić-Hayden developed the concept of Nesting Orientalisms (1992), based upon and derived from the work of the historian Larry Wolff (Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment, 1994), and the ideas Said presented in Orientalism (1978).[40] The Bulgarian historian Maria Todorova (Imagining the Balkans, 1997) presented her ethnologic concept of Nesting Balkanisms (Ethnologia Balkanica,1997), which is thematically related to and theoretically derived from Milica Bakić-Hayden's concept of Nesting Orientalisms.[41] In the article “A Stereotype, Wrapped in a Cliché, inside a Caricature: Russian Foreign Policy and Orientalism” (2010), J.D.J. Brown said that stereotyped, Western representations of Russia, derive from the literature of “Russian studies”, which is not much afflicted with misconceptions of Russia-as-the-Other, but does display the characteristics of Orientalism — the exaggeration of difference, the presumption of Western superiority, and the application of clichéd analytical models. That overcoming such intellectual malaise requires that scholars choose to break free of their ‘mind-forg′d manacles’ and reflect deeply upon the basic assumptions of their scholarship.[42]


Orientalism (1978), an academic study of cultural imperialism, by Prof. Edward W. Said, proved intellectually, professionally, and personally controversial. The thesis, content, substance, and style were much criticised by Orientalist academics, such as Albert Hourani (A History of the Arab Peoples, 1991), Robert Graham Irwin (For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and their Enemies, 2006), Nikki Keddie (An Islamic Response to Imperialism, 1968), and Bernard Lewis ("The Question of Orientalism", Islam and the West, 1993), and others.[43][44][45] In the book review “Enough Said” (2007), about Dangerous Knowledge (2007), by Robert Irwin, the preface paragraphs recapitulate the professional trials and tribulations of and repercussions to Orientalists caused by Orientalism (1978); Martin Kramer said that:

The Good Orientalist: Edward William Lane, the translator and lexicographer who compiled the Arabic–English Lexicon (1863–93).

the British historian Robert Irwin is the sort of scholar who, in times past, would have been proud to call himself an Orientalist . . . someone who mastered difficult languages, like Arabic and Persian, and then spent years bent over manuscripts, in heroic efforts of decipherment and interpretation. In Dangerous Knowledge, Irwin relates that the 19th-century English Arabist Edward William Lane, compiler of the great Arabic-English Lexicon [1840], “used to complain that he had become so used to the cursive calligraphy of his Arabic manuscripts that he found Western print a great strain on his eyes.”

Orientalism, in its heyday, was a branch of knowledge as demanding and rigorous as its near cousin, Egyptology. The first International Congress of Orientalists met in 1873; its name was not changed until a full century later. But there are no self-declared Orientalists today. The reason is that the late Edward Said turned the word into a pejorative. In his 1978 book Orientalism, the Palestinian-born Said, a professor of comparative literature at Columbia University, claimed that an endemic Western prejudice against the East had congealed into a modern ideology of racist supremacy — a kind of anti-Semitism directed against Arabs and Muslims. Throughout Europe’s history, announced Said, “every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.”

In a semantic sleight of hand, Said appropriated the term “Orientalism”, as a label for the ideological prejudice he described, thereby, neatly implicating the scholars who called themselves Orientalists. At best, charged Said, the work of these scholars was biased, so as to confirm the inferiority of Islam. At worst, Orientalists had directly served European empires, showing proconsuls how best to conquer and control Muslims. To substantiate his indictment, Said cherry-picked evidence, ignored whatever contradicted his thesis, and filled the gaps with conspiracy theories.
— “Enough Said”, Commentary magazine (March 2007)

Nonetheless, the literary critic Paul De Man said that, as a literary critic, “Said took a step further than any other modern scholar of his time, something I dare not do. I remain in the safety of rhetorical analysis, where criticism is the second-best thing I do.”[46]

The Oriental threat in the 17th century: the Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent, in 1683.

In the book review, “The Mightier Pen? Edward Said and the Double Standards of Inside-out Colonialism: a review of Culture and Imperialism, by Edward Said” (1993), Ernest Gellner said that Said’s contention of Western domination of the Eastern world for more than 2,000 years was unsupportable, because, until the late 17th century, the Ottoman Empire (1299–1923) was a realistic military, cultural, and religious threat to (Western) Europe.[47]

In “Disraeli as an Orientalist: The Polemical Errors of Edward Said” (2005), Mark Proudman noted incorrect 19th-century history in Orientalism, that the geographic extent of the British Empire was not from Egypt to India in the 1880s, because the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire in that time intervened between those poles of empire.[48] Moreover, at the zenith of the imperial era, European colonial power in the Eastern world never was absolute, it was relative and much dependent upon local collaborators — princes, rajahs, and warlords — who nonetheless often subverted the imperial and hegemonic aims of the colonialist power.[49]

In For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies (2006), Robert Irwin said that Said’s concentrating the scope of Orientalism to the Middle East, especially Palestine and Egypt, was a mistake, because the Mandate of Palestine (1920–1948) and British Egypt (1882–1956) only were under direct European control for a short time, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; thus are poor examples for Said’s theory of Western cultural imperialism. That Orientalism should have concentrated upon good examples of imperialism and cultural hegemony, such as the British Raj of India (1858–1947) and Russia’s dominions in Asia (1721–1917), but he did not, because, as a public intellectual, Prof. Edward Said was more interested in making political points about the politics of the Middle East, in general, and of Palestine, in particular.[50] Moreover, that by unduly concentrating on British and French Orientalism, Said ignored the domination of 19th century Oriental studies by German and Hungarian academics and intellectuals, whose countries did not possess an Eastern empire.[51]

The geographic extent of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. (1948 – to date)

In the article “Said’s Splash” (2001), Martin Kramer said that, fifteen years after publication of Orientalism (1978), the UCLA historian Nikki Keddie — whose work Said praised in Covering Islam (1981) — who originally had praised Orientalism as an ‘important, and, in many ways, positive’ book, had changed her mind. In Approaches to the History of the Middle East (1994), Keddie criticised Said’s work on Orientalism, for the unfortunate consequences upon her profession as an historian:

“I think that there has been a tendency in the Middle East field to adopt the word ‘orientalism’ as a generalized swear-word, essentially referring to people who take the ‘wrong’ position on the Arab–Israeli dispute, or to people who are judged too ‘conservative’. It has nothing to do with whether they are good or not good in their disciplines. So, ‘orientalism’, for many people, is a word that substitutes for thought and enables people to dismiss certain scholars and their works. I think that is too bad. It may not have been what Edward Said meant at all, but the term has become a kind of slogan.”

— “Said’s Splash”, Ivory Towers on Sand (2001)[52]

In the article, “Edward Said’s Shadowy Legacy” (2008), Robert Irwin said that Said ineffectively distinguished among writers of different centuries and genres of Orientalist literature. That the disparate examples, such as the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) who never travelled to the Orient; the French novelist Gustave Flaubert (1821–1880) who briefly toured Egypt; the French Orientalist Ernest Renan (1823–1892), whose anti-Semitism voided his work; and the British Arabist Edward William Lane (1801–1876), who compiled the Arabic–English Lexicon (1863–93) — did not constitute a comprehensive scope of investigation or critical comparison.[53] In that vein, in Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism (2007), Ibn Warraq earlier had said that in Orientalism (1978) Said had constructed a binary-opposite representation, a fictional European stereotype that would counter-weigh the Oriental stereotype. Being European is the only common trait among such a temporally and stylistically disparate group of literary Orientalists.[54]

The British Mandate of Palestine (1922).

In The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past (1988) O.P. Kejariwal said that with the creation of a monolithic Occidentalism to oppose the Orientalism of Western discourse with the Eastern world, Said had failed to distinguish, between the paradigms of Romanticism and the Enlightenment, and ignored the differences among Orientalists; and that he failed to acknowledge the positive contributions of Orientalists who sought kinship, between the worlds of the East and the West, rather than to create an artificial "difference" of cultural inferiority and superiority; such a man was William Jones (1746–1794), the British philologist–lexicographer who proposed that Indo–European languages are interrelated.[55]


In the sociological article, "Review: Who is Afraid of Edward Said?" (1999) Biswamoy Pati said that in making ethnicity and cultural background the tests of moral authority and intellectual objectivity in studying the Oriental world, Prof. Edward Wadie Said drew attention to his personal identity as a Palestinian and as a Subaltern of the British Empire, in the Near East.[56] Therefore, from the perspective of the Orientalist academic, Said’s personal background might, arguably, exclude him from writing about the Oriental world, hindered by an upper-class birth, an Anglophone upbringing, a British-school education in Cairo, residency in the U.S., a university-professor job; and categorical statements, such as: “any and all representations . . . are embedded, first, in the language, and then, in the culture, institutions, and political ambience of the representer . . . [the cultural representations are] interwoven with a great many other things, besides ‘the Truth’, which is, itself, a representation.”[57]

Hence, in the article "Orients and Occidents: Colonial Discourse Theory and the Historiography of the British Empire", D.A. Washbrook said that Said and his academic cohort indulge in excessive cultural relativism, which intellectual excess traps them in a “web of solipsism”, which limits conversation exclusively to “cultural representations” and to denying the existence of any objective truth.[58] That Said and his followers fail to distinguish between the types and degrees of Orientalism represented by the news media and popular culture (e.g. the light Orientalism of the children's movie Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, 1984), and heavy academic Orientalism about the language and literature, history and culture of the peoples of the Eastern world.[59][60]

In article “Orientalism Now” (1995), the historian Gyan Prakash said that Edward Said had explored fields of Orientalism already surveyed by his predecessors and contemporaries, such as V. G. Kiernan, Bernard S. Cohn, and Anwar Abdel Malek, who also had studied, reported, and interpreted the social relationship that makes the practice of imperialism intellectually, psychologically, and ethically feasible; that is, the relationship between European imperial rule and European representations of the non-European Other self, the colonised people.[61] That, as an academic investigator, Said already had been preceded in the critical analysis of the production of Orientalist knowledge and about Western methods of Orientalist scholarship, because, in the 18th century, “Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti [1753–1825], the Egyptian chronicler, and a witness to Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798, for example, had no doubt that the expedition was as much an epistemological as military conquest”. Nonetheless, George Landow, of Brown University, who criticized Said's scholarship and contested his conclusions, acknowledged that Orientalism is a major work of cultural criticism.[62]

In the event, in October 2003, one month after the death of Edward W. Said (1935–2003), professor of comparative literature, the Lebanese newspaper Daily Star recognized the intellectual import of the book Orientalism (1978), and said that “Said’s critics agree with his admirers that he has single-handedly effected a revolution in Middle Eastern studies in the U.S.” and that “U.S. Middle Eastern Studies were taken over, by Edward Said's postcolonial studies paradigm”, Orientalism.[63]

See also[edit]



  1. ^ The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Third Edition. (1999) p. 617.
  2. ^ The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, Third Edition (1994), pp. 642.
  3. ^ a b Stephen Howe, "Dangerous mind?", New Humanist, Vol. 123, November/December 2008
  4. ^ The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, Third Edition (1994), pp. 642–43, 581–83
  5. ^ Orientalism: “Afterword” pp. 329–352.
  6. ^ Orientalism: "Preface," pp. xi-xxiii.
  7. ^ Oleg Grabar, Edward Said, Bernard Lewis, "Orientalism: An Exchange", New York Review of Books, Vol. 29, No. 13. 12 August 1982. Accessed 4 January 2010.
  8. ^ The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Third Edition, Allan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, Editors. 1993, p. 617.
  9. ^ “Between Worlds”, Reflections on Exile, and Other Essays (2002) pp. 556–57
  10. ^ Said, Edward (26 April 1980). "Islam Through Western Eyes". The Nation. Retrieved 6 June 2013. 
  11. ^ Said, Edward. Orientalism (1978) p. 12.
  12. ^ Buruma, Ian (16 June 2008). "Orientalism today is just another form of insult". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 June 2013. 
  13. ^ Said, Edward. Orientalism, p. 11.
  14. ^ Said, Edward. Orientalism (1978) pp. 56-59.
  15. ^ The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, M.C. Howatson, Editor. 1990, p. 423.
  16. ^ The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, Third Edition, J.A. Cuddon, Editor. 1991, pp. 660–65.
  17. ^ Said, Edward. Orientalism (1978) pp. 38-41.
  18. ^ Said, Edward. Orientalism (1978) pp. 65–67.
  19. ^ Edward Said and The Production of Knowledge, by Sethi, Arjun (University of Maryland) accessed 20 April 2007.
  20. ^ Tibawi, A.L. "English-speaking Orientalists: A Critique of Their Approach to Islam and Arab Nationalism", Islamic Quarterly 8 (1964): pp. 25-45.
  21. ^ Abdel-Malek, Anour. "L’orientalisme en crise" (“Orientalism in Crisis”), Diogène 44 (1963) pp. 109-41.
  22. ^ "Bilan des études mohammadiennes", Revue Historique (1963) p. 465.1.
  23. ^ Southern, Richard William. Western views of Islam in the Middle Ages (1978) Cambridge:Harvard UP, 1962.
  24. ^ Said, Edward. “Afterword”, Orientalism (1978) pp. 329-352.
  25. ^ Terry Eagleton, book review of For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies, by Robert Irwin. [1], New Statesman, 13 February 2006.
  26. ^ Orientalism pp. 18–19.
  27. ^ Edward Said, "Orientalism Reconsidered", Cultural Critique magazine, No. 1, Autumn 1985, p. 96.
  28. ^ Orientalism 329–54.
  29. ^ Chakravorty Spivak, Gayatri. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, London: Methuen, 1987.
  30. ^ Bhaba, Homi K. Nation and Narration, New York & London: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1990.
  31. ^ Inden, Ronald. Imagining India, New York: Oxford UP, 1990.
  32. ^ Prakash, Gyan. "Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World: Perspectives from Indian Historiography", Comparative Studies in Society and History 32.2 (1990): 383–408.
  33. ^ Dirks, Nicholas. Castes of Mind, Princeton: Princeton UP, 2001.
  34. ^ Robert Young, White Mythologies: Writing History and the West, New York & London: Routledge, 1990.
  35. ^ Emory University, Department of English, Introduction to Postcolonial Studies
  36. ^ Tromans, Nicholas, and others, The Lure of the East, British Orientalist Painting, pp. 6, 11 (quoted), 23–25, 2008, Tate Publishing, ISBN 978-1-85437-733-3.
  37. ^ Clifford, J. (1980). Orientalism [book review]. History & Theory, 19(2), 204–223.
  38. ^ Asad, T. (1980) English Historical Review, p. 648.
  39. ^ Prakash, G (Oct., 1995) “Orientalism Now” History and Theory , Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 199–200.
  40. ^ Ashbrook, John E (2008), Buying and Selling the Istrian Goat: Istrian Regionalism, Croatian Nationalism, and EU Enlargement, New York: Peter Lang, p. 22, ISBN 90-5201-391-8, OCLC 213599021, Milica Bakić-Hayden built on Wolff's work, incorporating the ideas of Edward Said's "Orientalism" 
  41. ^ Ethnologia Balkanica, Sofia: Prof. M. Drinov Academic Pub. House, 1995, p. 37, OCLC 41714232, The idea of "Nesting Orientalisms", in Bakić-Hayden (1995), and the related concept of "Nesting balkanisms", in Todorova (1997) . . . 
  42. ^ Brown, J.D.J. (2010) A Stereotype, Wrapped in a Cliché, Inside a Caricature: Russian Foreign Policy and Orientalism. Politics, 30(3), pp. 149–159.
  43. ^ Bernard Lewis, "The Question of Orientalism", Islam and the West, London, 1993: pp. 99, 118.
  44. ^ Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies, London: Allen Lane, 2006.
  45. ^ Martin Kramer, "Enough Said (review of Robert Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge)", March 2007. Retrieved 5 January 2010.
  46. ^ Nosal, K R. American Criticism, New York Standard, New York. 2002
  47. ^ Ernest Gellner, "The Mightier Pen? Edward Said and the Double Standards of Inside-out Colonialism" (rev. of Culture and Imperialism by Edward Said), Times Literary Supplement, 19 February 1993: pp. 3-4.
  48. ^ Mark F. Proudman, "Disraeli as an Orientalist: The Polemical Errors of Edward Said," Journal of the Historical Society, 5 December 2005.
  49. ^ C. A. Bayly Empire and Information, Delhi: Cambridge UP, 1999: pp. 25, 143, 282.
  50. ^ Robert Irwin For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies London: Allen Lane, 2006: pp. 159–60, 281–82.
  51. ^ Irwin, For Lust of Knowing: pp. 8, 155–66.
  52. ^ "Said’s Splash" Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, Policy Papers 58 (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2001)
  53. ^ Robert Irwin, "Edward Said's shadowy legacy", Times Literary Supplement, 7 May 2008. Accessed 5 January 2010.
  54. ^ Ibn Warraq, Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism, 2007.
  55. ^ O.P. Kejariwal, The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past, Delhi: Oxford UP, 1988: pp. ix–xi, 221–233.
  56. ^ Biswamoy Pati, "Review: Who Is Afraid of Edward Said?". Social Scientist, Vol. 27. No. 9/10 (Sept.–Oct. 1999), pp. 79.
  57. ^ Orientalism: p. 272
  58. ^ D.A. Washbrook, "Orients and Occidents: Colonial Discourse Theory and the Historiography of the British Empire", in "Historiography, vol. 5 of The Oxford History of the British Empire p. 607.
  59. ^ Said, Edward, "Afterword", Orientalism (1978) 1995 ed. p. 347.
  60. ^ Kaizaad Navroze Kotwal, "Steven Spielberg's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as Virtual Reality: The Orientalist and Colonial Legacies of Gunga Din," The Film Journal no. 12, April 2005.
  61. ^ Prakash, G. (October 1995) “Orientalism Now”, History and Theory, Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 200.
  62. ^ Edward W. Said's Orientalism
  63. ^ Daily Star, 20 October 2003

Further reading[edit]

  • Ankerl, Guy Coexsiting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Mulsim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INU Press, 2000. ISBN 2-88155-004-5
  • Balagangadhara, S. N. "The Future of the Present: Thinking Through Orientalism", Cultural Dynamics, Vol. 10, No. 2, (1998), pp. 101–23. ISSN 0921-3740.
  • Benjamin, Roger Orientalist Aethetics, Art, Colonialism and French North Africa: 1880–1930, U. of California Press, 2003
  • Biddick, Kathleen. "Coming Out of Exile: Dante on the Orient(alism) Express", The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 4. (Oct., 2000), pp. 1234–1249.
  • Brown, James D.J. (2010) "A Stereotype, Wrapped in a Cliché, Inside a Caricature: Russian Foreign Policy and Orientalism", Politics, 30(3), 149-159.
  • Fleming, K.E. "Orientalism, the Balkans, and Balkan Historiography", The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 4. (Oct., 2000), pp. 1218–1233.
  • Halliday, Fred. "'Orientalism' and Its Critics", British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2. (1993), pp. 145–163.
  • Irwin, Robert. For lust of knowing: The Orientalists and their enemies. London: Penguin/Allen Lane, 2006 (ISBN 0-7139-9415-0)
  • Kabbani, Rana. Imperial Fictions: Europe's Myths of Orient. London: Pandora Press, 1994 (ISBN 0-04-440911-7).
  • Kalmar, Ivan Davidson & Derek Penslar. Orientalism and the Jews Brandeis 2005
  • Klein, Christina. Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945–1961. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003 (ISBN 0-520-22469-8; paperback, ISBN 0-520-23230-5).
  • Knight, Nathaniel. "Grigor'ev in Orenburg, 1851–1862: Russian Orientalism in the Service of Empire?", Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Spring, 2000), pp. 74–100.
  • Kontje, Todd. German Orientalisms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004 (ISBN 0-472-11392-5).
  • Little, Douglas. American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East Since 1945. (2nd ed. 2002 ISBN 1-86064-889-4).
  • Lowe, Lisa. Critical Terrains: French and British Orientalisms. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992 (ISBN 978-0-8014-8195-6).
  • Macfie, Alexander Lyon. Orientalism. White Plains, NY: Longman, 2002 (ISBN 0-582-42386-4).
  • MacKenzie, John. Orientalism: History, theory and the arts. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995 (ISBN 0-7190-4578-9).
  • Murti, Kamakshi P. India: The Seductive and Seduced "Other" of German Orientalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001 (ISBN 0-313-30857-8).
  • Minuti, Rolando: Oriental Despotism, European History Online, Mainz: Institute of European History, 2012, retrieved: June 6, 2012.
  • Noble dreams, wicked pleasures: Orientalism in America, 1870–1930 by Holly Edwards (Editor). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000 (ISBN 0-691-05004-X).
  • Orientalism and the Jews, edited by Ivan Davidson Kalmar and Derek Penslar. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2004 (ISBN 1-58465-411-2).
  • Oueijan, Naji. The Progress of an Image: The east in English Literature. New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 1996.
  • Peltre, Christine. Orientalism in Art. New York: Abbeville Publishing Group (Abbeville Press, Inc.), 1998 (ISBN 0-7892-0459-2).
  • Prakash, Gyan. "Orientalism Now", History and Theory, Vol. 34, No. 3. (Oct., 1995), pp. 199–212.
  • Rotter, Andrew J. "Saidism without Said: Orientalism and U.S. Diplomatic History", The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 4. (Oct., 2000), pp. 1205–1217.
  • Varisco, Daniel Martin. "Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid." Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007. (ISBN 978-0-295-98752-1).

External links[edit]