Criticism to Edward W. Said’s Orientalism

Abstract

The publication of Edward W. Said’s Orientalism marked a momentous intervention in the historiography of Western imperialism and Western representations of the Middle East. Many regarded Orientalism as “one of the most influential scholarly books published in English in the humanities in the last quarter of the twentieth century”(Lockman, 2004: 190). The book stormed up a debate in the academic world by accusing the West of having a skewed and condescending view towards the East, particularly in the several ways in which Westerners portrayed and represented non-Western cultures. While Orientalism generated sympathy and agreement, it also raised complete rejection. Alexander Lyon Macfie points out this aspect in his book Orientalism (2002) as: “Opinion regarding the validity of Said’s Orientalism was then mixed. But a pattern of sorts can be detected, based not so much on the nationality and religion of the scholars and intellectuals concerned as on their attitude to history and the modern and post-modern philosophical ideas (deconstruction, truth as illusion, intellectual hegemony, and so on) which frequently influence it” (109). The present paper tries to bring an approach to criticism made towards Edward Said, his influential theory and Said’s partial response to those criticism.

Keywords

• Orientalism,orient,Occident,Edward W. Said,criticism

Edward W. Said’in Oryantalizm’ine eleştirel bakış

Öz

Edward W. Said’in Oryantalizm adlı kitabının yayınlanması ile Batı emperyalizminin Orta Doğu’ nun, Batı’daki temsiline ve tarihsel yazılımına önemli bir eleştirel müdahalede bulunmuştur. Pek çoğu Oryantalizmi “yirminci yüzyılın son çeyreğinde İngilizcede yayımlanan en etkili akademik kitaplardan biri olarak kabul etmiştir”(Lockman, 2004: 190). Eser, Batılıların batı'ya özgü olmayan kültürler hakkında yazdıkları ve temsillerini eleştirerek, çeşitli şekillerde çarpık ve küçümseyici bakış açısı getirmeleri suçlamasıyla akademik dünyada bir tartışma başlatmıştır. Oryantalizm, sempati ve anlayış ile karşılanmakla beraber, aynı zamanda, uzun bir tutarsızlıklar listesi de içerdiğinden, tam bir reddedişi de beraberinde getirdi. Alexander Lyon Macfie, Oryantalizm (2002) adlı eserinde bu durumu şöyle açıklamaktadır: “Said’ in Oryantalizm adlı eserinin geçerliliği o an için karmaşıktı. Fakat alimlerin ve entellektüellerin milliyet ve dinlerinden bağımsız olarak, bunları etkileyen tarihi, modern ve post-modern (yapısal çözümleme, gerçekliğin aldatmacası, entellektüel hegamonya, ve bunun gibi) felsefik fikirlerle ilgili olarak bir örneklem çeşitliliğine de rastlanmaktaydı”(109). Mevcut çalışma Edward Said’ e ve etkileyici teorisine olan eleştirileri, ve Said’ in bu eleştirilere olan kısmi cevaplarını sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Şarkiyatçılık,doğuya ait,Oksidant,Edward Said,eleştiri

References

1. Ahmad, A. (1992). In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. London; New York: Verso. Ahmad, A. (2000). “Between Orientalism and Historicism”. Orientalism:A Reader. Ed. A. L. Macfie. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press. Al-Azm, S. J. (2000). “Orientalism and Orientalism in Reverse”. Orientalism: A Reader. Ed. A. L. Macfie. New York: New York University Press. p. 5-26. Al-Azm, S. J. (2005). “Islam, Terrorism, and the West.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 25.1: 6-15. Chatterjee, Kumkum and Clement Hawes. (2008). Europe Observed: Multiple Gazes in Early Modern Encounters. Lewisburg: Buckness UP. Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia University Press. Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Trans. A. M. Sheridan. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books. Gramsci, A. (2000).“On Hegemony and Direct Rule”. Orientalism: A Reader. Ed. A. L. Macfie. New York: New York University Press. New York: International Publishers. Halliday, F. (1993). “Orientalism and Its Crisis.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 20, 2, p. 145-163. Kennedy, V. (2000). Edward Said: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kopf, D. (2000). “Hermeneutics versus History”. Orientalism: A Reader. Ed. A. L. Macfie. New York: New York University Press. Journal of Asian Studies. 39, 3. Pp. 495-506. Lewis, B. (1993). Islam and the West. New York: Oxford UP. Lockman, Zachary. Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print. Macfie, A. L. (2000). Orientalism: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Macfie, A. L. (2002). Orientalism. London: Pearson Education. MacKenzie, M. J. (2000). Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts. Orientalism: A Reader. Ed. A. L. Macfie. New York: New York UP. MacKenzie, M. J. (2015). “The British Empire: Ramshackle or Rampaging? A Historiographical Reflection”, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 43:1, 99-124. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (2000). Extract from Human, All Too Human. Orientalism: A Reader. Ed. A. L. Macfie. New York: New York University Press. London: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 23-4. Richardson, M. (1990). “Enough Said: Reflections on Orientalism.” Anthropology Today 6, 4, p. 16-19. Said. E. (2003). Orientalism. New York: Vintage. Sivan, E. (1985). “Edward Said and his Arab Reviewers”. Interpretations of Islam: Past and Present. Princeon, NJ: Darwin Press. Varisco, Daniel, M. (2008) Reading Orientalism: Said and the Unsaid, Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Warraq, I. (2007). Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. Young, R. (2004). “Disorienting Orientalism.” White Mythologies: writing history and the West. London; New York: Routledge. p. 119- 140.