What aspects of Huntington’s and Said’s essays did you find compelling? Which aspects did you find particularly troubling? Do you find yourself listening to the news with a more critical ear? Are you questioning the ‘facts’ when they are presented to you?
Clash of Civilizations and Orientalism
Published by
One of the things that Said wrote really stood out to me in his “Human Geography” article….
“Taking the late eighteenth century as a very roughly defined starting point Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient – dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.”
Orientalists like Lewis and Huntington have made a living talking about the clash of cultures and “civilizations”, but have popularized it to the degree that it taints everything that we hear in the media, read in books, learn in classes, etc. One of the most interesting (at least for me) aspects of Said’s focus was the way that it shapes the academic setting, since the fields that are intended to create the future leaders of America (political science, international relations, etc.) tend to use conservative theories of international politics, which Orientalism has managed to infiltrate.
The example in class using Al-Jazeera is especially interesting to look at, given the way that the American media talks about it. You see it again and again… the Fox stories on youtube that are discussing some televised broadcasting on Al-Jazeera that is intended to promote terrorism, or similar stories about other prominent Middle Eastern news sources.
The bottom line is that regardless of where you read the news, it will always have a “spin.” The point is not to accept one source of news as the end of your search, but probably the beginning.
PS- for those of you who are interested in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and want to read a non-US source, there is a great website called electronicintifada.net that gives a Palestinian perspective.
Edward Said's interpretation of "Orientalism"is a critique of the huge canon of European-produced literature on the non-European world; his interpretation assumes this framework of thought to be inferior. Does this mean the European written historical interpretations of the Middle East should be ignored? Furthermore, should Said's argument, if adopted personally, imply that one should actively reject the opinions of such thinkers as Samuel Huntington? Is this not a form of ignorance, the very same ignorance that Said speaks of?
Within the context of our in-class discussion, and simply the way we have presented Said's Orientalism argument directly against Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in our course syllabus, one feels compelled to choose one side, and defend it ardently. If one is to side with Said and support a reconsideration of the way we characterize and "otherize" different cultures, it seems that many people also believe they should actively reject the position of Huntington. In order to dismantle a supposedly incorrect system of thought, it should be understood from the inside. A point-blank refusal to even consider Huntington's "Clash of Civilization" argument is not proof of true understanding.
I am partial towards Said's argument. I am convinced that conflicts arise from mutual misunderstandings, and that seemingly disparate cultures like the West and "the Orient" ARE able to understand one another. I disagree with Huntington's theory, but this disagreement should not give me cause to ignore his arguments. Prominent modern thinkers, who are well-versed in world history, social movements and cultural clash, DO find agreement with Huntington. There is no reason to dismiss his theory completely.
One aspect of Said’s work that I found particularly interesting and universal was the concept of imagined geographies. Said’s explanation of Orientalism is inextricably linked with the concept of imagined geographies. Imagined Geographies are also applicable to Huntington’s writing. Huntington’s work hypothesizes cultural differences will be the cause for future world conflicts. Many of those differences surely will be the result of or influenced by imagined geographies. Likewise, Orientalism consists of a perspective based upon limited or lack of exposure to the east whether it be through movies, literature, travel, or television.
Huntington’s writing is what one could describe as troubling to the average person but perhaps some would describe it as realistic. The fact that cultural differences could one day fodder conflicts isn’t promising by any means since it is feasible. Despite the increase of globalization and the increasing availability of information, imagined geographies are held by nearly every person. Personally, In this course alone I have already experienced many moments where I believed I knew something about a region that was false or misleading. As a result, one must always be cautious while watching or reading the news from or about a particular region. Questions such as: Where is my news source from? Is it considered credible? are necessary and worth asking when examining current events and news.
Huntington states that "Over the centuries€¦differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts." I find this frightening because of how true it is. The cultural differences (religion, language, culture, and simple family relations) among countries, regions, and civilizations altogether are striking and are the reasons behind many clashes, such as the ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel. I agree with the fact that these conflicts will only increase. This is evident in "Asianization" in Japan and "re-Islmaization" of the Middle East. As time goes on culture and identity will become more and more important to people, and instead of looking for similarities, it seems that most are making efforts to find differences and to establish uniqueness-as Huntington puts it, €˜civilization consciousness.'
However, Said makes a good point. He says, "downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization." It is very unlikely that Huntington was aware of the opinions of everyone in the world from every background and culture, which means he does not really have the right to speak on behalf of an entire religion or culture. Said also addresses Huntington's repetitive claim that everyone is separated and divisions are everywhere and the people of this world can never be united on account of cultural differences. He says, "trying to plow or divide them with barriers is futile." I agree 100% with this statement. When one continues to take note of differences between races, religions, regions, custom, or whatever, nothing productive results. It only makes people more aware of the differences between themselves and those of another state, when they should glorify what makes everyone similar and accept the differences.
In terms of the news, one must watch/listen/read with intense care and criticism. The source always needs to be considered, even though there's almost no way to escape bias€”everyone has an opinion and is entitled to one. However, onlookers need to watch with open minds. Especially after having read these articles, I will fully consider both sides of the story, AND THEN form an opinion. I'll probably ignore generalized statements (as they are never true for every single individual in a group of people).
Another comment, on the first post at the end when a web address is given for more information regarding the Palestinian point of view. This is very important, especially since they are rarely given the opportunity to express themselves. Many in the West don’t understand the Palestinian side of the conflict and view them as the ‘bad guys,’ when in reality they are just trying to survive.