![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
My attempt to note that many scholars would question what this page merely asserts was met with reverts. So, I ask, if I can't say that some scholars think "Orientalism" is nonsense, may I assert without qualification, that Ingres' work is "arty soft-core cryptopornography"?
PS: Despite the quip, "Sofa" is a Turkish word, just like Divan. But then actually learning an "Oriental" language takes precious time away from learning to theorize.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.133.143 ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 July 2004
I can't say I've noticed the word "oriental" used as a derogatory term in the last bunch of decades - is this a wrong impression I have? Should the text perhaps have some examples of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.102 ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 October 2004
The article lists the publication date of Said's book Orientalism as 1979, yet the article Edward Said lists it as 1978. The University of California at Irvine's Critical Theory website shows the book being published by Pantheon in 1978, and has an entry for 1977, most likely a shorter article with the same title (a precursor to the book?). I'm going to change the publication date to 1978, but it would be nice if someone could clarify the relationship of the Georgia Review article of the same name (or perhaps that belongs on the Said page). Mykej 05:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've changed the opening section because it confuses several issues. 'Colonialism' was not exclusive to the east - which was known for a long time before colonialism itself. Secondly the East was not simply 'the other' (a problematic concept), since there was also Africa, the Americas and other parts of the world that were characterised differently.
The following notion as expressed above by 'Roadrunner' seems to me to be false, "One of the main points of orientalism is that Europeans of the early 19th century tended to lump together China, India, and the Middle East into one category with a presumed uniform history." Not as far as I'm aware! From the late 18th century there was extensive research into this area. Of course knowledge of these areas was patchy and developed slowly, and no doubt there were generalised ideas of Eastern culture - as there are among many people today, in whom the generalised West/East opposition persists. Paul B 11:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that some basic essential points are not present in this conversation and the post.
Orientalism (1978) is so important because it articulated the idea that the colonizers (mainly Britain and France in Said's example) used the idea of the Orient to contrast their own image, idea, personality, experience (pg. 2). He defines Orientalism as, "a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made betwee "the Orient" and (most of the time) "the Occident."" (pg. 2).
It's an academic tradition, which is where/why it gains discursive power. As a result, the Orient is bound by the ideas of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories and landscapes (pg. 1) that the colonizing West projected and created, therefore calling into being on "the Orient".
The thing I find missing is the concept of mutual definition exemplified by Orientalism: The colonizer relies on the exotic Other to define himself [gendered language intentional].
Said, Edward. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by H Chatburn ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 March 2005
I find the use of the words "orient" or "oriental" very anachronistic as it seems very based in the mentality of Marco Polo's journey to the "Orient." I would say that most so called "Oriental" people refer to themselves in more ethnic and nationalistic terms like Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, etc. Hence, the reason for the splitting of the old Oriental Studies into more regional studies. It's akin to scholarly pursuit about Western cultures- it would be terribly insensitive for there to just be a "White Studies" that just lumps everyone in the same category and talks in generalities about culture and custom. Usually there would also be the same sort of specialization in a specific region's language, culture and society. Of course this is all my opinion but I see using the term "orient" or "oriental" as inaccurate and reflective of the old bias of an eurocentric view. It can actually be construed as disrespect and callousness. Also, before reading this article, I had no idea "occidental" was the term used opposite "oriental." I think that goes to show something about the bias here. -kainee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.182.177 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 April 2005
hello, just a thought that might help here - the term "orientalism" as used here is the name given to a particular way of looking at a particular region. This is distinct from referring to the region in question as "the orient" or people from that region as "orientals"... you see? It would be perfectly consistent to say that "orientalists" studied the "Eastern world" ... the importance in keeping the name lies it its correct interpretation historically- "orientalism" of the eighteenth century is significantly different from "eastern studies" of the twenty-first century, largely due the whole range of biases and prejudices that "orientalist philosophers" were working with- those same biases you seem to take issue with. It is important in this case to keep the term "orientalism" that we can be specific about what kind of "eastern studies" we are talking about. To change the term would be somewhat similar to advocating changing "alchemy" to "chemistry" or "mysticism" to "organized religion" .. hope this is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.16.226 ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 February 2006
IMHO, this article would be helped tremendously if it took on the subject chronologically; in its present form, it jumps into its subject, the study of Asia by Europeans, at the end, with Said's book, rather than at the beginning. The origins of scholarly orientalism could probably be traced to the late renaissance, with the first Jesuit missions to Ming China and their translations of Chinese classics. Scholarly Orientalism, the study of Asian languages and cultures by Europeans of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, isn't much covered here. While it's true that Oriental Languages and Oriental Studies have mostly been eclipsed by regional studies departments in contemporary Academia, Orientalism was a serious intellectual movement in the west for centuries, and shouldn't be reduced entirely to Said's critique, although Said's work should of course feature prominently in any comprehensive history of the idea.
I am also concerned that European attitudes are presented as being somewhat monolithic; in reality, views of Asia by European observers were quite different, and predominant views changed over the centuries; for example, many enlightenment philosophers idealized China as a rational society run by Mandarin philosopher class, and many western thinkers have been enthusiastic proponents of Asian philosophy, or at least what they understood of them. Tom Radulovich 00:11, 29 April 2005 (UTC)
Following Tom's suggestions I've made a number of changes, adopting a more chronological approach and introducing detailed discussion of Said at a later stage, after the reader has a sense of the history of ideas and images to which he is responding. I've also tried to present a more balanced view of the traditions to which he is responding. Personally I think there is rather too much on Chinoiserie etc (especially as there is more here than in the "Chinoiserie" article itself, but I'll leave it for the moment for others to comment on/alter if they wish. Paul B 01:26, 31 April 2005 (UTC)
"However the rise of both Christianity and Islam produced a sharp opposition between European Christian cultures their enemies to the East and in North Africa." First, this sentence is missing a word, and second, I find the word "enemies" unnecessarily strong in this case. --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.82.214 ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 30 June 2005
Sir Bernard Lewis's own department was renamed a decade before Said wrote [1], a detail which Said gets wrong.
This sentence seems to come out of nowhere, without explanation in this section. Who is Sir Bernard Lewis? what is his department? Who is Said? what did he write? what did he get wrong? why? and so what? --
Yodakii
04:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Can we have Orientalist view of Islam as a subpage? Im going to do it, feel free to revert if you dont like it. -- Striver 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The last line in the article that refers to 'Occidentalism' is good, and i feel it can be strenthened by also referring to the concept of Eurocentrism as a type of cultural relativism that denotes 'the Western bias in the East'. I am going to add a small change to the last sentence to expand this idea. If anyone objects, let me know. Peace! User talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In Albert Camus' novel the stranger, can the depiction of "the arab", while giving everyone else names be an example of orientalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navidnak ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 February 2006
I included the term Eurocentrism along with the term Occidentalism in a previous edit to indicate that the concept of Eurocentrism is very similar to the ideas of Orientalism, especially in relation to Edward Said's ideas. In Said's Culture and Imperialism he extend's on the ideas on 'Orientalism' as a postcolonial ideological coloniser, showing examples from 'European' and 'Orientalist' scholarly framworks, and how they implcitly interrupt the meaning-making and identity structures of any culture that an Empire enters into, to colonise, live in, work among... Eurocentrism is a far more complicated term, when used a postcolonial reference point, not simply negative or excessively positive viewpoint: Eurocentrism is BOTH negative and positive, according to whether you are looking at a culture from the position of the coloniser, or the colonised. I vote to place the word Eurocentrism back into the article, maybe with a some more qualifying statements, to bolster its relevance in this article. Drakonicon 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed these articles (?) from the main text. If anyone interested in keeping them, would you find where and when they were published?— Barbatus 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This criticism is based on the argument from consequences fallacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by AUSTRALIA Rules ( talk • contribs)
"Despite this often mixed tradition, the word "Orientalism" carried no overt negative freight".
Despite the later examples, this still seems like quite a strong and absolutist statement to make.
Likewise with ""Oriental" was simply understood as the opposite of "occidental" ('western')." and the subsequent reference to the negative connotations only being formed "following the publication of the groundbreaking work Orientalism". Surely such claims should be in the 'criticisms of Said' section, as they clearly disagree with the opening statements of the article.
Sithemadmonkey 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I think the segment on Criticisms is actually very shortened and even questionable in parts. It only gives a small number of critical points and is suggestive in a few instances. For example, stating that "In his ascerbic rebuttal of Lewis' critique, Said demonstrated how hard it was to debate with a scholar who rejected his opponents' intellectual credibility" is not neutral and sould be changed. In addition, it should be stated clearly that Lewis and Said had been fighting a trench war for 25 years ever since Said had criticized Lewis in "Orientalism" in 1978. Totally missing as yet are discussions of attempts by academics like Bhabha or Lowe to develop Said's theories further. I would like to propose that major themes of criticism should be bundled and discussed. I will attempt to contribute first pointers in the next few days, if that is okay with you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamilea ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 November 2006
I came to this page looking for a mention of Orientalism in religion and found ... nothing. Is there opposition to placing the idea on the page or has it simply been overlooked by previous writer-editors?
For clarity, i am referring here to 19th and early 20th century religious texts by European and American authors that make special (and often unsubstantiated and poorly reaseached and just plain fabricated) claims about Middle Eastern / Indian / Asian religions.
Examples: Hargrave Jennings ("The Results of the Mysterious Buddhism"), Charles F. Haanel (financial success promoter but also wrote a book on yoga), Aleister Crowley (book on yoga, book in I Ching, photo of himself posed as Hotei), William Walker Atkinson (wrote under at least three fake Indian pseudonyms (see article on Atkinson) and produced dozens of books on yoga, including a book allegedly by a "Swami" on "Mystical Christianity"), T. Lobsang Rampa (British plumber who wrote several books (fake) on Tibetan religion and also dressed up and posed as his own (fake) Chinese literary agent), Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (mediumistic communications with alleged Himalayan "masters"), Alice Bailey (mediumistic encounters with an alleged Tibetan "master" -- yet also wrote a proscription against Europeans marrying Chinese or Japanese people), Alexandra David-Neel (described Tibetan religion for Westerners), .
There are many more examples, but these come to mind off the top of my head.
What do y'all think?
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not succumb to Western fallacies of believing that democracy originated in Greece. “Demo=People” “Cracy=rule”, or rule of the people, is certainly not what Greece had in any of its ages. When half the population (females) and non citizens or slaves (up to 30% of the population) are not eligible to vote this certainly was NOT a people ruled society. Rather a androaristocracy might be more precise. Please don’t fall to the familiar bias of ancient Greece as the founders of a civil society. The true work of Martin Luther King and Susan Anthony should reflect the commanding heights of the term “democracy”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.95.162 ( talk) 04:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Orientalism for this article needed to be defined more, both so that it was not dominated by Said's late 20th century critique, and that it shows its historical timeframe. I think it's inappropriate to put late 20th c. works under "Orientalism", which had its peak in art probably in the 19th c. and early 20th c. The late 20th or early 21st c. works are a different kind of commentary - a Sondheim musical is not the same as a Delacroix painting. Also, to label as Orientalism a late novel by Marguerite Duras, who was half-Vietnamese and grew up in Vietnam, seems to be stretching the point. To say Orientalism is all depictions by the West of any aspect of Asian or Middle Eastern culture, from the 15th century and on to the infinite future, seems too unbounded. Also, artists and architects adapted design elements for different reasons than novelists set works in the "exotic East".-- Parkwells ( talk) 12:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is too instrumentalist, assuming artists most wanted to comment on social aspects or criticisms of culture. They work in a visual field, and artists have historically been inspired by new sights, colors, patterns and use those for their own purposes. Art movements arise when groups of artists are inspired by the same source, but every artist's use of elements from the Near East, for instance, or Japan, did not mean it was for the same purpose. Some of it was for shifting ways of seeing, as in Impressionists' adaptation of woodblock elements.-- Parkwells ( talk) 13:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The article begins:
Orientalism is the study of Near and Far Eastern societies and cultures, languages, and peoples by Western scholars. It can also refer to the imitation or depiction of aspects of Eastern cultures in the West by writers, designers and artists.
of which the first sentence is really not correct; an Orientalist does not study Orientalism. I think we should split the article into O-ism & Oriental Studies, at present a redirect here. Anyone agree? Johnbod ( talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What is it with you people? I'll keep it very simple. This article is WP's only article on Oriental Studies, which redirects here. This is wrong. "Orientalism" is not now and never has been a standard term in English for "Oriental Studies", and should not be used as the article title for that subject under normal WP policy. There should be an article called "Oriental Studies", incorporating some of the material from here, and "Orientalism" should just cover the "Saidian" sense. Johnbod ( talk) 12:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am for the proposed split. As I understand it, "oriental studies" is an outdated term signifying the study of the people, culture, history or language of the continent of Asia. "Orientalism" is exclusively known, except for the aforementioned Byron, as a term coined by Edward Said to signify an attitude that arose in Europe as the age of imperialism died. It is an attitude of superiority that reflects the old domination-hungry drive of imperialistic Europe though it is now forced into subtler, indirect means, such as art, history, and philology. Abie the Fish Peddler ( talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't recall anything Edward Said said, that i don't despise. (And i've read neither the accompanying article nor much of this talk page.) But i'd like to see at least a clearer indication on this talk page that adequate consideration has been given to the question of whether equal disambiguation (a recognition not of equal significance but of lack of a single topic so overwhelmingly predominant over the others as to justify a primary topic that requires readers seeking the article treating any other sense to get to it thru a HatNote Dab at the top of the page of the primary, rather than going directly to a Dab page that may favorably prioritize the most sought topic). Whether or not Orientalism (book) is the main article on the sense used by Said in title his book Orientalism, and no matter how exaggerated i find Said's complaints, my impression is that they have sufficient currency that it would be clarifying rather than obstructive to make Orientalism the Dab and perhaps Orientalism (Asian studies) the new title of the the accompanying article. Or if the accompanying article is our main coverage of "the Orientalism controversy", i would think Orientalism controversy should be an article, even if Asian studies is the article on "Orientalism" in its pre-Said sense. Perhaps all that it would take to satisfy me is a statement that the accompanying article is about the Orientalism controversy, the traditional term (as opposed to the topic it names) deserves only Rdrs, assertions to the contrary (as per lks provided) were laughed off the talk page, and "equal"-style Dab'n was adequately rediscussed as an issue separate from that. But i'd like at least that, without me and every editor with this concern having to launch their own WP-process research. -- Jerzy• t 20:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It has this stamp demanding more citations, which shouldn't be too hard to provide for some examples. I have a bigger issue with it though: it's full of old stuff! Almost all of the characters and works in it could have been cited by Said in Orientalism. If they were, then yes they should certainly be in here with some kind of a superscript reference. There are so many examples though that can be added to those he used . . . For instance, film is included here and it's great that we have Sex & the City 2 in the list with a reference. I'm sure we can find something to cite calling Indiana Jones 2 orientalist. What about Indiana Jones 4? Hollywood is just so guilty of this so many times in every single year . . . Here are some tentative additions to the list:
And here are some non-film major offenders of late:
What makes a man turn neutral? ( talk) 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised to find an article on anything but a minor topic so skewed. Orientalism is a term used before, and independent of, the book. It is like wedging a huge essay on Manhattan (film) into Manhattan. The book already has its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superp ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 October 2010
Namely, this part: "Today, it is commonly used to describe a form of racism or prejudice against peoples of 'the East', such as Arabs, Jews, Iranians, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Indians or other Asian groups as 'mysterious, dishonestly intelligent, overly sensual, warlike, and barbarically loyal to their 'tribe' instead of to humankind'."
This is my source. You'll find the definition towards the end of the pamphlet. If someone who is proficient with putting in references could just stick this in, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81712788/The-Past-Didn-t-Go-Anywhere-April-Rosenblum
evildoer187 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 19:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems about as reliable to me as using Edward Said's book. Please explain to me why it's less credible. In any case, it's an accurate definition.
69.248.98.23 ( talk) 23:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
It has some additional resources towards the end of the pamphlet. Anyway, both this and Said's book are essentially the personal opinions of their respective authors. How is one more or less credible than the other?
69.248.98.23 ( talk) 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
And what do you mean by overly specific? Are you suggesting we make it more vague? With all due respect, that's a pretty ridiculous thing to ask for. 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 23:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
Please don't ban me from editing. evildoer187 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 23:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree.
69.248.98.23 ( talk) 01:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
My additions don't hurt it either, do they?
69.248.98.23 ( talk) 01:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
Also, Said's book is almost exclusively about Western prejudices towards Arab-Muslim culture. He barely even touches on other Asian groups like East Asians, South Asians, ethnic Jews, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 01:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"More generally, it is commonly used to describe a form of racism or prejudice against peoples of 'the East', such as Arabs, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Indians or other Asian groups as 'mysterious, dishonestly intelligent, overly sensual, warlike, and barbarically loyal to their 'tribe' instead of to humankind'."
Seems like an accurate definition to me. Are people just mad because I included Jews in that definition? Because they are an Asian group as well. I don't understand what the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 15:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Said's book makes little, if any, reference to any Asian culture besides that of Arab and Islamic culture. I feel that if you're going to add "Asian and North African", you should at least source it. Evildoer187 ( talk) 16:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Read my post again. "Said's book makes little, if any, reference to any Asian culture besides that of Arab and Islamic culture." North Africa is obviously accounted for in the "Arab and Islamic cultures" bracket. I was concerned because he seldom mentions Chinese, South Asian, Jewish diaspora/Israeli/Hebrew etc cultures, all of which fall under the scope of Asia/the Orient. He was predominantly concerned with the Arab world, so I thought the article should specify that. Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) That said, the article is fine as it is now. Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an excerpt from a published book, both of which are written by the same people. It talks about how Jews living in Europe (and who were of Middle Eastern ancestral origins) are/were also victims of Orientalism, even to this day. I think it should be included in some way in the main article, or at least the second paragraph of the intro. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/illustex/orijed.intro.htm Evildoer187 ( talk) 11:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
And where is this Said-style Orientalism article? Evildoer187 ( talk) 13:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Need I remind you that there are very clear guidelines against WP:SHOUTING and rudeness. Evildoer187 ( talk) 16:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the In dance section.
I'd fix it myself, but I came here looking for URLs to fix, and I'm not comfortable just fixing the URLs without addressing what I see as a bigger problem with this new section. However, I'm not knowledgeable about the subject, and so can't boil it down to a reasonable size, if that's what needs doing; and I'm still a pretty new editor, so I'm not sure if a revert is warranted either.
Sorry. Respectfully, Mathieu ottawa ( talk) 08:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The article currently claims that "however the use in English of Orientalism to describe the academic subject of "Oriental studies" is rare; the Oxford English Dictionary cites only one such usage, by Lord Byron in 1812". Is this accurate? (I don't have access to the OED, so I don't know if this is supposed to mean "it gives one example, form 1812" or "it says the only recorded instance was from 1812"). I do have a 1977 issue of the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (i.e. published the year before Said's Orientalism) that gives the definitions "An eastern expression, custom, etc; Scholarship of eastern languages". (Note that this dictionary generally lists meanings in order of first use, so "scholarship of eastern languages" would presumably be current at the time of publication). I also have a 2005 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English which doesn't actually define "orientalism" but merely gives it as a derivative of "oriental". So from this, I gather that using "orientalism" to mean "Asian [language] studies" is now obsolete or obsolescent, but that it used to be standard or common, whereas the article text implies it never was. Iapetus ( talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is too long and tries to hit too many targets. For instance the section on religion seems out of place and there is almost no discussion of literature. I think it should be a general discussion of the topic and the rest should be split out to articles such as Or and architecture, Or and religion, Or and art, Or and literature etc. Philafrenzy ( talk) 17:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel that there is a need for further discussion of orientalism in the context of post-colonialist studies and as a tool of imperialism. Indeed, the Orientalism article is categorized as "Admiration of foreign cultures" which is hardly the case and a deep misconception. Orientalism is the invention of this notion of an 'exotic', 'uncivilized' and 'unchanging' East, and is a direct tool of colonialism and imperialism. Additionally, there is a lack of discussion of orientalism in popular culture. Works which show prime examples of orientalism range into popular media such as cartoons, comics, and poems. For now, I will try to amend the article with greater inclusion of the discussion of orientism in the context of post-colonial studies into the article. However, a split into two articles may be necessary.
07:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Kdbeall ( talk)
No, putting Orientalism in the post-colonial context in only the [[Orientalism(book])] article ignores the contributions of other post-colonial academics. So, there needs to be a space to discuss Orientalism in a post-colonial context without merely cramming it all into the aricle about the book by Said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdbeall ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
To better discuss orientalism we must go beyond a focus on art and "admiration of foreign cultures". Disregarding the work of countless other post-colonialist academics would not allow a full discussion of orientalism. To illustrate that this current article does not cover the breadth of orientalism, take that there has been no discussion of orientalism with respect to Imperial Japan and Oceania. Additionally, there needs to be more reference to the use of orientalism in popular western and Japanese culture to establish the dynamic of "other". Take for example, King_Kong_(1933_film), there is clear dynamic of "civilized" vs "uncivilized" at play. Note secondary sources such as Tropics of Savagery: The Culture of Japanese Empire in Comparative Frame and Tracking King Kong: A Hollywood Icon in World Culture" that discuss this. Kdbeall ( talk) 20:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
By "popular media related to orientalism" I mean mass media that featured "oriental" tropes. For example, King Kong and The Teahouse of the August Moon. I feel that the current sections "In Film" and "Literature" are stubs. I agree that there are too many stray 19th and 20th century items. The sections about orientalism in art needs to be more concise. Kdbeall ( talk) 02:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If anyone cares to know, I was really thrown by the opening section concerning this "Edward Said". I had just finished reading Wikipedia articles about Romantic Medievalism, The Victorian propagation of Chivalric and Gothic Art & Literature. It was explained to me that this came about by a society trying to escape its excessively secular-rational, ugly-overdeveloped and too liberal-non-conformist state of being. So you can imagine the shock I felt when, looking for a breakdown on the Oriental artistic and cultural contribution to the movement at that time in imperial Britain, especially among new wealth, I find this strange something or other about a sinister conspiracy to unconsciously assert "Western society as developed, rational, flexible, and thereby superior" as if those adjectives were actually something universally valued and idealised above all throughout the last three centuries.
Now, I'm not writing here, on the bottom of a talk page of an obscure Wikipedia article to deny the basically accepted fact of cultural imperialism. What alarms me is what the collective creators of this article thought where the important topics of discussion to be outlined front and centre in this article. I strongly feel that this article should first outline the progressive discovery, import and integration of Eastern Art and Culture into the various Western countries, particularly Domestic Britain, because of its empire and because this article is in English. Instead, it's more interested in the history of the rejection and trivialisation of the East through the miserable parts of the 20th Century.
Why? Americans. The article is dominated by citizens of the US, who prioritise American authors and the American perspective. This just follows naturally on Wikipedia because Americans make up the majority of the English speaking world today and Wikipedia's borders are based on language not country. This is a problem because America was mostly an irrelevance in the 18th and 19th centuries, and without wanting to sound cruel, they don't have much of a history except for genocide, slavery, civil war and Puritanism. Coming from this background in today's world, of course, is a mindset that is hopelessly riddled with guilt and thoughts of "domination and submission" in every conceivable context. This makes an American radically unqualified to judge the importance and significance of events of other nation's empires from other times, because all they'll see as important and worthy of discussion is conflict, judgementality and racism that is reflected in their own history and neo-culture. It would be better if these kinds of articles we're at least structured by someone else from a background that enables them to give fair and balanced treatment to these delicate periods of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayner-hills ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
While there are merits in your analysis of problems with this particular article, there is a problem with your premise. The United States were indeed built on a foundation of genocide, slavery, and civil war. However most countries and regions of the planet have similar backgrounds in constant wars and conflicts, their own histories of forced labor and exploitation of workers, their own histories of discrimination, persecution, and religious intolerance. We do not live in a perfect world, and history is often written in blood rather than ink.
I do not think it is likely to find writers who will view the phenomenon without projecting ideas deriving from their own cultural background. At best you can search from sources that do not reflect the orthodoxy of American academia. As for the relations between East and West, I would start on reading on the orientalizing period of ancient Greek art (8th-6th century BC). Artwork taking inspiration from the cultures of Syria, Assyria, Phoenicia, Israel, and Egypt. Dimadick ( talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I've tagged the article with {{ lead-rewrite}} as, owing to a never-properly-resolved debate about exactly what this article should be about, it has gradually backslid from the relatively straightforward description given immediately after the split between this and Oriental studies into a super-categorisation which tries to incorporate every definition of the word and as a result is of no use to the reader in figuring out what the article covers. In a way, this is a microcosm of the article itself, which covers every one of the following, seemingly at random:
As it stands the article is therefore a train wreck. The above set of bullet points would be as well used as a disambiguation page in itself. The topics it covers are barely related and occasionally mutually exclusive. They cannot all be covered in one article.
What we need to do is to figure out what aspect of the term "Orientalism" this article should refer to. This should be the most commonly-used instance of the term in contemporary English, as per our guidelines on primary topics. The remaining uses should be split to their own articles and linked to through a disambiguation page which will likely resemble the above set of bullets.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not a can of worms I greatly relish re-opening, but I have to ask why the lead of the article currently reads (with emphasis added):
Orientalism is an academic term, used in art history, literary studies, geography, and cultural studies, which is and describes a critical approach to representations of the Orient; of the Eastern cultures of the Middle East, North Africa, South West Asia, and South East Asia, represented as “European knowledge of the Orient” created by artists and writers from Western Europe.
I'm guessing this is a case of unresolved argument leading to a non-compromise hybrid pleasing no one. Writing that x is " an academic term" [describing xy] is bad enough, but is the academic term orientalism really meant to describe a critical approach (wikilinked to " critical theory") to representations of the Orient? In other words has Said's book achieved such Generic trademark status that in the 21st century, an "orientalist" is someone who studies problematic Western representations of the Orient? (And, presumably, "orientalism" is their ideology?)
Or is this meant to say that "orientalism" refers to exactly those aspects of "Oriental studies", as well as artistic depictions of foreign cultures (Muslims, Chinese, Chinese Muslims, etc...) which are approached critically by critical approachers?
Why not instead say that Orientalism is a certain Western aesthetic (or cultural tendency) (or the name for an aesthetic ... or even an academic term for an aesthetic if we must hedge about whether "orientalism" exists cohesively anywhere but in their capacious minds) depicting and drawing from (near/middle/whatever) Eastern cultures? And then there can be a whole big section, reflected in the lede, on "Critique of Orientalism". (As User:Kdbeall observes below, the critique is bigger than the book and could have its own section here. Perhaps "critical studies" could move from a section in "Background" to its own section at the end, much as many other articles include "Criticism" sections near the bottom.)
In other words (as User:Johnbod and User:Paul Barlow question above) is the post-Said "critical" approach really part of the definition of "Orientalism"? Or is it simply a significant scholarly approach to Orientalism which should be mentioned in the article on that topic?
Sorry. groupuscule ( talk) 22:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a branch of Orientalism, but there is no due mention of it in this article. I tried to insert a passage but it was reverted two times. Why? 2601:84:4502:61EA:B45E:2270:6C0B:A28A ( talk) 02:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
orientalism also served as a research method for British to establish colonial regime in south Asian nations . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.190.66 ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
My attempt to note that many scholars would question what this page merely asserts was met with reverts. So, I ask, if I can't say that some scholars think "Orientalism" is nonsense, may I assert without qualification, that Ingres' work is "arty soft-core cryptopornography"?
PS: Despite the quip, "Sofa" is a Turkish word, just like Divan. But then actually learning an "Oriental" language takes precious time away from learning to theorize.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.133.143 ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 July 2004
I can't say I've noticed the word "oriental" used as a derogatory term in the last bunch of decades - is this a wrong impression I have? Should the text perhaps have some examples of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.102 ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 October 2004
The article lists the publication date of Said's book Orientalism as 1979, yet the article Edward Said lists it as 1978. The University of California at Irvine's Critical Theory website shows the book being published by Pantheon in 1978, and has an entry for 1977, most likely a shorter article with the same title (a precursor to the book?). I'm going to change the publication date to 1978, but it would be nice if someone could clarify the relationship of the Georgia Review article of the same name (or perhaps that belongs on the Said page). Mykej 05:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've changed the opening section because it confuses several issues. 'Colonialism' was not exclusive to the east - which was known for a long time before colonialism itself. Secondly the East was not simply 'the other' (a problematic concept), since there was also Africa, the Americas and other parts of the world that were characterised differently.
The following notion as expressed above by 'Roadrunner' seems to me to be false, "One of the main points of orientalism is that Europeans of the early 19th century tended to lump together China, India, and the Middle East into one category with a presumed uniform history." Not as far as I'm aware! From the late 18th century there was extensive research into this area. Of course knowledge of these areas was patchy and developed slowly, and no doubt there were generalised ideas of Eastern culture - as there are among many people today, in whom the generalised West/East opposition persists. Paul B 11:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that some basic essential points are not present in this conversation and the post.
Orientalism (1978) is so important because it articulated the idea that the colonizers (mainly Britain and France in Said's example) used the idea of the Orient to contrast their own image, idea, personality, experience (pg. 2). He defines Orientalism as, "a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made betwee "the Orient" and (most of the time) "the Occident."" (pg. 2).
It's an academic tradition, which is where/why it gains discursive power. As a result, the Orient is bound by the ideas of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories and landscapes (pg. 1) that the colonizing West projected and created, therefore calling into being on "the Orient".
The thing I find missing is the concept of mutual definition exemplified by Orientalism: The colonizer relies on the exotic Other to define himself [gendered language intentional].
Said, Edward. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by H Chatburn ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 March 2005
I find the use of the words "orient" or "oriental" very anachronistic as it seems very based in the mentality of Marco Polo's journey to the "Orient." I would say that most so called "Oriental" people refer to themselves in more ethnic and nationalistic terms like Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, etc. Hence, the reason for the splitting of the old Oriental Studies into more regional studies. It's akin to scholarly pursuit about Western cultures- it would be terribly insensitive for there to just be a "White Studies" that just lumps everyone in the same category and talks in generalities about culture and custom. Usually there would also be the same sort of specialization in a specific region's language, culture and society. Of course this is all my opinion but I see using the term "orient" or "oriental" as inaccurate and reflective of the old bias of an eurocentric view. It can actually be construed as disrespect and callousness. Also, before reading this article, I had no idea "occidental" was the term used opposite "oriental." I think that goes to show something about the bias here. -kainee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.182.177 ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 April 2005
hello, just a thought that might help here - the term "orientalism" as used here is the name given to a particular way of looking at a particular region. This is distinct from referring to the region in question as "the orient" or people from that region as "orientals"... you see? It would be perfectly consistent to say that "orientalists" studied the "Eastern world" ... the importance in keeping the name lies it its correct interpretation historically- "orientalism" of the eighteenth century is significantly different from "eastern studies" of the twenty-first century, largely due the whole range of biases and prejudices that "orientalist philosophers" were working with- those same biases you seem to take issue with. It is important in this case to keep the term "orientalism" that we can be specific about what kind of "eastern studies" we are talking about. To change the term would be somewhat similar to advocating changing "alchemy" to "chemistry" or "mysticism" to "organized religion" .. hope this is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.16.226 ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 February 2006
IMHO, this article would be helped tremendously if it took on the subject chronologically; in its present form, it jumps into its subject, the study of Asia by Europeans, at the end, with Said's book, rather than at the beginning. The origins of scholarly orientalism could probably be traced to the late renaissance, with the first Jesuit missions to Ming China and their translations of Chinese classics. Scholarly Orientalism, the study of Asian languages and cultures by Europeans of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, isn't much covered here. While it's true that Oriental Languages and Oriental Studies have mostly been eclipsed by regional studies departments in contemporary Academia, Orientalism was a serious intellectual movement in the west for centuries, and shouldn't be reduced entirely to Said's critique, although Said's work should of course feature prominently in any comprehensive history of the idea.
I am also concerned that European attitudes are presented as being somewhat monolithic; in reality, views of Asia by European observers were quite different, and predominant views changed over the centuries; for example, many enlightenment philosophers idealized China as a rational society run by Mandarin philosopher class, and many western thinkers have been enthusiastic proponents of Asian philosophy, or at least what they understood of them. Tom Radulovich 00:11, 29 April 2005 (UTC)
Following Tom's suggestions I've made a number of changes, adopting a more chronological approach and introducing detailed discussion of Said at a later stage, after the reader has a sense of the history of ideas and images to which he is responding. I've also tried to present a more balanced view of the traditions to which he is responding. Personally I think there is rather too much on Chinoiserie etc (especially as there is more here than in the "Chinoiserie" article itself, but I'll leave it for the moment for others to comment on/alter if they wish. Paul B 01:26, 31 April 2005 (UTC)
"However the rise of both Christianity and Islam produced a sharp opposition between European Christian cultures their enemies to the East and in North Africa." First, this sentence is missing a word, and second, I find the word "enemies" unnecessarily strong in this case. --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.82.214 ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 30 June 2005
Sir Bernard Lewis's own department was renamed a decade before Said wrote [1], a detail which Said gets wrong.
This sentence seems to come out of nowhere, without explanation in this section. Who is Sir Bernard Lewis? what is his department? Who is Said? what did he write? what did he get wrong? why? and so what? --
Yodakii
04:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Can we have Orientalist view of Islam as a subpage? Im going to do it, feel free to revert if you dont like it. -- Striver 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The last line in the article that refers to 'Occidentalism' is good, and i feel it can be strenthened by also referring to the concept of Eurocentrism as a type of cultural relativism that denotes 'the Western bias in the East'. I am going to add a small change to the last sentence to expand this idea. If anyone objects, let me know. Peace! User talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In Albert Camus' novel the stranger, can the depiction of "the arab", while giving everyone else names be an example of orientalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navidnak ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 February 2006
I included the term Eurocentrism along with the term Occidentalism in a previous edit to indicate that the concept of Eurocentrism is very similar to the ideas of Orientalism, especially in relation to Edward Said's ideas. In Said's Culture and Imperialism he extend's on the ideas on 'Orientalism' as a postcolonial ideological coloniser, showing examples from 'European' and 'Orientalist' scholarly framworks, and how they implcitly interrupt the meaning-making and identity structures of any culture that an Empire enters into, to colonise, live in, work among... Eurocentrism is a far more complicated term, when used a postcolonial reference point, not simply negative or excessively positive viewpoint: Eurocentrism is BOTH negative and positive, according to whether you are looking at a culture from the position of the coloniser, or the colonised. I vote to place the word Eurocentrism back into the article, maybe with a some more qualifying statements, to bolster its relevance in this article. Drakonicon 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed these articles (?) from the main text. If anyone interested in keeping them, would you find where and when they were published?— Barbatus 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This criticism is based on the argument from consequences fallacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by AUSTRALIA Rules ( talk • contribs)
"Despite this often mixed tradition, the word "Orientalism" carried no overt negative freight".
Despite the later examples, this still seems like quite a strong and absolutist statement to make.
Likewise with ""Oriental" was simply understood as the opposite of "occidental" ('western')." and the subsequent reference to the negative connotations only being formed "following the publication of the groundbreaking work Orientalism". Surely such claims should be in the 'criticisms of Said' section, as they clearly disagree with the opening statements of the article.
Sithemadmonkey 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I think the segment on Criticisms is actually very shortened and even questionable in parts. It only gives a small number of critical points and is suggestive in a few instances. For example, stating that "In his ascerbic rebuttal of Lewis' critique, Said demonstrated how hard it was to debate with a scholar who rejected his opponents' intellectual credibility" is not neutral and sould be changed. In addition, it should be stated clearly that Lewis and Said had been fighting a trench war for 25 years ever since Said had criticized Lewis in "Orientalism" in 1978. Totally missing as yet are discussions of attempts by academics like Bhabha or Lowe to develop Said's theories further. I would like to propose that major themes of criticism should be bundled and discussed. I will attempt to contribute first pointers in the next few days, if that is okay with you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamilea ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 November 2006
I came to this page looking for a mention of Orientalism in religion and found ... nothing. Is there opposition to placing the idea on the page or has it simply been overlooked by previous writer-editors?
For clarity, i am referring here to 19th and early 20th century religious texts by European and American authors that make special (and often unsubstantiated and poorly reaseached and just plain fabricated) claims about Middle Eastern / Indian / Asian religions.
Examples: Hargrave Jennings ("The Results of the Mysterious Buddhism"), Charles F. Haanel (financial success promoter but also wrote a book on yoga), Aleister Crowley (book on yoga, book in I Ching, photo of himself posed as Hotei), William Walker Atkinson (wrote under at least three fake Indian pseudonyms (see article on Atkinson) and produced dozens of books on yoga, including a book allegedly by a "Swami" on "Mystical Christianity"), T. Lobsang Rampa (British plumber who wrote several books (fake) on Tibetan religion and also dressed up and posed as his own (fake) Chinese literary agent), Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (mediumistic communications with alleged Himalayan "masters"), Alice Bailey (mediumistic encounters with an alleged Tibetan "master" -- yet also wrote a proscription against Europeans marrying Chinese or Japanese people), Alexandra David-Neel (described Tibetan religion for Westerners), .
There are many more examples, but these come to mind off the top of my head.
What do y'all think?
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not succumb to Western fallacies of believing that democracy originated in Greece. “Demo=People” “Cracy=rule”, or rule of the people, is certainly not what Greece had in any of its ages. When half the population (females) and non citizens or slaves (up to 30% of the population) are not eligible to vote this certainly was NOT a people ruled society. Rather a androaristocracy might be more precise. Please don’t fall to the familiar bias of ancient Greece as the founders of a civil society. The true work of Martin Luther King and Susan Anthony should reflect the commanding heights of the term “democracy”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.95.162 ( talk) 04:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Orientalism for this article needed to be defined more, both so that it was not dominated by Said's late 20th century critique, and that it shows its historical timeframe. I think it's inappropriate to put late 20th c. works under "Orientalism", which had its peak in art probably in the 19th c. and early 20th c. The late 20th or early 21st c. works are a different kind of commentary - a Sondheim musical is not the same as a Delacroix painting. Also, to label as Orientalism a late novel by Marguerite Duras, who was half-Vietnamese and grew up in Vietnam, seems to be stretching the point. To say Orientalism is all depictions by the West of any aspect of Asian or Middle Eastern culture, from the 15th century and on to the infinite future, seems too unbounded. Also, artists and architects adapted design elements for different reasons than novelists set works in the "exotic East".-- Parkwells ( talk) 12:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is too instrumentalist, assuming artists most wanted to comment on social aspects or criticisms of culture. They work in a visual field, and artists have historically been inspired by new sights, colors, patterns and use those for their own purposes. Art movements arise when groups of artists are inspired by the same source, but every artist's use of elements from the Near East, for instance, or Japan, did not mean it was for the same purpose. Some of it was for shifting ways of seeing, as in Impressionists' adaptation of woodblock elements.-- Parkwells ( talk) 13:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The article begins:
Orientalism is the study of Near and Far Eastern societies and cultures, languages, and peoples by Western scholars. It can also refer to the imitation or depiction of aspects of Eastern cultures in the West by writers, designers and artists.
of which the first sentence is really not correct; an Orientalist does not study Orientalism. I think we should split the article into O-ism & Oriental Studies, at present a redirect here. Anyone agree? Johnbod ( talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What is it with you people? I'll keep it very simple. This article is WP's only article on Oriental Studies, which redirects here. This is wrong. "Orientalism" is not now and never has been a standard term in English for "Oriental Studies", and should not be used as the article title for that subject under normal WP policy. There should be an article called "Oriental Studies", incorporating some of the material from here, and "Orientalism" should just cover the "Saidian" sense. Johnbod ( talk) 12:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am for the proposed split. As I understand it, "oriental studies" is an outdated term signifying the study of the people, culture, history or language of the continent of Asia. "Orientalism" is exclusively known, except for the aforementioned Byron, as a term coined by Edward Said to signify an attitude that arose in Europe as the age of imperialism died. It is an attitude of superiority that reflects the old domination-hungry drive of imperialistic Europe though it is now forced into subtler, indirect means, such as art, history, and philology. Abie the Fish Peddler ( talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't recall anything Edward Said said, that i don't despise. (And i've read neither the accompanying article nor much of this talk page.) But i'd like to see at least a clearer indication on this talk page that adequate consideration has been given to the question of whether equal disambiguation (a recognition not of equal significance but of lack of a single topic so overwhelmingly predominant over the others as to justify a primary topic that requires readers seeking the article treating any other sense to get to it thru a HatNote Dab at the top of the page of the primary, rather than going directly to a Dab page that may favorably prioritize the most sought topic). Whether or not Orientalism (book) is the main article on the sense used by Said in title his book Orientalism, and no matter how exaggerated i find Said's complaints, my impression is that they have sufficient currency that it would be clarifying rather than obstructive to make Orientalism the Dab and perhaps Orientalism (Asian studies) the new title of the the accompanying article. Or if the accompanying article is our main coverage of "the Orientalism controversy", i would think Orientalism controversy should be an article, even if Asian studies is the article on "Orientalism" in its pre-Said sense. Perhaps all that it would take to satisfy me is a statement that the accompanying article is about the Orientalism controversy, the traditional term (as opposed to the topic it names) deserves only Rdrs, assertions to the contrary (as per lks provided) were laughed off the talk page, and "equal"-style Dab'n was adequately rediscussed as an issue separate from that. But i'd like at least that, without me and every editor with this concern having to launch their own WP-process research. -- Jerzy• t 20:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It has this stamp demanding more citations, which shouldn't be too hard to provide for some examples. I have a bigger issue with it though: it's full of old stuff! Almost all of the characters and works in it could have been cited by Said in Orientalism. If they were, then yes they should certainly be in here with some kind of a superscript reference. There are so many examples though that can be added to those he used . . . For instance, film is included here and it's great that we have Sex & the City 2 in the list with a reference. I'm sure we can find something to cite calling Indiana Jones 2 orientalist. What about Indiana Jones 4? Hollywood is just so guilty of this so many times in every single year . . . Here are some tentative additions to the list:
And here are some non-film major offenders of late:
What makes a man turn neutral? ( talk) 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised to find an article on anything but a minor topic so skewed. Orientalism is a term used before, and independent of, the book. It is like wedging a huge essay on Manhattan (film) into Manhattan. The book already has its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superp ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 5 October 2010
Namely, this part: "Today, it is commonly used to describe a form of racism or prejudice against peoples of 'the East', such as Arabs, Jews, Iranians, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Indians or other Asian groups as 'mysterious, dishonestly intelligent, overly sensual, warlike, and barbarically loyal to their 'tribe' instead of to humankind'."
This is my source. You'll find the definition towards the end of the pamphlet. If someone who is proficient with putting in references could just stick this in, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81712788/The-Past-Didn-t-Go-Anywhere-April-Rosenblum
evildoer187 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 19:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems about as reliable to me as using Edward Said's book. Please explain to me why it's less credible. In any case, it's an accurate definition.
69.248.98.23 ( talk) 23:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
It has some additional resources towards the end of the pamphlet. Anyway, both this and Said's book are essentially the personal opinions of their respective authors. How is one more or less credible than the other?
69.248.98.23 ( talk) 01:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
And what do you mean by overly specific? Are you suggesting we make it more vague? With all due respect, that's a pretty ridiculous thing to ask for. 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 23:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
Please don't ban me from editing. evildoer187 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 23:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree.
69.248.98.23 ( talk) 01:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
My additions don't hurt it either, do they?
69.248.98.23 ( talk) 01:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)evildoer187
Also, Said's book is almost exclusively about Western prejudices towards Arab-Muslim culture. He barely even touches on other Asian groups like East Asians, South Asians, ethnic Jews, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 01:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"More generally, it is commonly used to describe a form of racism or prejudice against peoples of 'the East', such as Arabs, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Indians or other Asian groups as 'mysterious, dishonestly intelligent, overly sensual, warlike, and barbarically loyal to their 'tribe' instead of to humankind'."
Seems like an accurate definition to me. Are people just mad because I included Jews in that definition? Because they are an Asian group as well. I don't understand what the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.98.23 ( talk) 15:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Said's book makes little, if any, reference to any Asian culture besides that of Arab and Islamic culture. I feel that if you're going to add "Asian and North African", you should at least source it. Evildoer187 ( talk) 16:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Read my post again. "Said's book makes little, if any, reference to any Asian culture besides that of Arab and Islamic culture." North Africa is obviously accounted for in the "Arab and Islamic cultures" bracket. I was concerned because he seldom mentions Chinese, South Asian, Jewish diaspora/Israeli/Hebrew etc cultures, all of which fall under the scope of Asia/the Orient. He was predominantly concerned with the Arab world, so I thought the article should specify that. Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) That said, the article is fine as it is now. Evildoer187 ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an excerpt from a published book, both of which are written by the same people. It talks about how Jews living in Europe (and who were of Middle Eastern ancestral origins) are/were also victims of Orientalism, even to this day. I think it should be included in some way in the main article, or at least the second paragraph of the intro. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/illustex/orijed.intro.htm Evildoer187 ( talk) 11:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
And where is this Said-style Orientalism article? Evildoer187 ( talk) 13:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Need I remind you that there are very clear guidelines against WP:SHOUTING and rudeness. Evildoer187 ( talk) 16:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the In dance section.
I'd fix it myself, but I came here looking for URLs to fix, and I'm not comfortable just fixing the URLs without addressing what I see as a bigger problem with this new section. However, I'm not knowledgeable about the subject, and so can't boil it down to a reasonable size, if that's what needs doing; and I'm still a pretty new editor, so I'm not sure if a revert is warranted either.
Sorry. Respectfully, Mathieu ottawa ( talk) 08:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The article currently claims that "however the use in English of Orientalism to describe the academic subject of "Oriental studies" is rare; the Oxford English Dictionary cites only one such usage, by Lord Byron in 1812". Is this accurate? (I don't have access to the OED, so I don't know if this is supposed to mean "it gives one example, form 1812" or "it says the only recorded instance was from 1812"). I do have a 1977 issue of the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (i.e. published the year before Said's Orientalism) that gives the definitions "An eastern expression, custom, etc; Scholarship of eastern languages". (Note that this dictionary generally lists meanings in order of first use, so "scholarship of eastern languages" would presumably be current at the time of publication). I also have a 2005 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English which doesn't actually define "orientalism" but merely gives it as a derivative of "oriental". So from this, I gather that using "orientalism" to mean "Asian [language] studies" is now obsolete or obsolescent, but that it used to be standard or common, whereas the article text implies it never was. Iapetus ( talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is too long and tries to hit too many targets. For instance the section on religion seems out of place and there is almost no discussion of literature. I think it should be a general discussion of the topic and the rest should be split out to articles such as Or and architecture, Or and religion, Or and art, Or and literature etc. Philafrenzy ( talk) 17:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel that there is a need for further discussion of orientalism in the context of post-colonialist studies and as a tool of imperialism. Indeed, the Orientalism article is categorized as "Admiration of foreign cultures" which is hardly the case and a deep misconception. Orientalism is the invention of this notion of an 'exotic', 'uncivilized' and 'unchanging' East, and is a direct tool of colonialism and imperialism. Additionally, there is a lack of discussion of orientalism in popular culture. Works which show prime examples of orientalism range into popular media such as cartoons, comics, and poems. For now, I will try to amend the article with greater inclusion of the discussion of orientism in the context of post-colonial studies into the article. However, a split into two articles may be necessary.
07:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Kdbeall ( talk)
No, putting Orientalism in the post-colonial context in only the [[Orientalism(book])] article ignores the contributions of other post-colonial academics. So, there needs to be a space to discuss Orientalism in a post-colonial context without merely cramming it all into the aricle about the book by Said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdbeall ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
To better discuss orientalism we must go beyond a focus on art and "admiration of foreign cultures". Disregarding the work of countless other post-colonialist academics would not allow a full discussion of orientalism. To illustrate that this current article does not cover the breadth of orientalism, take that there has been no discussion of orientalism with respect to Imperial Japan and Oceania. Additionally, there needs to be more reference to the use of orientalism in popular western and Japanese culture to establish the dynamic of "other". Take for example, King_Kong_(1933_film), there is clear dynamic of "civilized" vs "uncivilized" at play. Note secondary sources such as Tropics of Savagery: The Culture of Japanese Empire in Comparative Frame and Tracking King Kong: A Hollywood Icon in World Culture" that discuss this. Kdbeall ( talk) 20:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
By "popular media related to orientalism" I mean mass media that featured "oriental" tropes. For example, King Kong and The Teahouse of the August Moon. I feel that the current sections "In Film" and "Literature" are stubs. I agree that there are too many stray 19th and 20th century items. The sections about orientalism in art needs to be more concise. Kdbeall ( talk) 02:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If anyone cares to know, I was really thrown by the opening section concerning this "Edward Said". I had just finished reading Wikipedia articles about Romantic Medievalism, The Victorian propagation of Chivalric and Gothic Art & Literature. It was explained to me that this came about by a society trying to escape its excessively secular-rational, ugly-overdeveloped and too liberal-non-conformist state of being. So you can imagine the shock I felt when, looking for a breakdown on the Oriental artistic and cultural contribution to the movement at that time in imperial Britain, especially among new wealth, I find this strange something or other about a sinister conspiracy to unconsciously assert "Western society as developed, rational, flexible, and thereby superior" as if those adjectives were actually something universally valued and idealised above all throughout the last three centuries.
Now, I'm not writing here, on the bottom of a talk page of an obscure Wikipedia article to deny the basically accepted fact of cultural imperialism. What alarms me is what the collective creators of this article thought where the important topics of discussion to be outlined front and centre in this article. I strongly feel that this article should first outline the progressive discovery, import and integration of Eastern Art and Culture into the various Western countries, particularly Domestic Britain, because of its empire and because this article is in English. Instead, it's more interested in the history of the rejection and trivialisation of the East through the miserable parts of the 20th Century.
Why? Americans. The article is dominated by citizens of the US, who prioritise American authors and the American perspective. This just follows naturally on Wikipedia because Americans make up the majority of the English speaking world today and Wikipedia's borders are based on language not country. This is a problem because America was mostly an irrelevance in the 18th and 19th centuries, and without wanting to sound cruel, they don't have much of a history except for genocide, slavery, civil war and Puritanism. Coming from this background in today's world, of course, is a mindset that is hopelessly riddled with guilt and thoughts of "domination and submission" in every conceivable context. This makes an American radically unqualified to judge the importance and significance of events of other nation's empires from other times, because all they'll see as important and worthy of discussion is conflict, judgementality and racism that is reflected in their own history and neo-culture. It would be better if these kinds of articles we're at least structured by someone else from a background that enables them to give fair and balanced treatment to these delicate periods of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayner-hills ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
While there are merits in your analysis of problems with this particular article, there is a problem with your premise. The United States were indeed built on a foundation of genocide, slavery, and civil war. However most countries and regions of the planet have similar backgrounds in constant wars and conflicts, their own histories of forced labor and exploitation of workers, their own histories of discrimination, persecution, and religious intolerance. We do not live in a perfect world, and history is often written in blood rather than ink.
I do not think it is likely to find writers who will view the phenomenon without projecting ideas deriving from their own cultural background. At best you can search from sources that do not reflect the orthodoxy of American academia. As for the relations between East and West, I would start on reading on the orientalizing period of ancient Greek art (8th-6th century BC). Artwork taking inspiration from the cultures of Syria, Assyria, Phoenicia, Israel, and Egypt. Dimadick ( talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I've tagged the article with {{ lead-rewrite}} as, owing to a never-properly-resolved debate about exactly what this article should be about, it has gradually backslid from the relatively straightforward description given immediately after the split between this and Oriental studies into a super-categorisation which tries to incorporate every definition of the word and as a result is of no use to the reader in figuring out what the article covers. In a way, this is a microcosm of the article itself, which covers every one of the following, seemingly at random:
As it stands the article is therefore a train wreck. The above set of bullet points would be as well used as a disambiguation page in itself. The topics it covers are barely related and occasionally mutually exclusive. They cannot all be covered in one article.
What we need to do is to figure out what aspect of the term "Orientalism" this article should refer to. This should be the most commonly-used instance of the term in contemporary English, as per our guidelines on primary topics. The remaining uses should be split to their own articles and linked to through a disambiguation page which will likely resemble the above set of bullets.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not a can of worms I greatly relish re-opening, but I have to ask why the lead of the article currently reads (with emphasis added):
Orientalism is an academic term, used in art history, literary studies, geography, and cultural studies, which is and describes a critical approach to representations of the Orient; of the Eastern cultures of the Middle East, North Africa, South West Asia, and South East Asia, represented as “European knowledge of the Orient” created by artists and writers from Western Europe.
I'm guessing this is a case of unresolved argument leading to a non-compromise hybrid pleasing no one. Writing that x is " an academic term" [describing xy] is bad enough, but is the academic term orientalism really meant to describe a critical approach (wikilinked to " critical theory") to representations of the Orient? In other words has Said's book achieved such Generic trademark status that in the 21st century, an "orientalist" is someone who studies problematic Western representations of the Orient? (And, presumably, "orientalism" is their ideology?)
Or is this meant to say that "orientalism" refers to exactly those aspects of "Oriental studies", as well as artistic depictions of foreign cultures (Muslims, Chinese, Chinese Muslims, etc...) which are approached critically by critical approachers?
Why not instead say that Orientalism is a certain Western aesthetic (or cultural tendency) (or the name for an aesthetic ... or even an academic term for an aesthetic if we must hedge about whether "orientalism" exists cohesively anywhere but in their capacious minds) depicting and drawing from (near/middle/whatever) Eastern cultures? And then there can be a whole big section, reflected in the lede, on "Critique of Orientalism". (As User:Kdbeall observes below, the critique is bigger than the book and could have its own section here. Perhaps "critical studies" could move from a section in "Background" to its own section at the end, much as many other articles include "Criticism" sections near the bottom.)
In other words (as User:Johnbod and User:Paul Barlow question above) is the post-Said "critical" approach really part of the definition of "Orientalism"? Or is it simply a significant scholarly approach to Orientalism which should be mentioned in the article on that topic?
Sorry. groupuscule ( talk) 22:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a branch of Orientalism, but there is no due mention of it in this article. I tried to insert a passage but it was reverted two times. Why? 2601:84:4502:61EA:B45E:2270:6C0B:A28A ( talk) 02:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
orientalism also served as a research method for British to establish colonial regime in south Asian nations . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.190.66 ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)