"the Other", Orientalism, and Said
I just finished reading Edward Said's Orientalism and found it to be very thought provoking. Said brings up some interesting points in this book, the one which I found most interesting was the idea of "the Other". He explains how governments (and also people, cultures, societies) define themselves by defining what they are not especially in comparison to those that are near them. If I were to say, "The people of region A eat flowers, that is disgusting.", than that would imply that the region I am from finds that act to be taboo.
In his book he states that, for the West, "the Other" is the Middle East. The reasons for this, he states are; the geographical location of the Middle East as compared to Europe, the similarities between the two major religions of those regions: Islam & Christianity, and also the "threat" that the Middle East/Islam posed to Europe during the Medieval period.
Said also believes that this representation of "the Other" is beneficial to those who are in power. The reason for this statement is because, according to Said, it gives the state a legitimate explanation for its policies towards "the Other". He states that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was "the Other" for the United States. Now that the Cold War is over, Said argues, the Middle East has taken on the role of "the Other" in the United States and as such, "the Arab" is the new boogey-man of American society.
What do you all think of this idea of "the Other" and its necessity for governments? I think of moments in history and see how this idea of "the Other" has been beneficial to various regions. During the Persian Wars the Greeks were able to take a time out from making war on one another because of Darius' & Xerxes invasions of Greece. Since the Greeks faced a threat that was different from themselves they were finally able to unite (if only for a short period) long enough to define their enemy as "the Other". Once the Persians were defeated "the Other" was no longer so easy to define for the Greeks. So once again they went back to making war on one another and defining "the Other" as Greek but a different type of Greek (Athens and Sparta). The Romans were able to do this as well by uniting all of Italy and defining "the Other" as all non-Romans (the strength in this being that as various societies gained Roman citizenship they too viewed Rome's enemys as "the Other" and themselves as part of the Roman system).
Has anyone else read this book or wish to comment on this concept of "the Other" (or discuss Said's condemnation of Orientalists & Orientalism)
Reply With Quote
