Edward Said

1. The Beirut Story: Said starts with a story about a French journalist in war-torn Beirut
(Lebanon). The journalist is sad because the city is destroyed, remembering it as a
romantic, exotic place like in old French adventure stories (Chateaubriand and Nerval
were writers who wrote about the "Orient").

o Said's Point: This journalist cares more about the European fantasy of the
"Orient" being lost than about the real people suffering in the war. For
Europeans, Said argues, the "Orient" (basically the Middle East and sometimes
Asia) was often less a real place and more like a dream world they invented –
full of mystery, strange customs, and adventure. It was a European idea,
important to their culture and history. The actual people living there
("Orientals") and their suffering were secondary in this view.

2. European vs. American View:

o Americans usually think of the "Far East" (China, Japan) when they hear
"Orient."

o Europeans, especially the British and French, have a much longer and
deeper history with the "Near East" (Middle East). They colonized large parts
of it, traded there for centuries, and saw it as the source of their own ancient
history (like the Bible).

o Said's Point: Because of this long, involved history, Europeans developed a

specific way of thinking about and dealing with the East, which Said
calls "Orientalism."

3. What is the "Orient" to Europe?

o It's not just a place next door.

o It was where Europe had its biggest colonies.

o It was seen as a source of ancient civilizations and languages.

o It was a cultural rival or competitor.

o Crucially, it was Europe's main "Other." By defining what the "Orient" was
(mysterious, irrational, backward, exotic, etc.), Europe could define itself as
the opposite (rational, modern, normal, etc.). The Orient helped Europe shape
its own identity.

4. Orientalism is More Than Just Imagination:

 o Said stresses that the Orient isn't just a fantasy. It's a real place with real
people, deeply connected to Europe's actual history, economy, and culture
(through colonialism, trade, etc.).

o Orientalism is the system Europe created to manage this connection. It's a way
of speaking, thinking, and writing about the Orient that establishes Western
authority over it.

o Think of it like a powerful lens or filter. This system includes: academic

studies, specific vocabulary, common images (like deserts and harems),
stereotypes, government policies, and even the way colonies were run. Said
uses Foucault's idea of "discourse" – a powerful way of talking about
something that shapes how we understand it and who has power over it.

5. Three Meanings of Orientalism (Said sums it up):

o 1. Academic Field: The traditional study of the Orient (history, languages,

cultures). People who do this are "Orientalists." Even if the name is less
popular now, the basic ideas often continue.

o 2. A General Way of Thinking: A basic assumption that the world is divided

into two fundamentally different parts: "Orient" (East) and "Occident" (West).
Many writers, philosophers, and politicians started with this basic distinction.

o 3. A System of Power/Control (Most Important for Said): Starting around

the late 18th century, Orientalism became a Western institution for controlling
the Orient. It wasn't just about studying; it was about defining, ruling, and
having authority over the East. This system was so powerful that it limited
how anyone (Westerner or Easterner) could think or talk about the Orient. It
created a framework that served Western interests, particularly those of Britain
and France.

6. British and French Dominance:

o Historically, Britain and France were the main European powers deeply
involved in the Orient (especially the Middle East and India). Their colonial
empires were huge.

o Therefore, "Orientalism" as Said describes it is mainly a British and French

creation. They produced the most texts, ideas, experts, and policies related to
it.

o After World War II, the United States largely took over this dominant role in
relation to the Middle East, often using similar ways of thinking.

In Simple Terms:
Said is arguing that the Western idea of the "Orient" (especially the Middle East) wasn't
neutral or objective. It was largely a European invention, a mix of fantasy and distorted
reality, shaped by centuries of power imbalance (especially colonialism). This way of
thinking, which he calls "Orientalism," became a powerful system used by the West (mainly
Britain and France, later the US) to:

 Define the East as fundamentally different and often inferior ("Other").

 Justify Western control and dominance over the East.

 Create knowledge (academic studies, literature, policies) that reinforced these ideas
and served Western interests.

 Shape how everyone, including people from the Orient itself, thought and talked about
the region.

He sees it as a tool kit of ideas, stereotypes, and institutions that helped the West rule the East,
not just politically and militarily, but also intellectually and culturally.

II

1. The "Orient" and "West" Aren't Natural: Said starts by saying that concepts like
"The Orient" (the East) and "The Occident" (the West) aren't just naturally existing
places like mountains or rivers. People created these ideas. Just like people make
their own history, they also shape how we think about geography. The "Orient" is
an idea that the West developed, complete with its own history, images, and specific
words used to describe it. These two ideas, East and West, kind of prop each other up
and define each other.

2. Qualification 1: The East is Real, But That's Not My Focus.

o Said quickly adds: This doesn't mean the East isn't real! Obviously, real
cultures, nations, and people exist there with their own histories.

o His main point: He's not studying the actual East. He's studying
the Western system of ideas about the East (which he calls "Orientalism").
He's interested in how this system of Western ideas works, how consistent it
is within itself, and how influential it is in the West, regardless of whether it
accurately matches the reality of the East. Think of the phrase "The East as a
career" – he's focused on what the idea of the East meant to Westerners.

3. Qualification 2: It's About Power, Not Just Imagination.

o Believing the West just "imagined" the Orient this way is naive. The
relationship between West and East has always been about power and
dominance.
 o The West could "Orientalize" the East (define it, categorize it, stereotype it)
because it had the power to do so. The East was often in a position where it
had to submit to being defined this way.

o Example: The French writer Flaubert describing an Egyptian courtesan. He,

being a wealthy European man, had the power to represent her (speak for her)
to his readers, defining her as "typically Oriental." She had no power to tell her
own story in his world. This imbalance represents the larger power dynamic
between West and East.

4. Qualification 3: Orientalism is More Than Just Lies.

o You can't just dismiss Orientalism as a bunch of simple lies or myths that will
disappear if you reveal the "truth."

o While Said thinks Orientalism tells us more about Western power than about
the actual Orient, he stresses its strength and durability. It's a deeply
ingrained system of thought, strongly connected to powerful institutions (like
universities, governments, colonial offices).

o It's lasted for generations because there has been a huge "material
investment" in it – people built careers, institutions, and whole fields of
knowledge around it. It became the accepted "filter" through which the West
viewed the East.

5. How It Became So Strong: Hegemony.

o Said uses the concept of "hegemony" (from Gramsci) to explain this.

Hegemony is how a dominant culture maintains its power, not just through
force (like police or army), but through culture and consent. Ideas become so
widespread and accepted (through schools, media, etc.) that they seem like
"common sense."

o Orientalism gained its strength through hegemony. The idea of European

superiority over the "backward" East became a core part of European identity
("us" vs. "them"). This dominant idea made Orientalist views seem normal and
correct, making it hard for different perspectives to be heard.

o This gave Westerners a "positional superiority" – they were always the

observer, the judge, the one in control when dealing with the Orient, simply
because they could be there and the East had little power to resist.

6. The Result: A "Made-to-Order" Orient.

o Under Western dominance, a specific version of the Orient was constructed to

fit Western needs: something to be studied in universities, displayed in
museums, ruled by colonial offices, used as examples in theories (often racist),
and depicted in art and literature.
 o This was all based on a "sovereign Western consciousness" – the West was
the center, defining the Orient based on its own desires, fears, and
assumptions, not necessarily on reality.

o This system produced both genuine scholarship (like studies of

languages) and racist theories and sensationalist fiction (like "The Lustful
Turk"). It's a broad and complex system.

7. Said's Methodological Challenge:

o He ends by acknowledging a difficulty: How do you study this vast thing

called Orientalism? Do you focus on the big picture (the general system, the
racism, the imperialism)? Or do you focus on the specific details (individual
writers, specific books)?

o Focusing only on the big picture risks being too general and crude. Focusing
only on details risks losing sight of the overall power structure that shaped
everything.

o Said's goal is to find a balance: to look at individual examples while

understanding how they fit into and were shaped by the larger, powerful
system (the "hegemonic context") of Orientalism.

In simpler terms: Said is arguing that the Western way of thinking about the East
("Orientalism") is a powerful, man-made system, not just a neutral description. It grew out of
Western dominance and power. It's not just a collection of lies, but a strong, deeply rooted
structure of ideas and institutions that shaped how the West saw, studied, and controlled the
East, often reinforcing ideas of Western superiority. He wants to analyze this system
carefully, looking at both its general patterns and specific examples.

III

This section is about the first of three aspects of Said's own experience that shaped how he
approached writing Orientalism.

1. The Idea of "Pure" vs. "Political" Knowledge:

 Common Belief: People usually think some kinds of knowledge are "pure" and have
nothing to do with politics. For example, studying Shakespeare seems academic and
neutral. Other kinds of knowledge, like studying modern China or the Soviet Union
during the Cold War, seem obviously political because governments are interested,
and the research might influence policy.
  The Humanist: Said identifies himself as a "humanist" (studying literature, arts,
philosophy). People generally assume humanists aren't involved in politics through
their work. Their personal political beliefs (like being liberal or conservative) are seen
as separate from their scholarly work.

 The Social Scientist/Policy Expert: In contrast, someone studying economics or

politics is expected to have an ideology, and their work is seen as inherently political.

 Said's Challenge: Said agrees that aiming for impartial, non-political knowledge is a
nice idea. But in reality, no scholar can ever be completely separate from their life
circumstances – their social class, their beliefs, their position in society. These
things always influence their work, consciously or unconsciously.

 The Problem with "Non-Political" Ideal: The desire for knowledge to be "non-
political" often hides the real political influences that are always there. Labelling
work "political" is often just a way to dismiss it if it challenges the status quo or the
illusion of pure objectivity.

 Power Defines Importance: Which fields of knowledge are considered "important"

often depends on how close they are to political power. A study on Soviet energy that
the Defense Department wants is seen as more politically significant than a study on
Tolstoy, even if both fall under "Russian studies." Political power shapes what
knowledge gets valued and produced, even within universities.

2. Connecting This to Orientalism and Imperialism:

 Imperialism Matters: Because major Western powers (Britain, France, USA)

were/are imperial powers, anything related to their colonies or areas of influence
abroad becomes politically charged.

 The Scholar's Identity: An Englishman studying India or Egypt in the 19th century
couldn't separate his interest from the fact that these were British colonies. His
knowledge wasn't "pure"; it was connected to Britain's imperial role.

 Said's Core Argument: He is saying all Western knowledge about the Orient
(Orientalism) is inherently political because it was produced by people
(Europeans/Americans) belonging to dominant cultures with a history of power and
specific interests in the Orient.

 "European/American First": A Western scholar studying the East approaches

it first as a member of a powerful Western nation with a long history of involvement
(often domination) in the East, and second as an individual. This identity isn't neutral;
it carries political weight.

3. Nuance: It's Not Simple Cause-and-Effect:

  Avoid Mechanical Links: Said warns against thinking that big facts like
"imperialism" directly and simply determine every detail in a novel or study. It's more
complex.

 Culture Creates Interest: He suggests that Western culture played a dynamic role
alongside politics, economics, and military power in creating the interest in the Orient
and shaping the field of Orientalism.

 Orientalism Defined: Therefore, Orientalism isn't just:

o A political topic passively reflected by culture.

o A random collection of texts about the East.

o A secret Western plot to control the East.

 Instead, Orientalism IS:

o A way political awareness gets distributed into cultural forms (art, scholarship,
etc.).

o An elaboration of the basic East/West division and the various "interests" the
West developed (through study, analysis, description).

o A will or intention to understand, control, or absorb a different world.

o A discourse (a system of thought and language) that isn't directly caused by

political power but exists in a complex exchange with various forms of power
(political, intellectual, cultural, moral).

o Crucially: Orientalism is a major part of modern Western culture itself, telling

us more about the West ("our" world) than about the actual Orient.

4. Resisting the Connection Between Culture and Politics:

 Scholarly Reluctance: Said notes that many scholars (especially humanists) are okay
with seeing texts influenced by other texts or intellectual debates (like scientific
arguments influencing Balzac). But they resist seeing influence from political contexts
(like Balzac's reactionary politics, or Locke's views on race and slavery alongside his
philosophy). This is a way scholarship tries to keep itself "pure."

 Why This Reluctance is Wrong:

o 1. Writers Knew About Empire: Most major 19th-century writers (Mill,

Arnold, Dickens, etc.) were aware of empire and had strong views on race and
imperialism that showed up in their work. (Example: J.S. Mill believed his
liberal ideas didn't apply to "inferior" Indians). Even specialists must
acknowledge this political context.
 o 2. Politics Doesn't "Demean" Culture: Recognizing political influence
doesn't make culture less valuable. Instead, understanding how hegemonic
systems like imperialism shaped culture helps us understand culture's power,
persistence, and richness. These political constraints were productive – they
influenced how things were written, not just stopped things from being written.

5. Said's Approach and Goal:

 Dynamic Exchange: He studies Orientalism by looking at the interaction between

individual authors and the larger political context of the empires they lived in.

 Focus on Detail within Context: He's fascinated by the details in the works of writers
like Lane or Flaubert, but understands these details were produced within the
overarching belief in Western superiority. The brilliance is in the detail, even if the
framework is biased. (Lane's book is a classic for its detailed observation, despite its
racist assumptions).

 Key Questions: How did different fields contribute to the imperial project? How did
Orientalism change? How did it reproduce itself? How can we study this complex
cultural creation, acknowledging its connection to power and domination, without
being simplistic?

 Conclusion: Studying the link between knowledge and politics must be done
carefully, looking at the specifics of each case (the subject, the historical context).
There isn't one simple formula.

In Simple Terms: Said argues that you can't separate knowledge (especially about other
cultures) from the political realities and power structures of the time. Western writing about
the East ("Orientalism") was deeply shaped by Western imperialism. Even seemingly "pure"
academic or literary work was influenced by the political fact that the West dominated the
East. He wants to study the details of this Orientalist writing while always remembering this
power dynamic, seeing Orientalism as a complex cultural system intertwined with political,
intellectual, and moral power, which ultimately tells us more about the West itself.

Said talks about the methodological challenges – basically, how he decided to structure his
study of such a huge topic.

1. The Problem of Where to Start:

 Said says that starting any big research project is tricky. You can't just begin
anywhere; you have to carefully choose a starting point.

 This involves an act of "delimitation": like cutting out a specific piece from a huge
block of material to focus on.
  For Orientalism, the challenge was massive: What texts, authors, and time periods
should he include? Where should he draw the line?

2. Why Not Write an Encyclopedia?

 He decided against trying to write a complete history of every European idea about
the Orient.

 Why?

o The amount of material would be almost infinite.

o Just listing things chronologically wouldn't achieve his goal of analyzing

the politics and structure of Orientalism.

o Other scholars had already written comprehensive histories of specific parts

(like studies of Arabic in Europe), so his task was different.

3. Narrowing Down the Subject:

 His Starting Point: He decided to focus on the British, French, and later American
experience of the Orient.

 Why these three? They were the major colonial powers with the most sustained and
influential involvement in the Orient, especially the Middle East. Their role shaped
modern Orientalism. The US largely took over from Britain and France after WWII.

 Further Focus: Within that, he concentrated mainly on the experience of the Arabs
and Islam.

 Why? For centuries, the Islamic world (especially the Near East) was what Europeans
primarily meant when they said "the Orient."

 Acknowledgement: He knows this leaves out important areas like India and China,
but argues that the Near East/Islamic focus can be studied somewhat distinctly, even
though there are historical connections (e.g., Britain's interest in Egypt was linked to
controlling routes to India).

4. Why Not Germany (and others)?

 He acknowledges the huge importance of German Orientalist scholarship (especially

in linguistics and refining textual analysis). He regrets not covering it more.

 But: German interest was different. It was mostly academic and classical, not tied to
large-scale, direct colonial rule like Britain and France had. The German "Orient" was
less of a real, political place for them and more an object of scholarly or literary
fascination. German scholars often worked on materials gathered by the British and
French empires.

5. The Concept of Authority:

  Despite differences, all Western forms of Orientalism (British, French, German,
American) shared a common trait: Intellectual Authority over the Orient within
Western culture.

 Authority isn't natural: It's built, spread, and maintained. It sets standards, defines
what's considered "true," and is deeply connected to power.

 Said's Goal: To analyze how this authority was constructed and worked in
Orientalism.

6. Said's Analytical Tools:

 To study this authority, he uses two main ideas:

o Strategic Location: How does a writer position themselves within their text in
relation to the Orient? (What kind of voice do they use? How do they structure
their arguments? What images do they choose?) It's about how the writer tries
to "contain" or manage the vastness of the Orient.

o Strategic Formation: How do different texts (and types of texts, like

travelogues or scholarly articles) relate to each other? How do they build on
previous knowledge, refer to authorities, and form a dense network that gains
power and influence in the culture (through universities, institutions, etc.)?

7. The Crucial Idea: Exteriority:

 Said emphasizes that Orientalism is based on Exteriority.

 This means the Western writer (scholar, poet, etc.) is always outside the Orient,
looking in. They speak for the Orient, describe it, explain it to the West.

 The Orientalist text is primarily a Representation, not a direct reflection of reality.

Think of Aeschylus's play The Persians – it's a Greek representation of Persians, not
the Persians themselves speaking.

 Said's Focus: He analyzes how these representations are constructed (style, structure,
imagery) rather than judging their "accuracy." The important thing is that
they are representations made by an outsider.

 Underlying Assumption: The West represents the Orient because the Orient is seen
as unable to represent itself. (He quotes Marx: "They cannot represent themselves;
they must be represented.")

8. Representations Depend on the West, Not the East:

 A written statement about the Orient gets its meaning and power from Western
culture, institutions, and agreed-upon ways of understanding – not from the actual
Orient itself. The text replaces the real Orient for the Western reader.
  Modern Orientalism (from the late 18th century) didn't necessarily get closer to the
"real" Orient, but it developed much more sophisticated Western techniques for
representing it (like new sciences, new artistic styles).

 Orientalism is shaped more by the culture producing it (the West) than by its supposed
subject (the East). It has its own internal logic and connections to dominant Western
ideas (Darwinism, Freudianism, etc.).

9. The Role of Individual Writers:

 While influenced by Foucault's ideas about powerful "discourses," Said

believes individual writers do matter in Orientalism.

 Certain authors (like Lane, Sacy, Renan) became key authorities whose specific works
were widely cited and shaped the field.

 Said's Method: He combines analysis of the large-scale system (the "formation")

with close readings of specific texts to see how individual authors contributed to and
were shaped by Orientalism.

10. Limitations and Audiences:

 He admits his book is not a complete history but hopes it's a start and encourages
others to study related topics (like other European Orientalisms, or alternatives to
Orientalism).

 He wrote the book for several audiences (literary students, scholars of the Orient,
general readers, people in the "Third World"), hoping to show the deep connections
between culture, knowledge, and power, and the lasting influence of Western cultural
dominance.

In Simple Terms: Said explains how he tackled studying Orientalism. He decided to focus on
the powerful British, French, and American traditions, particularly concerning the
Arab/Islamic world, because of their imperial links. His main method is to analyze Orientalist
writings not as accurate descriptions of the East, but as Western representations created by
outsiders who held positions of power and authority. He looks at how writers positioned
themselves ("strategic location") and how texts built on each other to create an authoritative
system ("strategic formation"). He stresses that this whole system tells us more about Western
culture and its assumptions than about the Orient itself. While acknowledging the system's
power, he also emphasizes the importance of reading individual authors closely.

Said discusses the personal dimension behind his writing of Orientalism.

1. Starting with Self-Awareness (Gramsci):

o Said quotes the thinker Gramsci: To think critically, you first need to
understand who you really are, recognizing yourself as a product of history.
 This history has left countless "traces" on you. Gramsci believed it's essential
to make an "inventory" or list of these traces.

o Said's Point: Writing Orientalism was, for him, a personal attempt to do

exactly that – to understand the historical and cultural forces that shaped him.

2. Said's Personal Background:

o He grew up as an "Oriental" (specifically, a Palestinian Arab) in British

colonies (Palestine and Egypt).

o Although his entire education was Western (in the colonies and the US), that
early awareness of being defined as "Oriental" by a dominant Western culture
never left him.

o His Motivation: The book is his effort to understand the impact of this
powerful Western culture ("whose domination has been so powerful") on
himself and other "Orientals." This personal connection is why the Islamic
Orient is his main focus.

3. The Contemporary Context (Post-1950s West):

o Living in the West (especially the US) since the 1950s meant living through
intense East-West conflict (Cold War, etc.). The "East" was often portrayed as
dangerous.

o Universities created "area studies" programs, linking the study of the Orient
directly to government policy and national interests.

o Media (TV, films) made the world seem smaller but often reinforced
stereotypes about the Orient, updating old 19th-century myths ("mysterious
Orient") for the modern age.

4. Specific Problems with Perceiving Arabs and Islam:

o Said identifies three factors that made understanding the Arab world
particularly difficult and politically charged in the West:

 1. Historical Prejudice: A long history of popular anti-Arab and anti-

Islamic feeling in the West, reflected in Orientalism itself.

 2. Arab-Israeli Conflict: The struggle and its strong influence on US

public opinion, particularly making liberal identification with Zionism
common and acceptable, while identification with Arabs was not.

 3. Lack of Cultural Connection: An almost total absence of ways for

Westerners to positively identify with or dispassionately discuss Arabs
or Islam.
 o Result: The Middle East became viewed mainly through lenses of power
politics, oil, and simplistic stereotypes (e.g., democratic Israel vs. terrorist
Arabs), making clear understanding very difficult.

5. The Palestinian Experience:

o Said states that being an Arab Palestinian in the West, especially America, is
deeply "disheartening."

o There's a feeling of political non-existence or being seen only as a nuisance or

a stereotype ("an Oriental").

o He describes a powerful "web of racism, cultural stereotypes, political

imperialism, dehumanizing ideology" targeting Arabs/Muslims, which
Palestinians feel acutely.

o He notes that even academic experts on the Near East ("Orientalists") in the
US rarely identified politically with the Arabs in a way considered mainstream
or acceptable.

6. Knowledge, Power, and Personal Reality:

o For Said, the way knowledge (Orientalism) connects with power to define
and control the "Oriental," essentially erasing their humanity, is not just
an academic theory. It's a lived reality directly affecting him and his
community.

o He used his personal and political experiences as motivation for his scholarly
analysis.

o He strongly believes that culture (like literature) and politics/society cannot

be understood separately.

7. Orientalism and Anti-Semitism:

o He makes a crucial point: Orientalism, particularly in its negative portrayal of

Arabs and Islam, functions very similarly to Western anti-Semitism. He sees
it as a "secret sharer" – using similar prejudiced logic and dehumanizing
tactics. For an Arab Palestinian, the irony of this connection is obvious.

8. Said's Hopes for the Book:

o To help people understand how cultural domination works.

o To encourage a new, less biased way of engaging with the regions and peoples
formerly labeled "the Orient."

o Ultimately, he hopes to help eliminate the very concepts of "Orient" and

"Occident" which enforce this division and hierarchy.
 o He wants to contribute to the "unlearning" of ingrained, dominant ways of
thinking (quoting Raymond Williams).

In Simple Terms: Said explains that he wrote Orientalism partly out of a deep personal need
to understand how his identity as an "Oriental" (specifically, a Palestinian Arab) was shaped
by centuries of Western domination and representation. His own experiences of prejudice,
stereotyping, and political marginalization in the West, especially concerning the Arab-Israeli
conflict, made the connection between biased knowledge (Orientalism) and real-world power
painfully clear. He argues that Orientalism works much like anti-Semitism and hopes his book
will help people see how cultural power operates and ultimately move beyond the divisive
concepts of "East" and "West."

Knowing the Oriental

Said uses this specific historical example to show Orientalism in action at the highest levels
of political power.

1. The Scene: It's 1910. Arthur Balfour, a very important and respected British politician
with vast experience in governing the Empire, gives a speech in Parliament about
Britain's role in Egypt.

2. Balfour's Credentials: Said emphasizes Balfour's authority – he's educated,

experienced, and holds a high position. This makes his words carry significant weight.
He's speaking as a representative of British power and knowledge.

3. The Problem: Some people in Britain are starting to question why Britain is still
occupying Egypt, especially since Egyptians are demanding more independence.
Balfour's speech is meant to justify the continued British presence.

4. Balfour's Core Argument (Knowledge = Power):

o He tackles the accusation that Britain is acting superior. He claims it's not
about superiority, but about facing facts.

o Fact 1: Britain knows Egypt. Balfour boasts that Britain knows Egyptian
civilization better than anyone, stretching back further than British history
itself.

o Said's Analysis: For Balfour, this deep knowledge isn't just academic; it's a
form of power and dominance. To know something so thoroughly, from its
origins to its decline, is to have authority over it. British
knowledge defines what Egypt is for Balfour. Egypt doesn't have its own
independent reality in his view; it exists as Britain understands it.

5. Balfour's Core Argument (Oriental Incapacity):

 o Fact 2: Orientals can't govern themselves. Balfour claims that throughout
history, Western nations showed early signs of self-government, while Oriental
nations have always lived under dictatorships ("despotisms"). They've made
great contributions, but always under absolute rule. They've never, he asserts,
achieved self-government on their own.

o Said's Analysis: Balfour presents this as an objective historical fact, ignoring

any alternative interpretations or the possibility that Orientals might want self-
government.

6. Balfour's Justification for Rule:

o Since Orientals can't rule themselves, British rule is actually good for them.
He claims they have better government under Britain than ever before.

o It's also good for Europe ("the civilised West").

o He dismisses the idea that Egyptians might not appreciate this, suggesting
anyone who complains is just an "agitator." The voices of the Egyptians
themselves are completely ignored.

7. The Logic of Occupation:

o Balfour argues that British administrators in Egypt need full support from
home. If Egyptians sense any doubt in British authority, the whole system
(which he claims is the basis of their civilization now) will collapse.

o Said's Analysis: Balfour creates a circular logic: Britain knows Egypt needs
ruling -> Britain rules -> British rule becomes the basis of Egyptian life ->
Therefore, Egypt requires British rule.

8. Balfour as Representative: Said points out how Balfour speaks for everyone
important: Britain, the West, the administrators, and even implicitly for the Egyptians,
assuming he knows what's best for them better than they do. The Egyptians are
presented as a subject race, rehabilitated by the Empire.

9. Introducing Lord Cromer:

o Said introduces Lord Cromer (Evelyn Baring) as the man who

actually ran Egypt for Britain for 25 years (until 1907). Cromer was seen (by
Balfour and others) as the proof that this system worked brilliantly. Balfour
praised Cromer for lifting Egypt from "degradation" to unique "prosperity."

o The Underlying Theory: Both Balfour and Cromer operated on a simple,

powerful idea: There are Westerners (who rule) and Orientals (who must
be ruled). This wasn't just their personal cruelty, Said argues, but a core
principle derived from Orientalism.
 10. Cromer's Ideas (The Man on the Ground):

o Cromer wrote about ruling "subject races." Like Balfour, he

believed knowledge of these races was key to controlling them effectively.
More knowledge meant more power, which allowed for getting even more
knowledge.

o He advocated ruling "wisely" – understanding the Orientals' supposed

"limitations" (like their lack of logic) and keeping them "content," rather than
using brute force constantly. But the threat of force was always there.

o He believed Westerners knew best what was good for the subject races (who
were like children, in statu pupillari - in the status of a pupil/ward).

o He strongly opposed Egyptian nationalism, believing Egyptians needed

"cosmopolitanism" (guided by Britain) instead.

o Crucially, Cromer thought Orientals were essentially the same everywhere,

making them predictable and manageable once you understood their core
character.

11. The "Essential" Oriental (Cromer's List):

o Said quotes Cromer's list of supposed essential traits of the "Oriental mind,"
based on his "experience":

 Inaccurate / Untruthful

 Illogical / Slipshod reasoning (unlike the logical, precise European)

 Gullible

 Lacking energy and initiative

 Prone to flattery, intrigue, cunning

 Cruel to animals

 Disorderly (can't even walk straight on a pavement)

 Liars

 Lethargic and suspicious

 Generally the opposite of the "noble Anglo-Saxon."

In Simple Terms:

Said uses Balfour's speech and Cromer's writings/actions to show how Orientalism worked in
practice. Powerful Western figures genuinely believed:
 1. They knew the "Orient" and "Orientals" completely.

2. This knowledge gave them the right and the duty to rule.

3. "Orientals" were fundamentally different from Westerners – inherently illogical,

incapable of self-government, childlike, and defined by a fixed set of negative traits.

4. Western rule, therefore, was not oppression but a benefit for the Orientals themselves
and for the world.

This system of "knowledge" justified political domination and silenced the voices of the
people being ruled. It presented stereotypes as objective facts and imperial control as a moral
obligation.

Said explains how Orientalism worked, using Cromer as a prime example, and connects it to
broader historical and intellectual trends.

1. Cromer's Blunt View:

o Cromer is honest: he sees Orientals purely as people to be governed. His

"study of man" is specifically about how to rule Orientals.

o He flatly states that Orientals act, speak, and think the exact opposite of
Europeans.

o He mixes his own observations with references to established Orientalist

scholars (like Renan) to back up his claims and explain why Orientals are
supposedly the way they are.

o The Tautology: For Cromer, the Oriental is essentially "guilty" of being

Oriental. Any evidence will confirm this pre-existing judgment. It's circular
reasoning: "He's Oriental, therefore he acts this way; he acts this way because
he's Oriental." This didn't need logical proof in that context; it was just
accepted.

o Unnatural Nationalism: Because the "true" Oriental nature was considered

fixed, something like Egyptian nationalism demanding independence seemed
"unnatural," an "exotic plant" not native to the Oriental mind.

2. Orientalism Justified Colonialism Before the Fact:

o Said makes a crucial point: Orientalism wasn't just an excuse cooked

up after empires were built. The ideas of Oriental inferiority and the need for
Western control existed beforehand and helped justify colonial expansion in
the first place.
 o The sharp East/West divide that Balfour and Cromer took for granted had been
developing for centuries.

o Two Key Factors (since mid-18th century):

 Systematic Knowledge: Europe was building a huge body of

"knowledge" about the Orient through sciences (ethnology, linguistics,
etc.) and literature (novels, travelogues).

 Power Imbalance: Europe was consistently in a position of strength

and dominance over the East. This is a blunt fact.

3. Knowledge + Power = Creating the "Oriental":

o The power imbalance shaped the relationship. Orientals were seen as irrational,
childlike, different; Europeans as rational, mature, normal.

o The West defined the Orient's identity. The Oriental world seemed
coherent only because the West organized and explained it through its
"knowledge."

o Key Formula: Knowledge born from strength creates the object it describes.
Western knowledge, backed by power, essentially invented the "Oriental" and
"his world" as manageable concepts.

o Oriental as Object: The Oriental was treated like something to be judged (in
court), studied (in class), disciplined (in prison), or categorized (like an animal
in a manual). They were contained by these dominant Western frameworks.

4. Orientalism as Cultural Strength:

o Orientalism is an exercise of Western "cultural strength."

o Fundamental assumption: The Orient needs "corrective study" by the West.

o Definition: Orientalism is the knowledge system that puts the Orient into these
frameworks (class, court, prison, manual) for control and governance.

5. Connection to Imperial Expansion:

o Balfour and Cromer inherited this way of thinking.

o The rise and institutionalization of Orientalism happened at the exact same

time as Europe's massive colonial expansion (1815-1914, conquering roughly
85% of the globe).

o Britain and France were the biggest players, often rivals but also partners in
ruling the Orient, especially the Near East (Islamic world).

o They "shared" not just territory but the intellectual power of Orientalism.
6. Orientalism as an Archive and Constraint:

o Think of Orientalism as a shared library or database of ideas about

Orientals.

o This database provided explanations for Oriental behavior, gave them a

specific "mentality," and allowed Europeans to see them as a predictable,
manageable group.

o It influenced both Westerners and the people labeled "Orientals."

o It's best seen as a system that limited and constrained thought, rather than just
a positive set of beliefs.

o Core Logic: West = Superior, East = Inferior. This gap widened over time.

o Example: Retiring British officials early ensured Orientals never saw a

Westerner appear weak or old, reinforcing the image of eternal Western vigor.

7. Forms of Modern Orientalism:

o Inherited Literature: A vast body of past European writing about the East.

o "Oriental Renaissance" (Late 18th/Early 19th C): A new awareness

sparked by translated texts and events like Napoleon's invasion of Egypt
(1798). This invasion became a model of "scientific" cultural takeover, making
Egypt a "laboratory" for Western knowledge.

o Modernization: Orientalism adopted modern scientific language (linking to

comparative anatomy, racial theory, etc.) and adapted to various intellectual
trends (Darwinism, Freudianism).

o Institutionalization: Growth of academic societies (Asiatic Societies),

university positions, journals, spreading Orientalist knowledge and prestige.

o Limits on Thought: Even creative writers were restricted by Orientalism's

framework. It was a political vision enforcing the "us" vs. "them" divide,
creating two separate worlds where the Westerner always had the privileged
position to define the "Oriental mystery." Said argues this vision
is "antihuman and persistent."

8. How it Works (Cromer's Machine Metaphor):

o Cromer saw the empire as a machine. Local agents (specialists on the ground)
fed raw material (people, resources, data) from the East into the central
authority (London).
 o The center processed this, turning it into useful knowledge and power. The
Orientalist specialist translated "mere Oriental matter" into categories useful
for rule ("subject race," "Oriental mentality").

o Knowledge was managed by the imperial system.

o Hierarchy: Orientalism supported a clear chain of command, from the lowest

subject up to the Western ruler (like Kipling's chain: Mule -> Driver -> ... ->
Empress).

o It expressed Western strength and (perceived) Oriental weakness.

9. The Core Problem: Hostile Divisions:

o Can humanity survive the consequences of dividing itself into rigid categories
like "East" and "West" without hostility?

o Using these labels tends to polarize the groups ("Orientals become more
Oriental, Westerners more Western") and limits real human connection.

o Orientalism inherently channels thought into these fixed compartments,

making Western power seem like a scientific truth.

10. Contemporary Examples (Kissinger & Glidden):

o Kissinger: Divides the world into "developed" (West) and "developing." West
= post-Newtonian, empirical, rational. Developing world = pre-Newtonian,
internal reality, didn't discover empiricism. This is the exact same logic as
classic Orientalism, justifying Western containment/control.

o Glidden (Psychiatric article on Arabs): Uses flimsy evidence to paint a

picture of Arabs based on crude stereotypes (illogical, vengeful, suspicious,
conformist, etc.), presenting this as scientific fact. This is "the apogee of
Orientalist confidence," where prejudice masquerades as expertise.

11. Concluding Question:

o Said ends by asking: What underlying structures (institutions, traditions,

cultural forces) produce this remarkably consistent, biased way of describing
the Orient across different eras and fields? (The rest of his book aims to answer
this).

In Simple Terms: Said shows how figures like Cromer used a pre-existing system of thought
(Orientalism) – built on Western power and supposed knowledge – to justify ruling Orientals.
This system treated Orientals as fundamentally different, inferior, and predictable objects to
be managed. Orientalism became institutionalized alongside massive colonial expansion. It
acted like a shared database of stereotypes that limited how everyone thought, hardening the
"us vs. them" divide. Said argues this harmful way of thinking persists today, seen in figures
like Kissinger and "experts" like Glidden who continue to use similar biased frameworks to
describe non-Western peoples, justifying Western control. He asks: what allows this system to
endure?