Edward Said International Relations Analysis

2365 Words10 Pages

International relations discuss the relationships amongst countries and the presence of other organisations in the political spectrum. Orientalism is crucial to this post-colonial understanding of international relations. Edward Said addressed this concept of Orientalism in 1978 through his book ‘Orientalism’ and raised arguments like how the partition between East and West is an imagined margin on the basis of an ‘us versus them’ idea and the West’s use of binary opposition between the East and West to demarcate themselves as the superior race and qualifying occupation as their responsibility to bring civilisation to the weaker Orient. He also explains concepts like the oversimplifying of traits linked to the Orientals and essentialising them …show more content…

Critics have argued that the Orient that Said describes all of Central Asia, Turkey, Middle East and North Africa and this contends with the understanding of the assortment and extent of Orientalism (Huggan, G. (2005)). This means that Orientalism becomes a symbol for any type of othering that requires the representation of the ruling supremacy on the other group who are viewed as customarily side-lined, economically not established or, in other words, deficient (Huggan, G. (2005)). This is problematic because such a lax use of the classification; the Orient, has resulted in the revisiting of the binaries that Said insisted on opposing and instead contradicts himself (Huggan, G. (2005)). In my opinion, this criticism is valid because although he does draw on varying cultures like Islam or Hinduism, he fundamentally views the entire region of the ‘orient’ as homogenous and united in being victimised by the West. He does not take into account the varying societies, cultures or geographies of the different countries in the …show more content…

The three main criticisms that I have raised are foundational in proving wrong because it could potentially damage Said’s enterprise. This is because the three main critiques involve 1. The methodology of his Orientalism by making both regions homogenous 2. The relationship between the East and West which he assumes is in the framework of dominant/subordinate but has been proven wrong, this is also crucial for the understanding of international relations because the Orient is not always the weaker region needing help from the West but instead is rising and there is a fair exchange of power 3. The identity of the Orientals: important because it deals with the people in the Orient, and whether Orientalism presents them accurately. With these three criticisms having valid arguments to back them up, it presents to me more clearly that Said’s enterprise is very narrow and rigid and not as relatable as it proves how one-sided Said’s argument is. The fact that Said conveniently negates certain information like the significance of women or is biased towards one viewpoint of victimizing the Orient against the dominant and homogenous West while also homogenizing the Orient and also overlooking the areas of compatibility between the East and the West, proves that his study is very one-sided, rigid and

Open Document