The rage of the orientalists.

One phenomenon that has been of interest to me for much of my adult like is the subtle anger many Orientalists and those close to Orientalism seem to react with when thei methodology is questioned.

When discussions amongst thinkers and men of letters occur, it is inevitable that disagreements arise.  On many occasions, individuals can disagree quite strongly when taking issue with the very basis of another party’s hypothesis.  However, there is a characteristic held by many modern thinkers allying with the Orientalist school of thought that can be noticed upon further inspection: intense anger at having their approach, methodologies, and/or objectivity called into question.

The behavior of which I speak is typically a passive aggressive one, though at times it can boil over into more obvious irritation.  On many occasions within popular intellectual discourse, we have witnessed examples of this anger almost becoming personal in tone; an extreme displeasure felt by an individual when the very foundations of their ideology is suspected.  It is not entirely unlike the reaction of a zealot being faced with verbal opposition to their message.

One of the primary targets of this anger is the late Colombia University Professor Edward Said.  A true scholar of his field, Sai could boast a resume the size of a small phone book.  His masterpiece known as Orientalism, an essential text for any student of history and/or current events of the Middle East, was monumental in the critical thought of the modern world and is acknowledged by all of academia as a defining work that has changed the course of higher learning.  Rather than joining in the debate regarding European and North American policies and intellectual discourse regarding the Middle East, Said dissects the methods by which Western scholars, particularly those of the English- and French-speaking spheres, have utilized when approaching the Middle East.  A number of inherent contraditions, false assumptions, and double standards were brought to the fore regarding North American and European study of the Middle East and are now known and cautioned about in any significant study of the region.

While various writers have come and gone sharing and disputing different ideas and policies regarding the Middle East, Said’s questioning of the orientalists’ methods has particularly raised the alarm for many of those whom he was writing about.  Debating individual points is one thing, but questioning the validity of their approach is too much for the majority to bear.  With the exception of Bernard Lewis, I have not yet seen any negative feedback regarding Said’s book that was not laden with passive aggressive tones and pejorative, condescending comments.  Proper manners and objectivity when discussing ideas seems to go out the window when Western scholarship of the Middle East is inspected for prejudices.

This criticism can, at times, become quite insulting.  Jihad Watch, Campus Watch, Islam Watch, and possibly Swatch Watch all sport a variety of ad hominem attacks lightly dressed with the language of a balanced book review against Orientalism.  Ibn Warraq, an icon to a fringe element within some Western circles, actually wrote an entire book in response to Said’s classic.  That Ibn Warraq, a former restaurant manager who had briefly studied Arabic under the eminent scholar Montgomery Watt whom he himself later disparaged, claims to have disproven the monumental work of Said, an internationally recognized scholar with a plethora of awards and a teaching history that includes stints at Yale and his alma mater Harvard is a self-refuting statement.  This has not prevented orientalists from parading any and all criticism of Said’s work, however.

The fervor with which his work is attacked by this ever-shrinking minority of North American and European authors within Middle Eastern studies is at times impressive.  Few scholars of his stature have had as many smear campaigns and as much time spent on emotion-liden attacks against them as Said.  A family member who is still currently upon the same atheistic beliefs I was upon before accepting Islam once remarked that, “the criticism section on Edward Said’s Wikipedia article is massive.  It’s the biggest section I have ever seen.”  Such is the devotion of orientalists that they not only flood discourse with any criticism that can be found from any individual, but they also begin accepting open sources as reliable sources.

Said is not alone, however – indeed, any writer or professor who calls the sanctity of orientalists into question is generally met with the same combination of some legitimate disagreement and some polemic, with the latter typically overshadowing the former in both measure and intensity.  Verily the behavior is much akin to that of the empires in decline that the orientalists of the 19th-century defended and touted as the pinnacle of civilization.  Perhaps being exposed for a weakness they did not realize they had is itself a personal insult to orientalists and the culture through which they filter any information – and their behavior is merely a response in kind.