Orientalism and the Modern Myth of "Hinduism" Author(S): Richard King Reviewed Work(S): Source: Numen, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Orientalism and the Modern Myth of "Hinduism" Author(s): Richard King Reviewed work(s): Source: Numen, Vol. 46, No. 2 (1999), pp. 146-185 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270313 . Accessed: 18/07/2012 01:13 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen. http://www.jstor.org ORIENTALISM AND THE MODERN MYTH OF "HINDUISM" RICHARD KING Summary Is therereally a singleancient religion designated by the catch-all term 'Hinduism' oris theterm merely a fairly recent social construction ofWestern origin? This paper examinesthe role played by Orientalist scholars in the construction ofWestern notions of Indianreligion by an examinationof theorigins of theconcept of 'Hinduism'. It is arguedthat the notion of 'Hinduism'as a singleworld religion is a nineteenth centuryconstruction, largely dependent upon the Christian presuppositions of the earlyWestern Orientalists. However, exclusive emphasis upon the role of Western Orientalistsconstitutes a failure to acknowledgethe role played by key indigenous informants(mostly from the brahmana castes) in the construction ofmodem notions of 'theHindu religion'. To ignorethe indigenous dimension of theinvention of 'Hinduism'isto erase the colonial subject from history and perpetuate the myth of the passiveOriental. The paper concludes with a discussionof the accuracy and continual usefulnessofthe term 'Hinduism'. [I]twould appear that there is an intrinsicconnection between the 'Hinduism' thatis beingconstructed in the political arena and the 'Hinduism' of academic study.1 Today,there are perhapstwo powerful images in contemporary Westerncharacterizations ofEastern religiosity. One is thecontinually enduringnotion of the 'mystical East' - a powerfulimage precisely becausefor some it representswhat is mostdisturbing and outdated aboutEastern culture, whilst for others it representsthe magic, the mysteryand thesense of thespiritual which they perceive to be lackingin modemWestern culture. The depravity and backwardness ' FriedhelmHardy (1995), "A Radical Reassessmentof the Vedic Heritage- The Acaryahrdayamand its WiderImplications," in VasudhaDalmia and H. von Stietencron(1995), Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and NationalIdentity (Sage Publications,New DelhifThousandOaks/London), p. 48. ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden (1999) NUMEN, Vol.46 Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 147 of theOrient thus appears to sit side by side withits blossoming spiritualityand culturalrichness. Both of thesemotifs have a long historicalpedigree, deriving from the hopes and fears of the European imaginationand its perennial fascination with the East. Thesecond image of Eastern religion - oneindeed that is increas- inglycoming to the fore in Western circles, is thatof the 'militant fa- natic.'Such a characterizationalsohas a considerableancestry, being a contemporarymanifestation ofolder colonial myths about Oriental despotismand the irrationality ofthe colonial subject. The particular natureof this construct is of course heavily influenced by the secular- istperspective ofmuch of modem Western culture. The image of the militantfanatic or religious'fundamentalist,' whilst frequently inter- wovenwith 'the mystical' characterization (particularly inthe empha- siswhich Western commentators place upon the 'religious' dimension ofconflicts such as AyodhydinIndia), it is rarelyexplicitly associated withthe notion of 'the mystical East' precisely because modem West- em understandingsof 'the mystical' tend to precludethe possibility ofan authenticmystical involvement in political struggle. The other- worldlyEastern mystic cannot be involvedin a this-worldlypolitical strugglewithout calling into question the strong cultural opposition be- tweenthe mystical and the public realms. The discontinuity between thesetwo cultural representations of the East has frequentlycreated problemsfor Western and Western-influenced observers who find it difficulttoreconcile notions of spiritual detachment with political (and sometimesviolent) social activism.2 Thus,in the modemera we findHinduism being represented bothas a globalizedand all-embracingworld-religion and as an intolerantand virulentform of religiousnationalism. Despite the apparentincongruity ofthese two representations, I will argue in this paperthat one feature which both characterizations share in common is thedebt they owe to WesternOrientalism. My argumentdoes not entailthat the modem concept of "Hinduism"is merelythe product 2 See MarkJuergensmeyer (1990), "WhatThe BhikkhuSaid: ReflectionsOn The Rise Of MilitantReligious Nationalism," in Religion 20, pp. 53-76. 148 RichardKing ofWestern Orientalism. Western influence was a necessarybut not a sufficientcausal factor in the rise of this particular social construction. To argueotherwise would be to ignorethe crucial role played by indigenousBrahmanical ideology in the formation ofearly Orientalist representationsofHindu religiosity. Orientalismand theQuest for a Post-ColonialDiscourse [A]nthropologistswho wouldstudy, say, Muslim beliefs and practices will need some understandingof how "religion"has come to be formedas conceptand practicein themodem West. For whilereligion is integralto modernWestern history,there are dangersin employingsuch a normalizingconcept when translatingIslamic traditions.3 Thisstatement by Talal Asad can be equallywell appliedto the studyof Asianculture in general.In recentyears scholars involved in suchstudy have become increasingly aware of the extent to which Westerndiscourses about Asia reflect power relations between Western andAsian societies. In thepostcolonial era, it has become imperative, therefore,toexamine this relationship with critical acumen. In 1978Edward Said published his ground-breaking work, Orien- talism.Western Conceptions of the Orient.4 In thisbook, Said launched a stingingcritique of Western notions of the East and the ways in which "Orientalistdiscourse" has legitimated the colonial aggression and po- liticalsupremacy ofthe Western world. Said'swork, however, is notable for a numberof obvious omissions. His analysisof French,British and, to a limiteddegree, American 3 Talal Asad (1993), Genealogiesof Religion: Disciplines and Reasonsof Power in Christianityand Islam(John Hopkins University Press, London), p. 1. 4 Said's workis clearlyindebted to earlierworks which have focusedupon the Westernconstruction of imagesof Asianculture and its people. Important works here areRaymond Schwab (1950), TheOriental Renaissance: Europe's Discovery of India and theEast, 1680-1880(English translation, 1984, Columbia University Press, New York)and JohnM. Steadman(1969), The Mythof Asia (Macmillan,Basingstoke). However,the first work which appears to focusupon the way in whichOrientalism functionsideologically as a supportfor colonial hegemony is AnwarAbdel Malek's (1963), "Orientalismin Crisis,"in Diogenes44. Orientalismand theModem Myth of "Hinduism" 149 Orientalismdoes nottouch upon the strong tradition of Orientalist scholarshipin Germany,where it was not accompanied by a colonial empirein theEast. In fact,Sheldon Pollock has shownhow German Orientalistanalysis of Indian Vedic lore, profoundly affected Germany byfurnishing a racially-based, Indo-European myth of the pure Aryan race,which could subsequently be usedto distinguishthe Semites as "non-Aryan."5Thus, not only has Said'swork ignored important currentswithin European Orientalist discourse, it has also tendedto ignorethe ways in which such discourses affect the colonizer as well as thecolonized.6 Indeed, the examples of German Orientalists onthe onehand, and Japan on theother, cast doubt upon Said's thesis that Orientalistdiscourse is alwaysassociated with an imperialagenda, sinceGermany had no Easternempire to manipulateand control, andJapan was subjectedto Orientalist discourses without ever being colonizedby the West.7 SheldonPollock's discussion of German Orientalism suggests that theauthoritative power of suchdiscourses could equally be applied at hometo createa powerful'internal narrative,' in this case instru- mentalin theconstruction of a Germannational consciousness, and ultimatelyinthe hands of the National Socialists in "thecolonization anddomination ofEurope itself." Jayant Lele hasargued that as well as itsobvious consequences for Asia, Orientalism also functions toin- sulatethe Occident from the self-analysis which would be involvedin a properengagement with the cultures and perspectives of thenon- Westernworld. He furthersuggests that Orientalist discourses censure attemptstoanalyse the West in a self-criticaland comparative manner, 5 SheldonPollock (1993), "Deep Orientalism?Notes on Sanskritand Power Beyondthe Raj," in Carol A. Breckenridgeand Petervan der Veer (eds.) (1993), Orientalismand the PostcolonialPredicament (University of PennsylvaniaPress, Philadelphia),pp. 76-133. 60ne should note here thatinsofar as Said ignoresthe effectof Orientalist narrativesupon the colonizer he doesnot follow Foucault's analysis which attempts