Edward Said Author(S): Catherine Hall Source: History Workshop Journal, No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Edward Said Author(s): Catherine Hall Source: History Workshop Journal, No. 57 (Spring, 2004), pp. 235-243 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472735 Accessed: 31-10-2019 08:39 UTC 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]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History Workshop Journal This content downloaded from 47.30.179.32 on Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:39:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms REMEMBERING EDWARD SAID (1935-2003) Edward Said by Catherine Hall In April 2003 I was honoured to be invited to speak at a one-day conference at Columbia University, New York, organized to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of Edward Said's path-breaking book, Orien talism. It was a very special occasion. A number of scholars spoke about the significance of the book in their different disciplines and from their different locations. People in comparative literature, anthropology, critical theory, history, Middle Eastern Studies, from the US, Britain and the Middle East all spoke of the lasting significance of the book in their areas of work. It was just after the war in Iraq had been declared officially over. Everyone there was preoccupied with the tragic events that were unfolding in the Middle East and with the effects on the rest of the world. There was much talk of the difficulties faced by critics of the war and of US policy in Israel and Palestine in American universities. Edward Said was there all day, sitting on the front row of the hall with his wife Mariam, asking ques tions, engaging in debate, a constant and generous presence. At the end of the day he spoke, to a completely packed auditorium, full of colleagues, students and friends. We hung on his words as he reflected on the terrible continuities between the time when he was writing Orientalism and now. Much of what he said on that occasion can be read in the introduction to History Workshop Journal Issue 57 ? History Workshop Journal 2004 This content downloaded from 47.30.179.32 on Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:39:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 236 History Workshop Journal the new edition of the book that Penguin has just published. When he finished speaking we all stood up to celebrate him and the importance of his words and his thinking over these last decades. It was a truly memorable occasion, made especially poignant by the sad news of his death in Septem ber. What follows is an edited version of my talk on that occasion, printed in tribute to an exceptional public intellectual. ON ORIENTALISM: REFLECTIONS FROM LONDON We are gathered together today to reflect on the extraordinarily productive impact and continued relevance of Edward Said's Orientalism. My brief comments are concerned with the ways in which the book helped critical scholars in the U.K., particularly historians, to think about Britain in its postcolonial moment. Orientalism was published twenty-five years ago. Said's argument was that 'European culture was able to manage - and even produce - the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically and imagi natively during the post-Enlightenment period'.1 That management was a discursive production, through the discourse of orientalism that made 'the Orient' an object of knowledge and an object of power. Said argued that these forms of cultural power, organized through disciplines such as history, anthropology and philology, were as significant in the maintenance of colonial rule as the political, economic and military policies that had domi nated academic study. Drawing on Foucault's notion of discourse he examined the Western European constructions of those who lived in the Middle East, and the ways in which orientalist discourse became, in Foucault's terminology, a regime of truth. He linked this with Gramsci's notion of hegemony, or the winning of consent by the rulers to their rule. Truth resided in the power of writers and academics to tell stories of the Orient that claimed successfully to represent it. Those representations depended on a set of binary oppositions between Europeans and orientals which always worked to the detriment of the latter. Yet the othering of orientals also rested on fantasized notions of their sexuality which made them objects of Western desire. This could be done only by constant discur sive work, fixing and refixing the boundaries between Western rationality and oriental irrationality, Western industry and oriental indolence, Western self-control and the oriental lack of it. Said's analysis of the discourses of orientalism ranged over a wide variety of texts and periods: from key politicians, colonial officials and ideologues to great writers and scholars, from the French and British Empires to the post-war United States. One example of his method must suffice. Take his analysis of Arthur James Balfour's speech to the House of Commons in 1910 on 'the problems with which we have to deal in Egypt'. These, Balfour argued, 'belong to a wholly different category' than those 'affecting the Isle of Wight or the West Riding of Yorkshire'. Egyptians could not expect to This content downloaded from 47.30.179.32 on Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:39:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Edward Said 237 be treated like Englishmen. British superiority and Egyptian inferiority were taken for granted by Balfour. As Said unpicks his speech for us we see how it is British knowledge of the Orient which legitimates British colonial intervention. 'We' know 'these people', he told his audience, better than they know themselves. As Balfour justifies the British occupation of Egypt', Said explains: supremacy in his mind is associated with 'our' knowledge of Egypt and not principally with military or economic power. Knowledge to Balfour means surveying a civilization from its origins to its prime to its decline - and of course, it means being able to do that. Knowledge means rising above immediacy, beyond self, into the foreign and distant. The object of such knowledge is inherently vulnerable to scrutiny; this object is a 'fact' which, if it develops, changes, or otherwise transforms itself in the way that civilizations frequently do, nevertheless is fundamentally, even ontologically stable. To have such knowledge of such a thing is to dominate it, to have authority over it. And authority means for 'us' to deny autonomy to 'it' - the Oriental country - since we know it and it exists, in a sense, as we know it. Balfour rhetorically asks the House of Commons whether it is a good thing for absolute government to be exercized in Egypt by the British and answers thus: I think it is a good thing. I think that experience shows that they have got under it far better government than in the whole history of the world they ever had before, and which not only is a benefit to them, but is undoubtedly a benefit to the whole of the civilised West.... We are in Egypt not only for the sake of the Egyptians, though we are there for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large. Egyptians, it is assumed, cannot speak for themselves. It is the job of the British, Balfour instructs his audience, to represent them, for they know how subject peoples think and feel. It is this knowledge that legitimates the exercize of colonial power.2 Balfour would have occupied a particular place in Said's mind since he provided one of the key inspirations for Zionism, and perhaps even for the Zionist state. In 1917, when he was Foreign Secre tary he authored what became known subsequently as the Balfour Declar ation, supporting the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The Britain in which Orientalism was published was just entering the Thatcher period and as yet its particular version of postcoloniality was not fully articulated. The book played an important part in making it possible to think in new ways about colonialism, the legacies of empire and ques tions of 'race' and otherness as they continued to figure in the culture. In This content downloaded from 47.30.179.32 on Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:39:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 238 History Workshop Journal the Thatcherite world of 'them' and 'us' it drew attention to the connec tions between the past and the present. Said incited us to read and think differently - to focus on the common-sense and taken-for-granted assump tions about who is 'one of us' that have circulated in England for centuries. For those of us trained in Marxism, and particularly the cultural Marxism that was so influential in Britain in the 1970s, the Gramscian framework of the book, alongside Foucault, was very important. Orientalism contributed to the efforts to delineate what it might mean to take empire as central to British society and history. Britain's version of 'postcoloniality' was very particular. The term itself, as many have noted, is always problematic and occludes as well as pointing to very important changes.