You are here:   Reputations >  Overrated > Edward Said
 
Edward Said
August 2008

After the Second World War, left-wing intellectuals were consumed by guilt for the West's colonial past and present. They wholeheartedly embraced any theory or ideology that seemed to voice the putatively thwarted aspirations of the peoples of the Third World. Orientalism came at a time when anti--Western rhetoric was at its most shrill. Jean-Paul -Sartre preached that all white men were complicit in the exploitation of the Third World. Said went further: "It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric." Not only, for Said, is every European a racist, but he must necessarily be so.

Western civilisation has, in fact, been more willing to criticise itself than any other.These self-administered admonishments are, however, a far cry from Said's savage strictures. Yet they found a new generation ready to take them to heart. Blaming the West, a fashionable game in the 1960s and 1970s that impressionable youth took seriously, had the results we now see. The same generation -appears unwilling to defend its own civilisation against the greatest threat that it has faced since the Nazis.

Said's influence was a result of a conjunction of several intellectual and political fashions: post-French Algeria and post-Vietnam Third-Worldism, the politicisation of post-modernist English departments that had abandoned the very idea of objective truth, and the influence of Michel Foucault. In effect, Said used each of these trends to create a master fraud, which bound American academics and Middle Eastern tyrants in unstated bonds of anti-American complicity.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Ben
August 16th, 2008
10:08 PM
Billie wrote: "...what of divided loyalties here?..." Stated pejoratively, of course, but if Billie had more understanding he/she would realize that multiple loyalties, and multiple identities, are the norm rather than the exception. Said himself was a second generation American, as well as a Palestinian nationalist. Is Billie against him for being both?

billie
August 2nd, 2008
9:08 AM
I quite agree with Stuart. Standpoint has an overtly anti-Arab anti-Muslim agenda running through many or most of the pieces, which detracts from its overall intellectual pretensions. It gives it a nauseatingly propagandist feel. At least Encounter was far more diverse, subtle and high calibre! We have the obvious pro-Israeli pieces, such as Julie Burchill's ecstatic knicker-wetting over the Trafalgar Sq rally for Israel (and lauding demonstrators carrying Union jacks in one hand and the Israeli flag in another - what of divided loyalties here?)and then the pieces including the interview with Simon Gray where it is de rigeur to have a dig at Muslims or Arabs. Anyway, what Ibn Warraq is saying is nothing new; the anti-Said backlash has been under way for at least a couple of years now.

Grackle
August 1st, 2008
5:08 PM
Psst, Stuart: You're commenting on the wrong article, mate. Mosey on over to "Islamophobia". You just put them to rights about 'Religion of Peace': give 'em all those facts about peace-lovin' old Mo and all those 'defensive' wars and those poor, misguided folk 'misunderstanding' their own ideology, er, religion. Just remember, Said Said So.

stuart
July 31st, 2008
12:07 PM
oh please. does every single article in this magazine have to crowbar in a reference to evil muslims?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.