(Grade 11)
Orientalism was written by Said, interpreting an antihuman concept in the text. Orientalism, based on the definition given the author, is the “knowledge of the Orient that places things Oriental in class, court, prison, or manual for scrutiny, study, judgment, discipline, or governing.” Generally speaking, orientalism stands for an arrogant view to the orient with exaggerations, belittlements and unfair treat, relating to the comparison between the west and the orient. The author analyzed two men’s speech to indicate the problem of orientalism. At the same time, he also evaluated the influence of holding orientalism. In our text reading, from my perspective, basically there are one major idea implied by Said. That is “no knowledge is value-free”.
Although the contact between the west and the east has existed for a long time, the frequent and concrete one first happened during colonization, in Arab region. On account of the rule by the westerners, the contest of civilizations emerged inevitably. People began to compare those countries in every aspect. In Belfour’s speech, he talked about the supremacy of the west objectively. He also contained two large concepts. Power and knowledge. This time he argued that “to have knowledge of such a thing is to dominate it”, which is a sub-idea in the text, indicating the relationship between power and knowledge. But Said thinks this is problematic. In this relationship, superficially, it is a fact that everyone knows. However, it implies another invisible relationship. The Ruler and the ruled. In other words, the superiority and inferiority. This will distort the fact subjectively into opinions that “us” and “you”, which is also rewritten in “west” and “east”. In this case, westerners cannot fairly observe the east world because they will think that everything in the east is needed to be corrected as the influence of superiority.
To put the statement in a larger dimension, even if Belfour kept warning not to transfer the emotion as a superiority. Nevertheless, he could not truly do that. He always saw the east world with his own culture identity. This will lead to misunderstandings and other stereotypes, compelling two sides to secede from each other. The division caused by such tension will limit human’s development because people were prevented from knowing each other better.
Said’s explanation is impressive. I was shock by him when I first read this idea. In my opinion, I think I can differentiate the fact and the opinion or explanation in a right way because I will always use these two concepts in history learning. Thus, if I think about one thing dialectically, stereotypes should not occur. However, Said’s idea reshaped me, smashing my imagination of staying neutral while thinking. Everyone has a pair of colored glasses, gazing at the surroundings in life. Just with a glance, the glasses will not easily be taken off. But in other words, why do I have to take them off? Being aware of my limitations and then accept the occurrence of my stereotypes is also a way in which holding an optimistic attitude and accomplishing the intention of giving a better explanation based on the facts. If listen to both sides, I will be enlightened. And this is why I want to show orientalism in my ambiguous parable.
