Orientalism: A group pyschology?

Edward Said’s Orientalism, pursues an understanding of Western (European and American) attitudes about the Orient (the East). Most simply put Orientalism is “the idea of European identity as a superior one in comparison with all the non-European peoples and cultures (7).” Obviously ideas about race, religion, and politics have played a major role in forming this attitude but Said demonstrates, throughout the book, that Orientalism was created largely by academic discourse. All too often those studying the Orient, fail to understand it.  Accepting that Orientalism exists in the European mind however, does not explain how it came to be.  “To say simply that Orientalism was a rationalization of colonial rule is to ignore the extent to which colonial rule was justified in advance by Orientalism, rather than after the fact (39).” Europe knew of the Orient before they sought to control it. This is clear through Said’s main case of Europe and Islam.

One way to explain the creation of Orientalism, rather than as a justification of colonialism, is viewing Orientalism as a kind of group or social psychology. Referring to the growth of Islamic territory and its conquest of Spain and France, Said writes, “If the mind must suddenly deal with what it takes to be a radically new form of life—as Islam appeared to Europe in the early Middle Ages—the response on the whole is conservative and defensive (59).” Europe having little religious diversity was unprepared for the coming of Islam. The fact that it did not come in a peaceful form also had an impact on how it was perceived by the European mind. Not only were the Muslim conquerors alien, they were also blasphemous for being outside of Christianity. “Not for nothing did Islam come to symbolize terror, devastation, the demonic, hordes of hated barbarians. For Europe, Islam was a lasting trauma (59).” Islam had two strikes against it in the European mind to start with and this history was hard to forget, even after Islam had left European territory.

This history influenced attempts by those trying to “understand” Islam later. Scholars were influenced by fear and their own ideas about religion. To try and understand they had to put Islam into familiar terms, such as identifying Mohammad with Jesus. Said writes, “There is nothing especially controversial or reprehensible about such domestications of the exotic; they take place between all cultures, certainly, and between all men. My point, however, is to emphasize the truth that the Orientalist, as much as anyone in the European West who thought about or experienced the Orient performed this kind of mental operation (60).” Said almost expresses sympathy at these attempts because they are understandable for those dealing with the new, but the problem was that Orientalists continued to do this after years of contact with the Orient and Islam. “Mohammad is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways “like” Jesus, he is after all not like him (72).” The European religious mind did not allow for multiple truths so the “Other” must be wrong. The European mind also did not try to understand what Mohammad represented in an Islamic context, only what he could mean in a Christian one. The fact that this went on for years is what is troubling about Orientalism. Maybe because it proved to be useful to demonize the Orient once Europe sought to control them, nevertheless this psychological mechanism was long lasting.

This idea of Orientalism as kind of group psychology, which is elaborated in section II of Chapter 1, is rather interesting explanation of how Orientalism may have come to be so ingrained in the European brain. I do wonder however, what some examples of this would be outside of Orientalism. Does Islam have collective attitudes about the West? How are these attitudes shaped by history and interactions? Do any collective attitudes of other cultures even compare to the impact that Orientalism has had? It seems as if there is an Islamic attitude towards Western culture but I do not know if someone outside the group could fully understand it. Could an Arab Muslim read Orientalism and understand fully what cultural ideas Said is referring to? I also wonder about those individuals who exist on the boarders of such designations, like the European Muslim or the Arab Christian, do they identify more with the psychology of their religion or ethnicity.