Said (it) Again
joseph nelson (bien@mail.utexas.edu)
Thu, 04 Mar 1999 06:47:35 -0600
It is very fashionable these days to be a critic. Look hard enough, with
narrowness of purpose, and flaws can be found in anything. However
criticism for its own sake serves no one. It nether contributes to
understanding nor flatters the critic. As Aristotle used the term, to be
critical was to judge well. To be a good judge implies that measure must
be taken of both the pros and the cons. To simply point out what is wrong
with everything is a talent that anyone can master. To acknowledge
achievement requires the critic to take a stand, and therefore to be
vulnerable to criticism as well. This can make judging well a risky
endeavor. It is with this in mind that the topic of Western Imperialism is
undertaken.
Edward Said, in his essay Culture and Imperialism, extends the arguments
put forth in Orientalism to include "a more general pattern of
relationships between the modern metropolitan West and its overseas
territories". The question is does Said's critique of this relationship
judge well the situation or is his aim something else?
New imperialism, according to Said is characterized a history of Western
(or American) "classical" imperialism and the "new" imperialism that Said
defines as both economic and cultural in nature. Classical imperialism, in
the form of colonial territories serving the well being of the imperial
power, is the term as it is typically used. That it was practiced in the
West is easy to illustrate but difficult to defend given today's norms of
acceptable conduct. And that is entirely the point. It seems disingenuous
to condemn the West for behaving a way that is now considered boorish and
racist when at the time to be boorish and racist was not considered a
significant flaw. This is not to say that approval or acceptance is in
order either, Quite the contrary, but perhaps it would be a bit more
constructive to praise the enlightenment which we now enjoy and vow to
continue to seek further enlightenment. Said rejects this type of argument
as not sufficient to prevent the re-occurrence of past mistakes. But maybe
he misjudges.
It seems absurd for people not to have realized that Earth revolves around
the Sun, but given the limited experience with physics it would be
unrealistic to expect them to have known better. A similar thing could be
said of imperialism. As political evolution now finds us it smacks of
blatant hypocrisy that the West claimed to value individual freedoms but
subjugated and even enslaved others. But taken in context, conquering
armies and subjugation under distant rule (though unpleasant) was the way
the world, as it was then understood, functioned. Individual freedom was
more a noble ideal than a working reality. Life as described by Tomas
Hobbs in Leviathan was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". It was
therefor seen, at least by Hobbsians, as improving the world to colonize
it, even if bringing order was only a secondary motive. By submitting to
rule, one gave up some freedom, but received peace and greater prosperity.
Cultural imperialism is a phenomenon that is more difficult to explain, and
yet easy to justify. The West's view of the rest of the world, Said points
out, is colored by its notion of itself. This, it would seem, is an
unavoidable situation. Iban Kahldun, very much like many Western
philosophers, attempts (and succeeds) to chronicle the rise, and fall of
kingdoms as well as the mechanisms of their success and failure as he
understood them to be given his experience, learning and culture (in other
words his identity). The fact that his interpretation varies from that of
Tomas Hobbs, John Locke and other Western ideas (not to mention that they
vary from each other) is not an indication reverse cultural imperialism on
his part. The fact that he romanticizes the purity of the Bedouin life
does not imply revulsion for all other types of people. It might simply
indicate a respect for the Bedouin people. This is a possibility that Said
seems incapable of allowing the West.
Said also criticizes the expression of cultural imperialism as he sees it
in Western literature (since that is his field) and communications. This
expression is evident in the lines of Samuel Huntington's culture against
culture conflicts in The Clash of Civilizations among others. Certainly
Huntington is somewhat short sighted not to consider the effects of
interactions between cultures improving relations, but then again Clash was
a brief essay cautioning about the likely areas of conflict that should be
paid attention to. Clash was not intended as the world handbook on foreign
relations. Nor was it a Guidebook to the universal laws of cultural
infirmity.
Said, however, is confident that the West is Imperial in all its
motivations. This Western cultural flaw is further illustrated, claims
Said, by such American philosophical forums as Rambo and Delta Force
movies. Said seems to believe that it was the fervor created by (or at
least demonstrated by) these movies that lead to U.S. involvement in the
Gulf War. Though he admits that Iraq's "offences" were great, he raises
the bar by implying that they were not "cataclysmic", as if "great
offences" do not rise to the level of concern. There is perhaps another
equally viable possibility for the reason that the U.S. entered the War.
The fact that the invaded country asked us to likely had some part in the
decision. Said believes this was only an excuse. Luckily, Said is capable
of making the distinction between real Arabs and the apparently
watered-down version such as the Kuwaitis and Anwar Sadat whom align
themselves with the West to the sacrifice of their "bothersome national
selfhood". Apparently, Said is not immune to the "us" vs. "them" reasoning
either.
The fact that the U.S. is increasingly called upon to act as "world police"
is something that most of us can agree is unfortunate. It is unfortunate
that conflicts between people still exist. It is unfortunate that as the
last "superpower" The U.S. is looked to for leadership in world affairs.
Unfortunate because we are not always right, and unfortunate because if we
ceased to care we could sit back and enjoy our prosperity rather than
sacrificing our lives and our peace. This is, however, our own fault. We
have set ourselves up as an experiment in individualism and principle and
like all experiments we should expect to learn something along the way.