Notes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1 Berlinerblau (1999:xii).
TO THE READER
2 Menocal is referring to Dante, but I think her comment applies equally to Saidâs Orientalism.
3 OâHanlon and Washbrook (1992:163) refer to postmodern writersâ penchant to question the power in all knowledge systems except their own.
4 W. J. T. Mitchell (2005a:366).
5 A. Ahmad (1992:160). John Mackenzie (1995b:91) is compelled to remind critics that âmost of his contemporary political positions are also mine. But I do not see that such sympathies should neuter my critical faculties.â B. D. H. Miller (1982:284) finds it difficult and embarrassing to criticize Said because of who he is: a Palestinian intellectual. Julia Kushigian (1991:111n2) confides that Said both inspires and encourages her in another direction.
6 Halliday (1999:200â201). A similar sentiment is expressed by Mackenzie (1995b:92).
7 Behdad (1994a:11). Madeleine Dobie (2001:16) travels with Behdadâs course correction, but only to a point.
8 Majeed (1992:4).
9 Sayyid (1997:49n1): âI am very aware of my intellectual debt to Edward Said and his work, and any disagreements that I express in the following pages should be seen in the light of my acknowledgement of Saidâs influence in opening up these horizons for me.â
10 Holmlund (1993:2).
11 Kramer (2001:22). Apart from repeating criticism already well known, Kramer offers no original insights on Orientalism. Although there is much to criticize in the large corpus of Saidâs work, simply dismissing it as ideological garbage renders Kramerâs work virtually unusable. I devote space here to his political polemic in order to distance it from my own critique of Saidâs rhetoric, methodology, and thesis. As Richard Bulliet (2004:99) observes, Kramer writes âa bitter book devoted to disparaging the entire Middle East Studies enterprise.â
12 Kramer (2001:32), who proceeds to argue that Orientalism gave a âstep upâ to Arab and Muslim scholars who thought they were âunspoiledâ and âentitledâ to university positions. Who hired them, if not members of the establishment?
13 Ibid., 39. It appears that in Kramerâs view a scholar cannot be Arab and American at the same time. Does this mean it is not possible to be Israeli and American at the same time?
14 Ibid., 84.
15 Ibid., 46.
16 Ibid. Kramer finds âirony in the fact that the Beirut hostage-holders of Islamic Jihad should have offered Saidâs Covering Islam as reading to their captive audience of hostages.â I see little irony in this irascible ipse dixit that would blame an author who without hesitation condemns terrorism in the very book mentioned.
17 Ibid., 47. âJust as ironic was the fact that Saidâwho had stoked the fires of suspicion in the Muslim worldâhad read Rushdieâs book in manuscript and failed to see the risks in publishing it.â It is not ironic but pathetic that a political scientist specializing in the Middle East could claim that these fires needed stoking by a book from an American secular scholar. I leave out of this list the sub[tle]plot that conjures Saidâs supposed sway over Middle East studies as complicit in not targeting Osama bin Laden from the start as a major threat and for the malicious claim that Said deserves part of the blame for the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
18 Ibid., 45.
19 Ibid., 44. At times Kramer views the few and largely marginalized pro-Palestinian voices, so clearly ineffectual in shifting American foreign policy, as spouting an anti-Semitic demagoguery that might be called Protocols of the Dispossessed Against Zionism.
20 Ibid., 32. As Ella Shohat (2004:56) notes, Kramer and a few other vociferous critics had for the first time scanned post-colonial theory on the âneocon radar.â
21 Kramer (2001:36â37). Rather than questioning the ability of experts as such to âpredictâ politics or economics, Kramer uses the same rationale to describe quite different paradigms. One of the more bizarre claims in Kramerâs grab-baggage is that âthe Middle Eastern studies âestablishmentââ had already been abandoned by right wingers in American foreign policy at the same time that it âcame under assault from the leftâ (2001:87). It is not clear who was minding the store. Nor is it clear whom Kramer was reading. In almost any political science text of the late 1960s or early 1970s the handwriting was on the wall that âThe Middle East is in a state of ferment,â observed James Bill and Carl Leiden (1974:220). Ironically, post-colonial critics have applied a similar un-Nostradamus litmus test to earlier Western Orientalists (Horsley 2003:22).
22 Makiya (1993:317â318). He is seconded in a rambling and derivative personal attack on Said by Ibn Warraq (2002). Gordon (1989:95) makes a similar point that Said and other anti-Orientalists âencourage a sort of self-justifying apologia that has been detrimental to self-criticism.â
23 Makiya (1993:324). Said (1994a:345) dismisses Makiya as one of Bernard Lewisâs âepigones,â yet fails to respond to the specifics of Makiyaâs critique. Ahmad Dallal (1994:89) echoes Said in describing Makiyaâs critique as a âquite irrational, attention-seeking desire to malign Arab and Islamic culture.â Thus, in a most un-Foucauldian manner, an authorâs ascribed intention negates the need to discuss what is being said.
24 Sardar (1999:76).
25 Ibid., 74.
26 Ibid., 67.
27 Ben Jelloun (2002:item #28). Similarly, as reported in a Seattle Times interview (quoted in Amireh 2002:292), the Egyptian feminist Nawal El Saadawi calls Said âan arrogant intellectual who has a westernized interpretation of the Middle East.â
28 Majid (2000:26). In an earlier piece, Majid (1998:341) states: âFew Western(ized) scholars have questioned the validity of secularism as a global project, although it is well known that the concept is the intellectual product of a specific moment in European history.â
29 My position here is similar to that of fellow anthropologist Michael Gilsenan (2000:158), who admires Saidâs courage as an advocate for Palestinian rights without feeling a need to defend Saidâs arguments about Oriental studies or anthropology. Similarly, J. J. Clarke (1997:8) is critical of Saidâs narrowness, but makes it clear that this âdoes not by any means imply a total rejection of Saidâs attitude of suspicion towards orientalism or his attempts to politicize it.â
30 The phrase is from Dallmayr (1996:134).
31 Marrouchi (1997:72). Patrick Williams (2001:xxvii) faced a similar problem in deciding what to include in his massive compilation of critical excerpts on Said, because many of the critiques exemplify a âSaid-as-straw-man syndrome.â
32 Turner (1981:110).
INTRODUCTION
1 Said said this to describe structuralist découpage or couper épistémologique.
2 Prakash (1995:206).
3 Doniger (1999:943).
4 James Rice (2002:223) comments: âThis is a time when seemingly every academic volume, paper, and conference panel uses Saidâs critical framework as the de rigeur point of departure, a tropeâpositive or negativeâfor any critical exercise embracing Asia, at least through the lens of culture or any of its manifestations.â As Stuart Burrows (1999:50) observes, âIt is almost inconceivable to imagine someone receiving a humanities PhD today without having come to terms with Saidâs legacy.â
5 The prepared remarks of Lewis, Said, Leon Wieseltier, and Christopher Hitchens were published in Viswanathan (2001:291â312).
6 Although anthropologists appear first in Saidâs (1979:2) lineup of generic Orientalists, the virtual absence of anthropology from Orientalism is an indexical fact. If anthropology is to be [em]bedded with Orientalism, I ask that the bedsheets covering all suspect Orientalists receive a fair airing.
7 A minimal list, extending into the 2000s, would include: Ansell-Pearson et al. (1997), Aruri and Shuraydi (2001), Ashcroft and Ahluwalia (1999), BovĂ© (2000), Hart (2000), Sprinker (1993), and Williams and Chrisman (1994), not to mention Valerie Kennedyâs (2000) biographical account. More than two dozen interviews with Said have been published by Viswanathan (2001); see also Bayoumi and Rubin (2000:419â444), Jarah (1999), Levine (1999), Rose (2000), Rushdie (1991), and Williams (2001). The interview with David Barsamian (Said and Barsamian 1994) is partly available in Arabic translation in al-Bahrayn al-Thaqafiyya (Kazim 2001:89â103). A major bibliography of Saidâs works is available online (Yeghiayan 2001), but Marrouchi (2004:245â297) has surpassed all with his database of books, articles, and reviews by Edward Said from 1966 to 2002. Much relevant commentary is posted at the website called âThe Edward Said Archiveâ (www.edwardsaid.org). The extensive literature by Said and about Saidâit is often a challenge to find a post-colonial study that does not mention Said at some pointâcan also be entered through the excellent bibliographies compiled by Valerie Kennedy (2000:162â173) and Yasmine Ra...