Orientalism, the Definition and Experience Intertwined

WHAT: The Orient is defined and interpreted in various ways by many. Those who are influenced by it may have a different interpretation of it than those who are not. Said defines Orient as, “Orientalism is an academic one, and indeed the label still serves in a number of academic institutions. Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient — and this applies whether the person is an anthropologist, sociologists, historian, or philologist — either in its specific or its general aspects, is an Orientalist, and what he or she does is Orientalism” (Said). The problem with this is that the European scholars are not able to accurately represent and account for the people in the Middle East because they are only able to portray the culture that they experienced. It essentially creates the people being as the “other”. Said also defines Orientalism as, “Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between the ‘Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the Occident’. Thus a very large mass of writers, among poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists, and imperial administrations, have accepted the basic distinction East and West as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novel, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, ‘mind’, destiny, and so on” (Said). The people who are writing these influential pieces are taking knowledge that they were merely provided with from an outsider’s perspective. They are forced to take that information and simply compose an idea of what they think it is about. Finally, this Said also describes Orientalism as, “… in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restricting, and having authority over the Orient” (Said). This definition of the Orients portrays the concept as a hierarchy between the cultures. The discourse within this definition makes it seems as if there is a connection to power, which allows for the thought of one culture to be better than another.

SO WHAT: The perspective that Huntington takes on Orientalist discourse is one that shows the disadvantages of the power in Orientalism. Huntington states, “In this new world the most pervasive, important dangerous conflicts will not be between social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined groups, but between people belonging of two different cultural identities” (Huntington). With this statement, Huntington demonstrates his opinion that the discourse of Orientalism is driving cultures apart, which is harmful to the harmony of the world. The first critique of ethnography is that the study is not scientific. This is a problem because it is solely based off of interpretations and are reflections of the ethnographer. The second critique of ethnographic research is it ‘essentializes’ cultures. It presents the culture as uniform within the groups and does not address the similar characteristics between other groups. It also is a problem because cultures are ever changing, yet it presents the culture as unchanging. Finally, the last critique is that it forms denomination. It forces a separation on cultures and, with lack of a better word, a wall. The critique that is most relevant in Huntington’s work is how ethnographic research ‘essentializes’ the culture. Huntington states, “Yet the major differences in political and economic development among citizens are clearly rooted in their different cultures” (Huntington). This critique is relevant because there is an obvious example of the conflict between culture based on differences. A peace agreement on two cultures’ similarities with each other is not addressed because it is constantly overlooked.

NOW WHAT: We are faced with the problem of ‘othering’ discourse regarding homelessness on a daily basis and has been in our faces in the media for years. It is especially prominent in movies. The homeless people are typically portrayed as lazy, dangerous, and intolerable individuals. In the movie, Big Daddy with Adam Sandler, there are many scenes with a homeless man. It shows him sitting on the side of the street making deals with Sandler for breakfast foods from McDonalds, while looking like someone scavenging for any food that they encounter. This shows the general idea that the media is portraying the homeless as the people that are only looking out for themselves. With the work I have done so far at the Ritter House, I am able to vouch that this is not true. The people I encounter are some of the most selfless and caring individuals. They want to make sure that everyone is happy, even if they are in a tough situation or time in their lives. The discourse about the homeless cause people who are influenced by the media to have bad opinions of the homeless people. They face constant stereotypes and harsh comments on a daily basis. Simply because someone is homeless or low income, it does not make them any less than those who are wealthy beyond belief. They are rich in compassion and generosity, both of which some of the wealthiest people are lacking.