What is called "Orientalism"?

Abstract

This paper undertakes a comparative and complimentary reading of Edward Said’s analysis of Orientalism and the philosophical problem of orientation in Kant, especially Kant’s discussion of this in “What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking?”. Although Said has been seen by some critics as a thinker of radical alterity, this paper will contest this claim and show that he is best thought of as defending auto-determination and self-positing. Furthermore, it analyzes the important defense of knowledge that accompanies Said’s critique of oriental sciences. This leads Said to propose an alternate logic of relation as opposed to the logic of representation that structures Orientalism, in this manner shifting the issue of knowledge to what he calls “acknowledgement”. Therefore, Said opens up the concept of Orientalism to a transcendental philosophical questioning whose interests would exceed mere positivist critique. This latter tendency has led to a restrained reception of Said’s work whereby his analyses have been studied for their empirical interest focusing on his objections to orientalist practices. This paper argues that such a reading, apart from being reductive, mischaracterizes the project undertaken by Said. The objective is not only to read Said’s thought through its relation to Kantianism but also to reflect Said’s understanding of Orientalism onto Kant and therefore to transform the philosophical reception of the concept of orientation in general. In this way, beyond a simple application of philosophy on issues relation to the “global south”, Said is presented as one of the great figures of the Internationalization of philosophy.