Absolutely wrong. Actually, the critique of Jameson in there is quite good, if also over-stated at points (due more to that polemological, as opposed to cerebral/scholarly style of Ahmad). (Though Xudong Zhang and others have argued that there is, despite the orientalism in Jameson's "National Allegory" essay, some useful stuff in there for looking at -- of course -- quasi- "nationalist" or anti-colonialist lit. ) The critique of Said is worthless, ad hominen crap. Ahmad is not actually capable of critiquing Said on theoretical grounds, just as his (and Eagleton's) "responses" to Derrida are, alas, embarassing to anyone who takes marxism and socialism as, in part, intellectual or cerebral projects (I refer to the Verso collection from last Fall I think). The fact that Said is bourgeois and plays the piano and likes opera are, really, not that important, and have nothing to do with orientalism as a concept or practice or a problematic. But the hatchetman Ahmad "thinks" otherwise.
Much better critiques of Said have been written by, e.g., James CLifford or Bruce Robbins. Nobody reads (takes seriously) Ahmad except the "left conservatives" who dont read *any* post-colonialist or Subaltern Studies or related work, and dont want to; it saves them a lot of bother and re-confirms their ignorance. Ask or look around, you'll see.
Said's book has generated quite a lot of response, not least b/c it has helped enrich and move the intellectual landscape in a way that few other books and thinkers have. Said has his own critique in Orientalism Reconsidered (from Critical Inquiry I think), in which he properly "admits" that, on a gut or basic level, what he is saying there is the same thing as what Fanon and Cabral have said, and that he would emphasize, even more (it is in there, if you read it), the international division of labor. Said's intellectual influences in that book include, Gramsci, Foucault, Raymond Williams, and Vico-- and it shows. Read the damn book. If you can understand what a problematic is, and if you can understand hegemony in a deeper way than, say, Kissinger, you can for the most part cruise right through.
I just think it is not right for people to criticise it without having read any of it. I am also a class-traitor who thinks -- who knows -- that "bolshevism" in-thought (at the level of thought or intellectual practice), is deeply reactionary. And that references to the "objective interests" of "the" working class are more phantasy than reality.
Therefore I cannot really respond to Yoshie's post below. (I have nothing to add to Rakesh's and Angela's illuminating comments, for an exactly opposite reason. I am also not taking sides -- I think I might disagree with Angela for once, though I am suspicious of myself for that very reason -- and I am not saying Carl is a baddie) Well, I can note that there is an issue here-- the lived relation to reality (the ideological relation) vis a vis orientalism. For that we would need an actual theory of ideology, *assuming* there is a relation to speak of. That would mean, in turn, dropping the 2nd International models of ideology, politics, culture and "method." There are differences b/w ethnocentrism and "non-pc" beliefs, and Eurocentrism and Orientalism. Ask Amin or Said or, again, read their books. They will tell you the latter refer to an epistemological, real problem, as well as to the material movement of people and bodies across space. They are world-building projects and a part of colonial practice. The ideational stuff -- as if these referred to "stereotypes" or some such -- is just a sideshow in comparison. It doesnt matter what is going on in people's heads-- not at this level. Marx told me so.
--dfv
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> >I have known that colonialist ideology runs amuck on the so-called "left,"
> >from journalists and activists to prof.'s and scholars, which was why I was
> >so pleased today, to snag from the library James Blaut's book on The
> >Colonizer's Model of the World. But I used to think that Said over-stated
> >the case in re Islam and Arabic culture *specifically* (at the expense
> >of the so-called Far East, China in particular, and the "Asiatic" more
> >generally). I know better now, and not least b/c of all the various
> >"wars", ideological and material, over Kosova, as well as the self-serving
> >and self-righteous hand-wringing over the Taliban.
>
x
> >
> > We have to keep in mind, however, that bourgeois realpolitik isn't as
> > simple-mindedly ethnocentric and Orientalist as Bush, etc. let on.
> > Ethnocentrism & Orientalism are mainly for *official consumption*, put out
> > in their efforts to keep enough workers mired in petty prejudices that are
> > useful for management of the system.
> Geopolitical designs of the ruling
> > class have and will make use of anyone, including those of "Islamic and/or
> > Arabic culture." The KLA has been a great vehicle for the U.S. design on
> > the Balkans. So were "freedom fighters" from Afghanistan. In fact, if you
> > make a list of the governments that can be said to be influenced by "Islam"
> > and/or "Arabic culture" _and_ have been used by the U.S. government, such a
> > list would be much longer than those on the enemy list like Iraq,
> > especially in recent history.
> >
> > Yes, "American culture" has been Orientalist, but that didn't stop the
> > American governing elite from building up Japan -- perhaps the enemy No. 1
> > during the "Good War" -- as the pillar of post-WW2 capitalist
> > reconstruction in the Asia-Pacific theater. Perhaps Said should have paid
> > more attention to the "Far East," after all. If he had, he would have had
> > to revise his theory.
> >
> > Orientalism does exist, but it doesn't affect their geopolitical thinking
> > as much as Said may think it does. They are, if anything, more
> > Machiavellian than Orientalist. Perhaps the fault of leftists is that many
> > of them seem unable to imagine that the ruling class really don't give a
> > damn about "culture" in itself (except when "culture" issues can be
> > manipulated in their interest). Questions on their minds are, above all,
> > "Who benefits?" "What works?" "At what cost?" Orientalism doesn't get in
> > the way of recruiting Asians, Muslim or otherwise, as allies, temporary or
> > long-term.
> >
> > Yoshie
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------ Daniel F. Vukovich Dept. of English; The Unit for Criticism University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 ------------------------------------------------------