Al-Azm provides a remarkably nuanced analysis of Orientalism as described by Edward Said, while expanding further and developing new concepts as an extension of Said's thesis. While he clearly does not dispute the core theories which underline Said's criticism of the Orientalist tradition, he goes further to criticize some of the biases present in Said's writings. Additionally, by extrapolating the theory to new contexts in the Middle East itself, he excellently expresses the pervasiveness of Orientalist thought. His criticism of Said's historical tracing of Orientalistic thought back to the days of Homer is a particularly apt judgment. An unbroken Orientalist mentality amongst Western thinkers that has persisted from ancient times is less
…show more content…
The fact that the inherent dependency of the Arab World upon the United States today in multiple realms is not in itself a negative historical development is an odd statement by Said. One cannot deny that the current nature of this “satellite relationship” is clearly tilted in favor of the United States, but whether or not this situation can genuinely be reformed while retaining the most fundamental power dynamics is less self-evident. Al-Azm, therefore, sounds far more reasonable when he argues that “salvation” is impossible while the system of dependency remains intact. The very concept of dependency demands an imbalance of power between the two …show more content…
The simplification of Arab history and culture to mere language analysis obviously detracts from the myriad of economic, political and social factors that has generated the Arab World we have today. However, one can see how such a simplification has the potential for galvanizing nationalistic sentiment, due to its assertions that Arabs, while “primitive”, have the potential (and the destiny) to become the dominant world power. The almost messianic quality that proclamations from these Reverse Orientalists have expresses the depth of this sentiment. Ultimately, Al-Azm's description shows that there is little to no practical difference between Orientalism and Orientalism in
The fact that the inherent dependency of the Arab World upon the United States today in multiple realms is not in itself a negative historical development is an odd statement by Said. One cannot deny that the current nature of this “satellite relationship” is clearly tilted in favor of the United States, but whether or not this situation can genuinely be reformed while retaining the most fundamental power dynamics is less self-evident. Al-Azm, therefore, sounds far more reasonable when he argues that “salvation” is impossible while the system of dependency remains intact. The very concept of dependency demands an imbalance of power between the two …show more content…
The simplification of Arab history and culture to mere language analysis obviously detracts from the myriad of economic, political and social factors that has generated the Arab World we have today. However, one can see how such a simplification has the potential for galvanizing nationalistic sentiment, due to its assertions that Arabs, while “primitive”, have the potential (and the destiny) to become the dominant world power. The almost messianic quality that proclamations from these Reverse Orientalists have expresses the depth of this sentiment. Ultimately, Al-Azm's description shows that there is little to no practical difference between Orientalism and Orientalism in