[ilds] Said and Marx

James Gifford james.d.gifford at gmail.com
Thu Oct 29 13:51:26 PDT 2015


Hi Bruce,

Perhaps I should say that by "materialist" or "Marxist," I don't mean 
there's a necessary contradiction with Foucault.  I'd have to disagree 
with Ferguson's characterization, but it looks like he has a fairly 
specific context in mind that I'm likely missing and that could change 
my thoughts -- a materialist sense of history thrives on contradictions 
such as that between Balfour and Robertson that you point to, or more 
specifically the contradictions between classes.  To posit exploitative 
outcomes from colonialism as "intentions" is also the contrary to a 
materialist understanding -- the forms of social consciousness that are 
produced are themselves the outcome of the economic and materials 
conditions, not the other way round.  In that sense, there are not 
ulterior hegemonic motivations -- hegemony and the forms of thinking are 
products of the contradictions in capitalist imperialism.  (I'm not 
advocating this, just pointing to how 50s and 60s decolonization studies 
/tend/ to posit a social consciousness like racism as the product of 
material conditions, not exploitation as the result of racism).

Where Said does something really interesting is the extension to a 
Foucauldian sense of institutions, such as their conferring identity 
through forms of analogy.  This means looking to colonialism not only 
through a economic determinism but also through the institutional forms 
of analogy and institutional consciousness they generate.  A 
university's Orientalist Studies department isn't obviously 
participating in the economic and material circumstances in the colony 
(though it would contribute it's own educated "products" to that 
enterprise), but the "university" in the general sense is in service to 
nationalist culture rather than its previous ecclesiastical and legal 
orientation -- someone like Bill Readings would argue that service to 
national culture shifted again not long after Said's book.

I think the innovation in Said's Orientalism stands out a bit more 
strongly if you set it beside Fanon or in a brief excerpt, chapter 26 of 
Rosa Luxemburg's /Accumulation of Capital/.  Also, while Said is 
certainly polemical, I don't think the intention of the book is to paint 
the West categorically even though presenting the nuances of the West's 
various forms of resistance isn't the job of that project either.

All best,
James

On 2015-10-26 12:51 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
> James,
>
> Edward W. Said acknowledges his debt to Michel Foucault (power,
> discourses, epistemes, etc.), but I think his basic instincts are
> Marxian.  Foucault buttresses his biases.  By that I mean, Said
> interprets or misinterprets or misrepresents Western/capitalist behavior
> as having ulterior motives, ones that are always exploitive and
> hegemonic, if you will.
>
> Take for example Said’s rhetoric in the first section of /Orientalism:/
>   “Knowing the Oriental.”  Said describes a 1910 debate in the UK
> Parliament between A. J. Balfour (Tory leader) and J. M. Robertson
> (Liberal MP).  Robertson challenges Balfour to justify the government’s
> rule in Egypt (its “tone of superiority”).  Balfour answers that the
> “British statesman” (i.e., HMG) “knows” Egypt and, in Said’s
> interpretation, knows what is best for Egypt.  Said equates knowing
> Egypt as power over Egypt.  He then concludes that Balfour’s use of “we”
> means that the Tory speaks for the “English” and leaves the impression
> that Balfour also speaks “for the civilized world, the West, and the
> relatively small corps of colonial officials in Egypt” (p. 34).  Said,
> however, has downplayed the fact that Robertson and others object to the
> “hypocrisy” of HMG.  Those strenuous objections were the subject of
> Robertson’s long speeches in Commons (unreported by Said).  So, Balfour
> does not speak for /all/ “the English,” although Said suggests he does.
>   Why?  Because that suits Said’s argument, which seeks to paint the
> British and the West as behaving, deliberately and categorically, in an
> overbearing, dominant, and racist way.
>
> Said’s method is typically Marxist.  In /Empire/ (2002), Niall Ferguson,
> the British historian, describes this aspect of Marxism as follows:
>   “The central nationalist/Marxist assumption is, of course, that
> imperialism was economically exploitative:  every facet of colonial
> rule, /including even the apparently sincere efforts of Europeans to
> study and understand indigenous cultures,/ was at root designed to
> maximize the surplus value that could be extracted from the subject
> peoples” (p. xvii; my italics).  In Marxism, colonialists can do no
> good, and that is certainly the tenor of Said’s argument.  As discussed
> previously, he’s tendentious, ignores opposing views, and has little
> historical perspective.  He sees what he wants to see.
>
> Despite my criticism of his method, Edward Said was a major critical
> voice in the twentieth century.  Unfortunately, his faults have been
> replicated and compounded by some of his followers, namely, Shaden M.
> Tageldin in /Disarming Words/ (2011) and Hala Halim in /Alexandrian
> Cosmopolitanism /(2013).
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 12:03 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com
>> <mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have several students from Bangladesh as well as Syria, Libya, the
>> Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so forth -- they have their eyes
>> open to the larger complexities of the interests of varying state
>> actors, which is partly why they study where they do.  They see that
>> everyone has an angle even if the scope is wildly inequitable.
>>  There's no corner shop near me anymore, but lots of people hold
>> plenty of contradictory opinions for plenty of reasons just as they
>> hold to plenty of forms of different faiths (or not).
>>
>> There's very little in Durrell about left/right: surprisingly little
>> given his time and milieu, and what there is is often ironical or
>> sarcastic.  In any case, to be concerned with the legacies of
>> imperialism, especially in the 1950s during the rapid decolonization
>> of Africa and the heat of the Cold War, is hardly surprising -- for
>> Said to shift attention away from the Marxist paradigm of (largely
>> Africa-centred) decolonization literatures of those 50s & 60s to a
>> Foucauldian attention to institutions in the late 1970s and the Middle
>> East is also hardly surprising.  But it reminds us that Orientalism
>> was a scholarly discipline in academic institutions that disciplined a
>> body of knowledge as a "way of knowing" and that Said's leverage grew
>> out from an existing set  of often race-based decolonization movements
>> that were used to thinking in terms of class rather than through
>> institutions.  That "way of knowing" has largely gone underground now
>> into area studies or the retitling of departments, but it's operation
>> continues apace.  The commonplace today of regarding universities as a
>> factory producing trained labour reflects the same kind of processes
>> as the service of the university to national(ist) culture, though
>> maybe now to global capital as well.  Let's not grow too starry-eyed
>> over the free exchange of ideas such that we overlook the /production/
>> of knowledge...  As Said's critique takes on the aura of having
>> accomplished its goals with the dissipation of schools of Orientialist
>> Studies, we have to stay attentive to the persistence of service by
>> their successor departments to the same and new interests.
>>
>> Said was one-eyed in the sense of being polemical, but it was a
>> polemic very much needed in 1978.  To ask the same book to sort out
>> our changed situations in 2015 isn't likely to work out well, although
>> there's much to be said of reading it in tandem with his later
>> /Culture and Imperialism/.  I critique Said often for the specific
>> things I work on, but he's one of the defining critical voices of the
>> latter part of the 20th century.
>>
>> I still think the signal word in "Bitter Lemons," to me at least as a
>> reader, is "unsaid" and how it catches to the other negation, "unshed."
>>
>> All best,
>> James
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca>
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>


More information about the ILDS mailing list