“Orientalism” with Reference to Edward Said’s Book

“Orientalism” with Reference to Edward Said’s book

Name: Riddhi Jani

Roll no: 23

Semester: 3rd
Paper: 11, The Post-colonial Literature

Submitted to: Smt. S. B. Gardy Department of English

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

·        Introduction:

            Edward wadie Said was born on 1^st November, 1935 and died on 5^th September, 2003. He was Palestinian American literary theorist. He contributed in the field of literary theory named Post colonialism. He is famous for his work named “Orientalism”. As a cultural critic, he sees the cultural representation in the things. He sees West’s condescending perception in their depiction of Middle East, Asian and North African people, their society and their culture. As a public intellectual, Said discussed culture, literature, music and contemporary politics.

·      Orientalism:

          

 “Orientalism” is a foundational text for the academic field of Post colonial studies. The West sees the Middle Eastern, Asian, and North African society by the only word “the East”. In simple words ‘orientalism’ is the term used to show Western approach and attitude towards Middle , North African and Asian people, society and culture. Western people see them as unintelligent, undeveloped, uncivilized and lower than themselves. So, in this way they think themselves superior than the Eastern people. This is the simple meaning of the term ‘orientalism’.

            As this term suggests, ‘orient’ that is east and on the contrary there is ‘occident’ means west. After the coming of the book “Orientalism” by Said, in 1978, this term started getting place in the field of research and education. Said argues against western’s prejudiced views towards east in this book.

·      “Orientalism”- a work by Said:

“The Orient was almost a European invention, and had been since antiquity a place of romance, exotic being, haunting memories and landscapes, remarkable experiences.”

            The very first line of this quote (from the introduction part of the book) is very much suggestive. Said is concerned with it that ‘the orient- the particular orient with some particular characteristics- is a European invention’. And this European eye sight to see the orient with particular image is never changed. In Western minds the picture of orient is stagnant from many years, that is the picture as ‘exotic East”. Here the word ‘exotic is not taken in its simple way. Here ‘exotic’ means something ‘unusual’ or ‘strikingly different’. So, the west sees east in this way.

            Such images they have got from the European visitors of Eastern places. But it is clear that it is European representation of the Orient, which is perhaps not quite true or it is incomplete. And by these images the occident people see themselves higher than the orient people. They, in this way, privilege themselves over the oriental people. Said says that orient is not different or lower than the occident, rather the orient is an integral part of Europe and its culture and civilization. I quote Said:

“The orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the Other.”

            So, the part, which they called ‘orient’ is of themselves. On the contrary America has different views about the orient. American views see orient as more sober, aware and ‘less dense’. So, the criticism goes to only British and French understanding of the orient.

            Said here gives other meaning of Orientalism, i.e. “Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the orient”. Means Western society ruled over orient, now they view the Orient by narrow sight, they make statement about it. And in this way Orientalism is “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the orient”. Here comes Michel Foucault’s notion of ‘knowledge and power’ and ‘discourse’. Orientalism is more than a discourse. And Western spread their knowledge about orient, as they were and are in power.

            When the whole identity of ‘the orient’ is facing questions and problems (of getting wrong description) ‘Orientalism’ should carry many more things except the definition as discourse.

            The geographical distinction between ‘orient’ and ‘occident’ is man maid, not natural. So, as West, orient also has its own reality and physical (i.e. geographical) presence. It has, as West, its own tradition of thought, imagery and vocabulary. In this way they both (west and east) support and reflect each other. Said gives the example that how East is misinterpreted by the West.

“When Disraeli said in his novel ‘Tancred’ that the East was a career, he meant that to be interested in the East was something bright young. Western would find to be an all consuming passion; he should not be interpreted as saying that the East was ONLY a career for Westerners.”

            So, the relationship between orient and occident is the relationship of power and hegemony. Said says about three aspects of his contemporary reality:

1.     The distinction between pure and political knowledge

2.     The methodological question

3.     The personal dimension

Mainly this Orientalism came when European power met with the lesser developed people of the East.

·      Examples of Orientalism from the Western pop-culture:

            This is the example of how the west depicts east in their literatures and the other things.

            This is the example of Alladdin- a character of “Disney Land”. Alladdin is an Arab character from a cartoon series named “Arabian Nights”. It was the show for children. So, before putting the example I want to quote some lines:

“Movies that children watch for enjoyment and pleasure rather than instruction, unfortunately leave a deeper imprint on a fresh, impressionable mind than does an unexciting textbook.”

(Kincheloe, 159)

            In that cartoon series, by Walt Disney Pictures, Alladdin was the most celebrated character. But that series had faced criticism for wrong and unjust portrayal of the Arab people and world. In that series Alladdin was ridiculed and mocked a lot. This becomes problematic because he was shown as the representative of Arab society and people. And the theme song of that cartoon series was also very much criticized for its words, that show Arab as uncivilized world. The lyrics of that theme song are:

“Oh, I came from a land

From a faraway place,

Where the caravan camels roam,

Where they cut your years if you

Don’t like your face,

It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.”

            We can see in this song lyrics that how the Western world does mis-portrayal of Arabic world. And in this way they prove themselves more civilized that the Arabic world. And such films or series are consumed a lot, and became popular also. After facing enormous criticism about such lyrics, Disney Pictures had changed them. So, instead of the line “…where they cut off your…”, This lines was put:

“Where it’s flat and immense

And the heat is intense.”

This is the link of a small video of that song with lyrics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw8Do64bEtU

            But these new lyrics are also problematic. And we can see in the video that how the whole identity of Arabs is mocked and misinterpreted. It also show that “exoticness”, which the Western used to see in the East.

            Another example is of a comedy produced by Paramount Pictures, named “The Director”. It was released in 2012. The main character is Admiral General Haffaz Aladeen here; a director from that Northern African Republic of Wadiya. In this movie Aladeen has travelled to New York City to tell the secrets of his country’s nuclear program to United Nations Council. And this character was mocked a lot. This all are also criticized from the orientalist point of view.

            In this way, we can see that how they misunderstand the orient and exaggerate it also in their descriptions. It is clear that the Western ideas about orient are not based on facts or reality, but rather they based on imagination and on the old archetypes about Eastern people. As ‘orient’ and ‘occident’ are opposite to each other, and when we see Foucault’s notion of power and knowledge, we come to know that orient is seen as negative or contrastive to occident. Apart from Foucault Said puts here Antonio Gramsci. Said’s views are based on and connected with his views. Gramsci gave the idea of ‘hegemony’. I quote Said:

“…my whole point is to say that we can better understand the persistence and the durability of saturating hegemonic systems like culture, when we realize that their internal constraints upon writers and thinkers were productive, not unitate really inhibiting.”

            Said sees Orientalism as ‘dynamic exchange’, between solo, individual writers and the large political concerns. And those political relations were shaped by three great established empires- British, French and American. Said says that under the intellectual and imaginative territory of these three empires the writing was brought out. And yet Said narrows down his views to only academic study of Middle Eastern, African and Asian history and culture.

            Said connects here the idea of Europe called by Denys Hay that the Europeans have strong idea of identifying “us”- Europeans against all “those” non-Europeans. It is their attempt to built hegemony over East and attempt to feel superior.

·      Critical examination of Orientalism:

            There are some counter arguments also against Said.

            First, is about Said’s limit that he limits this study for only academic area. The discussion of orientalism in academic field is limited to late 19^th and early 20^th century scholarship. So, the point is in that time most of the study departments had already left this area of study. I quote the argument:

“Said’s discussion of academic orientalism is almost entirely limited to late 19^th and early 20^th century scholarship. Most academic area studies department had already abandoned an imperialist or colonialist paradigm of scholarship.”

            And this argument goes further that Said connects the works of Barnard Lewis as an example of the continued existence of this paradigm, but Said admits that it was only an exception by the time of his writing that is 1977.

            And Said gave comparison between the wars of Greco-Persian and the controversy between East and West. Greeks had democratic tradition while Persian had monarchical. But Said makes no mention of the other Greek city states, most of which were not ruled democratically.

            These arguments seem hazy in many ways. But Said’s views about it are clearer. So, this is Said’s orientalism. I found some characteristics of orientalism. I put them in brief.

Ø Western intellectual domination:

Europeans’ idea; of people and society of Middle East, Asia and Northern Africa; is that they have not culture, they have ancient and less civilized living style and they are physically inferior than them. And European struggled a lot to dominate Eastern people and first by arresting them intellectually.

Ø Latent Orientalism:

According to Said, it is a kind of Orientalism that can’t be easily caught. It shows Western attitudes. It refers to cultural differences. Said says that the West continued to show the East as “separate, eccentric, backward, silently different, sensual and passive”. And most of these adjectives came from technological progress’ comparison between East and West.

Ø Manifest Orientalism:

In latent Orientalism, they see the speaking style and ascents of eastern people. While in manifest Orientalism, there is the dealing of visible features of Eastern cultures e.g. clothing, architecture and art.

Ø Contemporary Orientalism:

In this type of Orientalism Said describes the Western typical attitude to see the Eastern people esp. Arabs as “irrational, menacing, un-trustworthy, anti-western…and prototypical”.  These mental states are the result of pre 19^th century Orientalism. And Said writes:

“This is the culmination of Orientalism as a dogma that not only degrades its subject matter but also blinds its practitioners.”

           

           

           

            

Postmodernist Study of "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett

Post-modernist Study of the Play “Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett

Name: Riddhi Jani

Roll no: 23

Paper: 9, The Modernist Literature

Semester:3rd
Submitted to: Smt. S. B. Gardy Department of English

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

• Introduction:

                                       

                 

            Samuel Beckett was born in Ireland on April 13; 1906.He was very peculiar fellow, who did not believe in regular conventions and traditions. From the very young age, he was suffering from depression. He didn’t like long conversations (that we can see by the short dialogues in his plays). He, in very young age, could see the life from very near. And so, he felt more of pain and inner sorrows. It is his well known comment that:

“I had little talent for happiness.”

            Beckett was novelist, playwright, poet, theater director and essayist. His some of famous works are “Murphy”, “Molloy”, “The Unnamable”, “Endgame”, “How it is”, “Waiting for Godot” etc. He won Nobel Prize in Literature in 1969. His pen name was Andrew Belis. He died on December 22; 1989, at the age of 83, in Paris, France.

About Postmodernism:

            Postmodernism is late 20^th century movement in art, literature and architecture. It is in some ways near to skepticism. The term was started in rejection of Modernism. This term is often connected with Deconstruction and Post- structuralism.

            Postmodern literature has some key narrative techniques, i.e. fragmentation, paradox and unreliable narrator. And it is sometimes said as the style of Post World II era. In Postmodern literature there is not neatly tied up end of any work. Postmodern authors used to show the chance over craft. And further employs metafiction. Then postmodern literature questions the difference between ‘high’ and ‘low’, in literature and culture.

            It is also said that Modernist literature had a kind of hopelessness in it, while postmodern literature had settled itself in that hopelessness. Joseph Heller, Kurt Vonnegut, Thomas Pynchon, John Barth are some of the main stream postmodern writers.

Characteristics of Postmodern literature:

            These are some characteristics of Postmodernist literature, which can be related with the play “Waiting for Godot”.

    Irony, playfulness, black humor

    Metafiction

    Fragmentation

    Participation

Most of the postmodern works were after World War II. Noorbakhsh Hooti says about Postmodernism:

“Actually postmodernism is a dramatic deviation of man’s thought line; it is a renaissance towards breaking the fossilized shackles of the prescribed norms and notions…”

Postmodernism in “Waiting for Godot”:

                                            

            
           “Waiting for Godot” is Beckett’s very well known and well discussed play. It has two acts. The main theme of the play is ‘nothingness’ or ‘meaninglessness’ of life and world. The play was originally published in French in 1948. So, the effect of World Wars we can see here, not by action, but by absence of action in the play. This play though it has not action, is multi-layered play. Here ‘nothing’ itself is ‘something’.  Beckett’s one remark is very much related with the play that each word seemed to him “an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness”. Such absurdity we can find in this play.

            In fact this play comes under “Theater of Absurd”. It is a kind of tragic comedy and unpleasant truth about life and world is described here. There are only five characters in this play. They are Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo, Lucky and a boy. The effect of existentialism can be found very much here. The play itself is a symbol of hopelessness and nothingness. In “Theater of Absurd”, there is no plot, no story, no beginning and no end. In short, it challenges the tradition of well maid play. This play has same ‘nothing’. The language is simple and vague.

            Beckett was Modernist writer, but this play “Waiting for Godot” is more a postmodern play. So, I am trying to apply the characteristics of Postmodernism here.

·      Irony, playfulness and black humor in the play:

            In this play “Waiting for Godot”, we find these things at many extents.

            The first and biggest irony is this that Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot, while they don’t even know who or what the Godot is? They just keep on waiting without trying to know the purpose of their waiting. Then in Lucky-Pozzo episode, Pozzo is master and Lucky is servant. Then in second act Pozzo becomes blind and then also Lucky is his servant. Now, Pozzo has to take help of Lucky. The outer position looks same but now Pozzo’s rein is in the hands of Lucky. But the irony here is, still Lucky doesn’t realize his power and position and continues to remain servant. Means he becomes habituated to remain servant, rather than to become independent.

            Then some moments of fun also can be seen here by the playful acts and gestures of the characters. The scene when Vladimir and Estragon playing with the hats. Then in first act when Lucky cries, and Vladimir asks for handkerchief :

“Vladimir: Here, give it to me, I’ll do it.
(Estragon refuses to give the handkerchief Childish gestures.)”

            Black humor is also very much found in the play. First is Estragon’s memory, seems funny but there is deep philosophy in it. And when Estragon is every night beaten by some unknown people, it seems superficially humorous but its connotations say the every person, every day is beaten by troubles in life, which are unknown. And we never realize it. Another example is at the end of both acts, they talks about going but no one goes:

              (End of first act)

“ESTRAGON:  Well, shall we go? 

VLADIMIR:  Yes, let's go.

(They do not move).”

             (End of second act)

“VLADIMIR:  Well? Shall we go?

ESTRAGON:  Yes, let's go.

(They do not move).”

It seems humorous, but it throws crucial questions about monotonous stagnancy if life.

 ·        Fragmentation:

            Noorbakhsh Hooti says:

“Postmodernism relies heavily on fragmentation, paradox and questionable narrators.”

In this aspect, various elements, plot, characters, themes, imagery and factual references are fragmented. Fragmentation can be seen in language, sentence structure, characters and plot also.

            Here in this play we see too much short sentences and in that way conversation goes on. We do not find embellished language here. This is the example of fragmented language and mind also of one character from the play:

  “Vladimir: …How shall I say? Relieved and at the same time… (He searches for the word)… appalled… (With emphasis) AP-PALLED…”

 

            Another example of fragmentation:

 “Vladimir: When I think of it…all these years… but for me… where would you be…”

            This and many other such dialogues show fragmented language and by it fragmented situation of the minds of characters. E.g. when Lucky in act one, starts speaking, how forcefully he speaks! And also Pozzo’s furious speaking…these all has not any particular form or style. They seem to speak whatever comes in their minds. We can see the fragmentation of characters also. 

For example, in act 2:

"Vladimir: Do you want me to go away? (Pause) Gogo! (Pause. Vladimir                  observes him attentively) Did they beat you? (Pause) Gogo!     (Estragon remains silent, head bowed) Where did you spend the night?

Estragon: Don't touch me! Don't question me! Don't speak to me! Stay with           me!

Vladimir: Did I ever leave you?

Estragon: You let me go."

            We can see how absurd this conversation is. Also fragmentation can be seen here. The pauses (which come time and again) are also very much important part of this fragmentation. They interrupt in between. A character, while speaking, suddenly, unexpectedly takes pauses. It shows their fragmented minds. Lucky is another fragmented character, who just falls down and then sleeps!

            The setting of the play is also rough. There is only one piece of road- rough road and a barren tree. These all fragmentations in a way show frustration, hopelessness and futility of all knowledge, works, lives and world itself.

·        Intertexuality:

            Intertexuality is also one of the important parts of Postmodernist literature. Here also time and again we find the context of Bible. E.g.

"Vladimir: Did you ever read the Bible!"

"Vladimir: Do you remember the Gospels?"

"Vladimir: ...one of the thieves was saved..."

"Vladimir: Our saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have    been saved and the other... (he searches for the contrary of saved)... dammed."

"Vladimir: I tell you his name is Pozzo.

  Estragon: We'll soon see. (He reflects.) Abel ! Abel !"

"Vladimir: I beging to weary of this motif.

  Estragon: Perhaps the other is called Cain. Cain ! Cain !"

        

            Thus, it is very much connected with the Bible. The references of Jesus Christ, two thieves, Cain and Abel show the intertexuality between “Waiting for Godot” and Bible, though in minor way but it happens.

·        Postmodernism often profess individualism over God and country, describing the liberty to establish personal truth and allowing each person’s choice to be tolerated:

            This is very much relevant here. This play is very much discussed play for one matter that either it supports Christianity-the religion or individualism? But at some extent we find individualism here. “Individualism” is according to dictionary “pursuit of personal goal” or “personal trait”. Here as the play has no specific plot, it is hard to see the characters’ goal, because they are in the state of meaninglessness. But yet, they all have some personal, individual trait.

            As Vladimir plays with ‘hat’ and Estragon with ‘boots’, it is shown that Vladimir has higher order thinking, spirituality, intellect and ambition. And Estragon (boots) is having lower order thinking, materialistic mind and satisfaction. They both have their own thinking. Then Pozzo is having rudeness, but he is intellectual. He can feel the things. For example, these lines:

"Pozzo: When ! When ! one day is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you. (calmer) They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."

 

            And Lucky seems irritating when his obedience goes at its height. His slavery makes us angry. But it is his individuality. And in act 2, when Pozzo becomes blind, then also he keeps on to be slave of him as if ‘he’ is blind about his slavery.

            Here each one has their own belief, own truth and own justification (though unsaid directly). Postmodernist literature has no ultimate truth. Here also it can be seen that though staying on the same path Vladimir and Estragon carry different thinking and level. And yet no one is wrong. The boy’s character has also its own individuality and place.

·        Postmodernists are mostly unconventional:

            Postmodernist literary writers throw the conventions away. There is no particular plot, story or related action in their works. This play “Waiting for Godot” has same unconventionality. We can see such ‘nothingness’ in this play. But then also this ‘nothingness’ even is not seen as convention by postmodernist writers. They can put plot or action if they want or if they want to put story they can. And here the symbolism also doesn’t work in traditional way. E.g. in first act, the setting is a piece of the rough road and a barren tree, without a single leaf. But then in second act the tree has four five leaves. It is perhaps symbolic. But here in traditional or conventional way we cannot say that those leaves are the symbol of hope and life because hopelessness is still there. So, for the leaves we can say only one thing that nature is indifferent towards human pain happiness or any other feeling.

·        In Postmodernism nothing is based on logical reasoning. Nothing is framed within a presupposed universal truth.

            In this way it rejects universality. And it is questionable also. In this play also there no rationality in any human being or even in nature. There is all absurdity. If there is question, then it is unanswerable, and if there is answer, then also it is not relevant to the question. There are truth and falsehood both remaining together.

·        Conclusion:

            So, in this way Postmodernism works in the play “Waiting for Godot”. It seems at some extent near to deconstruction also. Because the plot, characters, setting, language, symbols everything challenge to systematic writing of early writers. They deny the rules. They obey their own style and individual thinking. They threw away that rule also that ‘the style and language should be suitable to the message or philosophy of the play’. Here in “Waiting for Godot” we have unexpectedly simple language. And by such simplicity of language, the play conveys deep philosophy. So, this is my small attempt of doing postmodernist study of the play “Waiting for Godot”.

Work citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Beckett

http://www.gradesaver.com/author/samuel-beckett/
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ells/article/download/10719/7540