The Occident Said’s Theory of Orientalism

“Is it a good thing for these great nations—I admit their greatness —that this absolute government should be exercised by us? I think it is a good thing. I think that experience shows that they have got under it far better government than in the whole history of the world they ever had before, and which not only is a benefit to them, but is undoubtedly a benefit to the whole of the civilised West.... We are in Egypt not merely for the sake of the Egyptians, though we are there for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large” Balfour via Said, 1977: 33-4. Said moreover says that the West think that it is its duty to do all the good things and benefits for the Orient although there is no appreciation given by the Orient to it. It thinks that by dominating and correcting all things in Oriental countries according to Western idea is a work of a selfless administrator. This is also shown in Balfour’s statement: If it is our business to govern, with or without gratitude, with or without the real and genuine memory of all the loss of which we have relieved the population [Balfour by no means implies, as part of that loss, the loss or at least the indefinite postponement of Egyptian independence] and no vivid imagination of all the benefits which we have given to them; if that is our duty, how is it to be performed? England exports our very best to these countries. These selfless administrators do their work amidst tens of thousands of persons belonging to a different creed, a different race, a different discipline, different conditions of life Balfour via Said, 1977: 33. The “good things” done by the West is actually can not be accepted by the native populations. Said argues that the natives have an instinctive feeling that those with whom they have got to deal have not behind them the might, the authority, the symphaty, the full and the selfless ungrudging support of the Western country; but the work of the West in governing and dominate the Orient is possible because of the sense of being supported at home by a government that endorse what they do. This finally leads those populations lose all their sense of order which is the very basis of their civilization, just as the officers lose all that sense of power and authority which is the very basis of everything they can do for the benefit of the Western domination. By this domination and occupation, the West as the civilized country, get the Oriental’s land to be occupied, control the internal affairs; they attempts to impose, to endow the Orient how they like, give them all the qualities of character and genius of the Western civilization Said, 1978: 34-6. Thus, the consequence of knowledge here is the domination, authority, and occupation. This shows that in Western view, the Orient is only a subject race, dominated by a race that knows them and what is good for them better than they could possibly know themselves. Their great moments were in the past; they are only useful in the modern world becuase the powerful and up-to-date empires have effectively brought them out of the wrechednes of their decline and turned them into rehabilitated residents of productive colonies Said, 1978: 35. Knowledge of subject races or Orientals is what makes Western management easy and profitable; knowledge gives power, more power requires more knowledge, and soon in an increasingly profitable dialectic of information and control Said, 1978: 36. Said also argues that by having knowledge of and about the Orient, the West can make special cultural relationships between the Orient and the Occident. These relationships can be divided as two: a relationship between the rulers and the ruled, and a relationship between a strong and a weak partner Said, 1977: 36- 40.