mature, the virtuous, the civilized, and other possitive predicates derived from the premise of the Anglo saxon as the perfect model Said, 1978: 58.
3. The relation of power and knowledge
In the context of Orientalism, the West cannot gain its domination over the Orient without firstly having knowledge about the Orient. The supremacy is
associated with its knowledge of the Orient, not principally with military or economic power. Knowledge here means surveying a civilization from its origin
to its prime to its decline—and of course, it means being able to do that. Knowledge means rising above immediacy, beyond self, into the foreign and
distant. Said argues that the object of such knowledge is inherently vulnerable to scrutiny. This object is a “fact” which, if it develops, changes, or transform itself
in the way that civilizations frequently do, nevertheless is fundamentally, even ontologically stable. Thus, having such knowledge of such a thing means to
dominate it and to have authority over it. The authority here means for the West to deny autonomy to “it”, the Oriental country Said, 1978: 32.
Since the authority is only hold by the West as the superior and all at once as the active subject, the West can do its corrective study over the Orient because
the West thinks that the Orient is inferior and in need of correction Said, 1978: 41, although the correction standard actually can not be accepted and agreed by
the Orient as it is different with the Occident Said, 1978: 32-3. This case is shown by Said 1978: 32-3 through a quotation derived from Arthur James
Balfour when he lectured the House of Commons on June 13, 1990; explaining that the West is superior and right as it can stand by itself upon self-government,
which becomes one of Western idea and standard signified the superiority and correctness, while the Orient is inferior and wrong as they are regarded by the
West as countries which stand upon an absolute government, even they are actually have been very great under this kind of government. The quotation is as
follows. “First of all, look at the facts of the case. Western nations as soon
as they emerge into history show the beginnings of those capacities for self-government . . . having merits of their own. . . . You may
look through the whole history of the Orientals in what is called, broadly speaking, the East, and you never find traces of self-
government. All their great centuries—and they have been very great—have been passed under despotisms, under absolute govern-
ment. All their great contributions to civilisation—and they have been great—have been made under that form of government.
Conqueror has succeeded conqueror; one domination has followed another; but never in all the revolutions of fate and fortune have
you seen one of those nations of its own motion establish what we, from a Western point of view, call self-government. That is the
fact. It is not a question of superiority and inferiority. I suppose a true Eastern sage would say that the working government which we
have taken upon ourselves in Egypt and elsewhere is not a work worthy of a philosopher—that it is the dirty work, the inferior
work, of carrying on the necessary labour” Balfour via Said, 1977: 32-3.
Moreover, Said argues that the West effort in correcting the Orient is said to be a good thing done by the West for the Orient although there is no evidence
that the Orient appreciate or even understand the good that is being done by Western colonial occupation. The West does not let the Orient to speak for itself
since presummably any native of the Orient who would speak out is more likely to be “the agitator who wishes to raise difficulties” than the good native who
overlooks the “difficulties” of foreign domination. The similar case is also derived from Balfour’s statement which is quoted as follows.
“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
