A critique can be valid yet incoherent and dull without sharp target boundaries

Evidence

My aim in pointing out these historical and geographical confusions is to show not that Said’s critique of Orientalism is invalid, but rather that its critical edge is incoherent and dull. In other words, it lacked sharp boundary-definition of target area, all due, I think, to analytical instruments partly grounded in, and partly the function of, a set of ideological assumptions. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 56

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: what would a ‘sharp boundary-definition’ of the Orientalism critique actually require — and does the author offer one later in the book?