Assertions of scholarly objectivity mask the partisan premises of Orientalist discourse.

Evidence

In this general struggle of which he is speaking, he is inevitably on one side or the other. He is caught up in the battle, has adversaries and is fighting to win. No doubt he is trying to assert a right; but it is Ais right that is at issue—and it is a singular right that is marked by a relationship of conquest, domination, or seniority: the rights of a race, the rights of triumphant invasions or of millennial occupations. And while he also speaks about the truth, he is speaking about the perspectival and strategic truth that will allow him to be victorious. We have, then, a political and historical discourse that lays claim to truth and right, but which explicitly excludes itself from juridico-philosophical universality. … It is a matter of establishing a right that is stamped with dissymmetry and that functions as a privilege that has to be either maintained or reestablished; it is a matter of establishing a truth that functions as a weapon. For a subject speaking such a discourse, the universal truth and general right are illusions or traps. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 283 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Anthology selection masks the Orientalist’s editorial censorship as natural typicality; Academic Orientalist expertise legitimizes rather than corrects crude stereotypes; Mythic discourse systematically conceals its own origins and institutional basis (+9 more)

Related

• Historico-political discourse claims partisan truth that functions as a weapon, excluding juridical universality (similarity 0.85)
• Orientalism undermines the possibility of nonpolitical scholarship. (similarity 0.84)
• Academic Orientalist expertise legitimizes rather than corrects crude stereotypes (similarity 0.81)
• Purportedly objective scholarship can function as propaganda against its subject (similarity 0.81)
• Orientalism is a discourse, not a mirror of imperial political power (similarity 0.81)
• Anthology selection masks the Orientalist’s editorial censorship as natural typicality (similarity 0.81)
• Said held that Orientalism cannot be corrected by factual research because it is power. (similarity 0.80)
• The Orientalism debate presumes scholarship and ideology are opposites (similarity 0.80)
• Orientalist scholarship is inseparable from imperial power and its orthodox attitudes (similarity 0.79)
• Orientalism’s intent was critique, not affirmation of antithetical identities (similarity 0.79)
• Essentialized etymology discredits a people’s political agency while posing as neutral scholarship (similarity 0.79)
• Even technically accomplished Orientalist scholarship rests on racist and mercenary assumptions. (similarity 0.79)
• Said’s Foucauldian ‘will to power’ discourse operates without imperialist agency or design. (similarity 0.79)
• Scientific validity in Orientalist writing requires canceling the human content of its subjects (similarity 0.79)
• Orientalism’s claim to scholarly attention rests on its uniqueness among fields (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Benign scholarly intent does not escape the asymmetric structure of Orientalist knowledge. #corroborates (0.90)
• Historico-political discourse claims partisan truth that functions as a weapon, excluding juridical universality #exemplifies (0.70) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 283