Decolonization confronted Orientalism with a politically armed Orient it could not recognize
Evidence
Beginning in the twenties, and from one end of the Third World to the other, the response to empire and imperialism has been dialectical. By the time of the Bandung Conference in 1955 the entire Orient had gained its political independence from the Western empires and confronted a new configuration of imperial powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Unable to recognize “its” Orient in the new Third World, Orientalism now faced a challenging and politically armed Orient. Two alternatives opened before Orientalism. One was to carry on as if nothing had happened. The second was to adapt the old ways to the new. But to the Orientalist, who believes the Orient never changes, the new is simply the old betrayed by new, misunderstanding dis-Orientals (we can permit ourselves the neologism). — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 293
Categorization
- DEFINE: Defines the dialectical closure of the decolonization era: the Orient’s political independence created the material crisis that Orientalist discourse could not absorb.
- corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 293
- XREF: connects to: Orientalism adapted to decolonization by rebranding itself as interdisciplinary area studies; Orientalism’s ontological rigidity makes its fantasies nearly impossible to dismantle; Crossing the imperial divide enables critique that maintains barriers cannot produce (+2 more)