Nineteenth-century Orientalism was amateur, aristocratic, and unrefereed

Evidence

For a long time there was no cohesion in the world of the Orientalist. Their first Congress took place in Paris only in 1873. Moreover, in the nineteenth century the learned societies of Orientalists were not yet what they have since become, the adjuncts of academic Orientalism. They were largely the province of enthusiastic amateurs, often leisured aristocrats or clergymen. Throughout the nineteenth century the presidency of the Royal Asiatic Society was monopolized by earls, knights and right honourables. A fair number of maharajas and other Indian princes were also members. The articles that appeared in the Orientalist journals were not systematically refereed (as is the rule nowadays). The bulk of the articles consisted of Oriental texts and sometimes their attempted decipherment or translation. There was little in the way of analysis or synthesis. — Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 263

Categorization

• XREF: Reverses the assumption (found in Said’s Orientalism) that Orientalism was a tightly organized tool of empire — it was largely leisured amateurs. Connects to earlier chapters on Church and salon learning.
• QUESTION: If Orientalist societies were male-only and amateur until the 20th century, when and how did women gain entry and professionalism arise?

Related

• The origin date of Orientalism is contested among multiple competing candidates (similarity 0.79)
• Academic Orientalists eclipsed gentleman amateurs in the RAS (similarity 0.79)
• Orientalist knowledge became institutionalized expertise spanning universities, ministries, and popular media. (similarity 0.78)
• Orientalism metamorphosed from scholarly discourse into an imperial institution (similarity 0.78)