Orientalism changed no scholarly practices and disturbed no imperialists
Evidence
But what had he achieved? Have Orientalists changed their working practices? They have not, as Said made no positive suggestions as to how they should change those practices and, indeed, at several points he seemed to be suggesting that it was impossible to change. Were imperialists disturbed by Said’s book? It seems not. — Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 542
Categorization
- SEED: Could fuel an essay on critique without a program — how academic unmaskings can become domesticated by the systems they attack.
Related
- Said’s critique of Orientalism is inadequate for refashioning the discipline. (similarity 0.84)
- No critique of Orientalism has displaced or surpassed Said’s book (similarity 0.84)
- Orientalism’s cult following grew among nonspecialists despite no corrections to its errors (similarity 0.84)
- Learned Orientalist scholarship pressed ideological myths into service (similarity 0.83)
- Said never corrected factual errors in Orientalism and refused to concede points (similarity 0.83)
- Orientalist scholarship cannot be detached from its imperial context (similarity 0.83)
- Said’s critique stayed at representation because going further would destroy his liberal commitments (similarity 0.83)
- Orientalist training typically converted initial fascination into a debunking project (similarity 0.83)
- Orientalism persists by being internalized by the Orient itself and by new imperialism (similarity 0.83)
- Said’s liberalism foreclosed any possibility that the Orient could instruct the West (similarity 0.82)
- Anti-Orientalist critics ignored the actual scholarly merits of Orientalist findings (similarity 0.82)
- Orientalist scholarship reframed itself as disinterested after the commercial rationale faded (similarity 0.82)
- Said’s critique reified Orientalism as a category masking deeper structures (similarity 0.82)
- Sustained national imperial interest was required for Orientalist scholarship to thrive (similarity 0.82)
- Prominent critics of Orientalism have praised scholars deeply complicit in its assumptions. (similarity 0.82)