Orientalism has been stretched to cover any discourse of Otherness tied to domination

Evidence

Many writers have defined orientalism not by its formal content as a set of Western representations of the Orient, but in functionalist terms as a discourse of western domination. The tendency has been to minimize differences and maximize similarities and historical connections between examples of Western domination over various parts of the world. To some authors, indeed, any discourse of Otherness that is associated with domination merits the label of orientalism. Ernest J. Wilson III, for example, writes of African-Americans as targets of America’s “internal orientalism.” A more complex example is Ella Shohat’s position, according to which American colonial discourse was “constituted by” orientalism; “the colonial discourse of the Americas, sub-Saharan Africa, and East and South Asia generated a specific form of orientalist discourse directed at North Africa and West Asia during the later part of the imperial era.” There is, then, a broader orientalism that does not (yet) have much to do with the Orient, and a more specific orientalism that does. Both are Western discourses of domination, constructing an Other that will be, or is already, ruled by the West. — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 81

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes ‘broader’ orientalism (any Western domination discourse) from ‘specific’ orientalism (discourse about the actual Orient).
• QUESTION: Is ‘internal orientalism’ applied to African-Americans a legitimate extension of Said’s concept or a category stretched beyond usefulness?
• XREF: connects to: Orientalism’s totalizing discourse critique erases all sites of resistance and liberation