Orientalism is simultaneously complicit in oppression and a necessary bridge to the Other.

Evidence

The relative demotion of Orientalism complicates rather than simplifies our analytical task. Although this field of discourse is symptomatic of a pervasive psychoepistemic disorder, and as such could be treated like any other field of knowledge, it remains the most obvious corridor through which knowledge about the Other is transmitted. This crucial fact imposes on us a situation in which Orientalism must be recognized as both an accomplice to oppression and violence and, once liberated from its present condition, a necessary bridge to a different conception of the Other. The argument that those parts of academia that stand in the service of modern forms of capitalism, colonialism, and hegemonic power must eventually be made to vanish cannot, and must not, include Orientalism without qualification. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 4

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels the tension in Milgrom and social-capital literature where an institution can be both a site of reproduction of hierarchy and a vehicle for alternative ordering.