Orientalist discourse covertly reduces Arabs to unexamined sexual and biological potency.

Evidence

Two things: number and generative power. Both qualities are reducible to each other ultimately, but we ought to separate them for the purposes of analysis. Almost without exception, every contemporary work of Orientalist scholarship (especially in the social sciences) has a great deal to say about the family, its male-dominated structure, its all-pervasive influence in the society. … Yet the absolutely inviolable taboo in Orientalist discourse is that that very sexuality must never be taken seriously. It can never be explicitly blamed for the absence of achievement and “real” rational sophistication the Orientalist everywhere discovers among the Arabs. And yet this is, I think, the missing link in arguments whose main object is criticism of “traditional” Arab society, such as Hamady’s, Berger’s, and Lerner’s. They recognize the power of the family, note the weaknesses of the Arab mind, remark the “importance” of the Oriental world to the West, but never say what their discourse implies, that what is really left to the Arab after all is said and done is an undifferentiated sexual drive. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 788

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

  • XREF: Connects to the biopolitics/necropolitics module: the reduction of a people to ‘mere biological beings’ whose only count is numeric reproduction prefigures Foucault’s biopower and Mbembe’s necropolitics framing of populations.
  • DEFINE: Identifies the mechanism by which Orientalist discourse secures its reduction of the Arab: an undercurrent of sexual exaggeration that cannot be spoken.