Orientalist scholars were a heterogeneous group, not a monolithic imperialist bloc
Evidence
By claiming that orientalism is “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient,” Said turns his own imperious gaze on orientalist scholars. The result is that it is now they who become the undifferentiated mass. But they were most decidedly not this. Orientalists came from a host of nations, sometimes representing colonial interests, sometimes not, and were of different ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds. — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 375 (
#expands, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Orientalist scholarship constructed ‘Indian Literature’ as Sanskritic, religious, and North Indian, excluding Tamil. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1134; Orientalist scholarship was internally divided between empire servants and anti-colonial critics; Jewish orientalists’ scholarship was shaped by sectarian Jewish concerns, not colonialism (+9 more)
Broader Connections
- Orientalist scholarship was internally diverse and historically contingent, not monolithic
#corroborates(0.97) - Orientalism was internally divided rather than a monolithic colonial tool
#corroborates(0.95) - Orientalist scholars were a diverse group spanning nations, religions, and politics
#expands(0.93) — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 375 - Orientalist scholarship cannot be detached from its imperial context
#complicates(0.85) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 840 - Orientalism is a discourse, not a mirror of imperial political power
#complicates(0.72) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 72