Said’s critique of Orientalism mirrors the procedures of his adversaries.

Evidence

See Sadek el-Azm’s review essay ‘Orientalism and Orientalism-in-Reverse’, Khamsin, no. 8 (London: Ithaca Press, 1981), there is much in el-Azm’s essay that I would disagree with, but his discussion of Said’s treatment of Marx is fruitful and he is right, on the whole, about the convergence between Said’s procedures and those of his adversaries. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 714

Categorization

  • XREF: The ‘convergence between critic and adversary’ pattern echoes the critique of postcolonial critique inheriting its categories — a recurring theme in Ahmad’s larger argument. — connects to: Said’s critique essentializes the West as much as it claims Orientalists essentialize the East — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 335; Said holds incompatible Foucauldian and humanist periodizations of Orientalism at once.; Said’s Orientalism denies colonized agency while criticizing the West for silencing it.