Said’s Foucauldian ‘will to power’ discourse operates without imperialist agency or design.

Evidence

So we have at least some clue as to what Oriental ism is not: it is not what is commonly understood by colonialist - or imperialist - ideology. In the process, though, we come upon a strange discrepancy: it is a ‘style’ that has always spoken of Occident and Orient as victor and vanquished, a discourse which has always had a will to power, but expresses no imperialist design; it is full of racism, jingoism, religious bigotry, but it has no will to ‘hold down’ anybody. It is hard to know, therefore, what Said actually meansbeyond, of course, the familiar Foucauldian trope of a Power which permeates everything and reproduces itself copiously in all the pores of society and textuality but has no origin, no object, even no agency. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 759

Categorization

• XREF: This is precisely the Foucauldian ‘power without agency’ problem that parallels how Spivak’s discourse/determinist readings make material and class agency vanish — connects to Ahmad’s broader thesis about postcolonial discourse analysis obscuring class structures. — connects to: Said’s unidirectional account is itself a Foucauldian discursive strategy, not a scholarly lapse; Said’s account makes colonialism an effect of discourse, not material power. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 332; Said’s critique of Orientalism never explained how discourse connects to colonial power — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 24 (+6 more)
• DEFINE: Diagnoses Said’s category error: ‘style’ does the work of both ideology-critique and Foucauldian truth-effects, making it unclear whether Orientalism describes representations or misrepresentations.

Broader Connections

• Said’s account makes colonialism an effect of discourse, not material power. #expands (0.92) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 332
• Said’s unidirectional account is itself a Foucauldian discursive strategy, not a scholarly lapse #expands (0.87)
• Said’s critique of Orientalism never explained how discourse connects to colonial power #qualifies (0.82) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 24
• Said’s Orientalism deploys incompatible Foucauldian and humanist origin-stories simultaneously. #qualifies (0.80) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 293
• Foucauldian critique offers no alternatives, potentially serving an ideological function #complicates (0.78) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 1954
• Totalizing condemnation of Orientalism contradicts Said’s own Foucauldian framework #complicates (0.76) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 271
• Founders of discursivity are produced by power but not bound to obey its logic. #qualifies (0.75) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 94
• Extreme Foucauldian premises reduce theory to passive consumption of discourse #expands (0.74) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 112