Said borrowed only Foucault’s schematic features, losing his subversive critique

Evidence

When he speaks of “rules of formation,” which are the “conditions of existence” for discursive formations, he is almost wholly interested in their modes of operation, and only incidentally in their rise or “disappearance,” which he tends to note incidentally. In Orientalism, Said distilled his theory of power and knowledge, and appears to have taken from it only its schematic features. This explains his categorical and all-too-sweeping approach, which has exonerated no one who ever wrote anything about the Orient. Foucault’s subversive “critique” makes no appearance in Said. This specifically Saidian legacy has spread among the current generation of scholars like fire in dry wood. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 274

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader Orientalism-after-Said debate and how theories degrade as they diffuse through a discipline.