Said holds incompatible Foucauldian and humanist periodizations of Orientalism at once.

Evidence

Said uses Foucauldian terms as discrete elements of an apparatus, but refuses to accept the consequences of Foucault’s own mapping of history. If Foucauldian pressures force him to trace the beginnings of ‘Orientalist Discourse’ from the eighteenth century or so, the equally irresistible pressures of Auerbachean High Humanism force him to trace the origins of this very ‘discourse’, in the conventional form of a continuous European literary textuality, all the way back to Ancient Greece. In a characteristic move, Said refuses to choose and, as we shall demonstrate below, he. offers mutually incompatible definitions of ‘Orientalism’ so as to deploy both these stances, the Foucauldian and the Auerbachean, simultaneously. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 663

Categorization

• XREF: Directly parallels the strategic-essentialism bind: eclectically holding incompatible commitments (discourse-determinism versus humanist universals) without choosing—Ahmad reads this as theoretical evasiveness, the same charge leveled at ironic identity essentialism. — connects to: Said’s humanism cannot be reconciled with the anti-humanist Foucault he invokes. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 650; Said’s Orientalism deploys incompatible Foucauldian and humanist origin-stories simultaneously. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 293; Said’s twin claims about Orientalism rest on an unresolved tension. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 612 (+5 more)
• QUESTION: Key research thread: is Said’s refusal to choose between Foucauldian and Auerbachean frames structurally the same move as Spivak’s strategic essentialism—using each register without committing to its consequences?

Broader Connections

• Said’s Orientalism deploys incompatible Foucauldian and humanist origin-stories simultaneously. #corroborates (0.95) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 293
• Said’s twin claims about Orientalism rest on an unresolved tension. #expands (0.90) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 612
• Said’s timeless orientalism diverged from Foucault’s focus on discontinuities #expands (0.85)
• Said’s critique of Orientalism mirrors the procedures of his adversaries. #complicates (0.80) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 714
• Said’s unidirectional account is itself a Foucauldian discursive strategy, not a scholarly lapse #qualifies (0.80)
• Said’s double periodization of Orientalism undermines its causal link to colonialism #expands (0.75) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 740
• Said’s Foucauldian ‘will to power’ discourse operates without imperialist agency or design. #qualifies (0.75) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 759