Studying subjects as essential types makes the European scholar transcendent and universal

Evidence

Thus one ends with a typology—based on a real specificity, but detached from history, and, consequently, conceived as being intangible, essential—which makes of the studied “object” another being with regard to whom the studying subject is transcendent; we will have a homo Sinicus, a homo Arabicus (and why not a homo Aegypticus, etc.), a homo Africanus, the man—the “normal man,” it is understood—being the European man of the historical period, that is, since Greek antiquity. One sees how much, from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, the hegemonism of possessing minorities, unveiled by Marx and Engels, and the anthropocentrism dismantled by Freud are accompanied by europocentrism in the area of human and social sciences, and more particularly in those in direct relationship with non-European peoples. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 271

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘normal man’ = European man prefigures Foucault’s normalizing discourse and the raced subject of colonial psychology.
• DEFINE: The typology move: fixing the Other as homo Arabicus while reserving universality for the European.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 271