His travel account is replete with powerful situations Ana recollections wanly offer Illuminating Instill so rattling Ana problematic critiques of the modern empire, paving the way to a vigorously outpouring “literature of opposition”, as Edward Said would call it, and to a conscientiousness that are altogether meant to oppose and contest western inscriptions about “Otherness”. It offers discursive instances that show how inventively the Oriental Others can answer back, re-act against the West’s disfigured rendition of the Oriental, and take history into their own hands.
The main question, as Sure Rata argues, is “no longer whether the subaltern can speak but what s/he is saying, and how loud and clear the voice s” (Rata 2004: 352). It is obvious that Sahib’s text, together with other Moroccan’ who have visited America in different occasions and for different purposes and have written about tit, may be viewed as a loud call for radical revisions of the old body of assumptions and misrepresentations that have fostered the Western Orientals discourse.
Their subversive strategies excessively acquire greater levels of importance as they have undertaken the task to strike back for self-empowerment and sloganeering, through a metaphorically massive penetration of the Western colonial mindset that is yet continuous. As a response to the western conventional paradigms of subordination and exclusion, these traditionally silenced voices have been driven by a strong desire to question the basic assumptions upon which the legacies of western discourse and canonist are based.
LIAISING SIMOOM 2 The field of colonial discourse analysis, or Postcolonial discourse starts with Edward Sad’s Orientalism (1978). Though it has been confronted with harsh criticism, it has nonetheless maintained much of its paradigmatic stance and continues to inspire discussions in a number of scholarly fields. It seems, indeed, nearly impossible to iscuss postcolonial as a discipline of study without invoking Said generally, and Orientalism specifically.
Speak writes that “The study of colonial discourse, directly released by work such as Sad’s, has, however, blossomed into a garden where the marginal can speak and be spoken, even spoken for” (Speak 1993: 56). In his The Location of Culture, Homo Bah acknowledges Sad’s seminal work as being a pioneering oeuvre which provided him with “a critical terrain and an intellectual project” (Bah 1994: ‘X) . Robert Young, too, is unmistakably explicit about Sad’s rearranging work. See for example Mohamed Market’s (taped and translated by Paul Bowels) Look and Move on (1989), Leila Buzzard’s America, The Other Face (1992), Selma Caddish Migration to the Lands of Dreams (1999),House Amine Llamas Un Moroccan ¤ New York (2001). The Postcolonial Moment: Theorizing the Subject and Retrieving Subaltern Voices 3 He contends that “Colonial discourse analysis was initiated as an academic subscription within literary and cultural theory by Edward Sad’s Orientalism in 1978” (Young 1990:159).
Sad’s theoretical framework has proven useful to a wide variety of analytical approaches, thus securing its ongoing success; and instead of relegating him to oblivion, it appears to enable new questions and continued scholarly debates. In his Orientalism, Said claims that the “Orient was almost a European invention, and had been since antiquity a place of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories and landscapes, remarkable experiences” (Said 1978: 1), which served, appropriately enough, “to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience (1-2). Said explores the place and function of the
Orient as Rupee’s “cultural contestant,” as “one of its deepest and most recurring images of the Other” (1) within what he calls the discursive practice of “Orientalism. ” Because Orientalism is based on “an ontological and epistemological distinction” between the Orient and the Occident, it is readily identifiable as “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” (2-3). Said, adopting a Fasciculation framework, argues, in short, that the vast scholarship collected as evidence about the Orient, served in fact to manage and produce the Orient (3).
This premise leads to the constitution of a dialectic between “Europe and its others” in which the object of knowledge becomes indistinguishable from the object of conquest. Said argues, therefore, that the Orient as an entity cannot be thought apart from the onslaught of “interests inevitably brought to bear on (and therefore always involved in) any occasion when that peculiar entity is in question” (3). The emphasis in Sad’s book, then, is on the history and tradition of “thought, imagery, and vocabulary that have given [the Orient] reality and presence in and for the West” (5).
In other words, Said concerns himself with “the internal consistency of Orientalism” despite or beyond any correspondence, or lack thereof, with a ‘real’ Orient” (5). Said also questions the epistemological model of surveillance, the “increasingly profitable dialectic of information and control” (36) implicit in the discourse of Orientalism. The object, in this scenario, is immediately rendered vulnerable to scrutiny and reduced to a frozen image; to a fundamentally ontological and stable fact over which the observer has authority because “[he] know[s] [the fact ] and it exists, in a sense, as [he] know(s) it” (32).
For Said, Orientalism contains the Orient within its representations, classifies Orientals in terms of Platonic essences which render them intelligible and identifiable, and constitutes, less a vision of reality or a mode of thought, than an irreducible constraint on thought with overwhelming political consequences. However, Edward Sad’s path-breaking work has been the focus of severe but insightful critiques; and the main contentious debate revolves around the ‘historical consistency of Orientalism’ and the essentialness monolithic vision of Said model.
In mapping out the political effects f the Orientals discourse, Orientalism has fallen within a delicate situation by honeymooning the sites of enunciation of Orientals discourse’, and by totaling the ongoing practices and processes of power. His essentialist, thus, inscribes “the occident”, In 67 words, “as a self-identical, fixed being which has always had an essence and a project, and imagination and a will”, while the Orient remains confined to being “no more than its silenced object” (Clifford 1988: 271).
Said, accordingly, focuses on the violence of Empire rather than on the resistance of the colonized; on the epistemic remigrations of the oppressor rather than on the resistance of the oppressed. His model has not only been criticized for theoretical and methodological shortcomings, but also for an incisive obliteration of the voice of the “very agents he is so keen on liberating” (Beefcake 1998: 32).