Reductionism is the enemy of complexity, and the truth is nearly always complex. In an nthposition review of For Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies--a criticism of Edward Said's classic left-wing reductionist view of all pre-postmodern scholars of the East as "Orientalists"--I came across a series of statements that speak to all forms of ideologically-driven reductionism. In this instance, I am going to compare a left-wing form of reductionism, Orientalism, to a traditionally (but sadly in these days not exclusively) far-right form of reductionism I will term Semitomania: because anti-Semitism as a term is overused, and mania speaks to the core of the issue. Let us begin, and note the similarities.
But perhaps the most important factor [in Orientalism's success] is that its argument, easily and briefly summarised, has become familiar to many who haven’t actually read it, but to whom it seems perfectly plausible that Orientalism - meaning, roughly, Arabic and Islamic studies by Western scholars - has always been a colonising enterprise serving the interests of Western realpolitik, and furthermore that Said’s book has now famously exposed the racist power-play behind its claim to objective knowledge.
But perhaps the most important factor in Semitomania's success is that its argument, easily and briefly summarised, has become familiar to many who haven’t actually read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but to whom it seems perfectly plausible that Western civilization (plus or minus communism, capitalism, human rights and democracy) in general has always been a colonising enterprise serving the interests of Semitic realpolitik, and furthermore that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have now famously exposed the racist power-play behind its claim to universality.
Robert Irwin’s new book is a counterblast to Said that aims not simply to expose this analysis as glib and meretricious, but to offer a less partial history of Orientalism that reveals its practitioners as an odd succession of typically isolated, unworldly and often extremely eccentric scholars with, by and large, only the vaguest sense of the political context of their work and who, far from being cheerleaders for imperialism, were typically seen by their compatriots as untrustworthy apologists for Islam, more likely to undermine Western colonial ambitions than to abet them.
Jews are in fact an odd succession of typically isolated, unworldly and often extremely eccentric scholars with, by and large, only the vaguest sense of the political context of their lives and who, far from being cheerleaders for Western civilization (plus or minus communism, capitalism, human rights and democracy), were typically seen by their compatriots as untrustworthy apologists for [socialists, gays, blacks, immigrants, each other], more likely to undermine Western civilization's (plus or minus communism, capitalism, human rights and democracy's) ambitions than to abet them.
By the time that Irwin returns to confront Said directly at the end of the book, the reader is already there with the punchline: Said has done to the Orientalists precisely what he accuses them of doing to the Arabs, namely transforming them into a dehumanised Other with whom it is neither necessary nor indeed possible to empathise. Irwin’s densely-packed narrative has made it abundantly clear not only that Orientalists were (and still are) a group so diverse and idiosyncratic that to allocate them a single intent is meaningless, but also that the idea that their endeavours were an adjunct to imperialism collapses under serious scrutiny.
[Insert name of demagogue du jour] has done to the Jews precisely what he accuses them of doing to the [Germans, Arabs, Greeks, Ruthenians, East Turkestanis], namely transforming them into a dehumanised Other with whom it is neither necessary nor indeed possible to empathise. History makes abundantly clear that Jews were (and still are) a group so diverse and idiosyncratic that to allocate them a single intent is meaningless, and that the idea that their endeavours were an adjunct to [imperialism, communism, Westernization, Semiticization] collapses under serious scrutiny.
*
Now I realize my comparison too, is reductionist to an extent. Certainly Jews are not solely "an odd succession of typically isolated, unworldly and often extremely eccentric scholars"--I kept that in because it's funny and there's a note of truth to it. And there's the rub. There is a note of truth to most reductionist theories. Some Orientalists did serve the interests of imperialism. Some Jews do follow the pernicious stereotypes associated with them en masse. But, as Eric Hoffer put it in The True Believer: "Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth." And absolute truth is the enemy of free-thinking. A vast study of history, psychology, sociology, religion and other disciplines is required to understand the unique role Jews have played in Western civilization. But the lazy and the ideologically-bound have no time, patience or ability for this kind of rigorous study. In fact, it all seems so . . . Jewish doesn't it?
|