Said, Orientalism, the exotic 'Other'

[anon_1990]

Hey guys, if anyone knows anything about orientalism and the exotic 'other' can you help clarify some things for me?

I'm writing a dissertation and in it I'm talking about the social exclusion that some characters face in British Asian novels. I've basically said that they are viewed by society as the 'Other' and therefore marginalized from mainstream society. Basically, society imposes difference on a character simply because of the colour of their skin, but actually they aren't that different. By doing this however, these 'Othered' characters are separated from mainstream society.

Can someone tell me if this links to Orientalsim and the exotic 'other', or if the 'other' is the wrong term to use for what I'm trying to say?

Thanks!

[PeterL]

You could say that it does, but "otherness" is more about a general "us vs them" way of thinking. Said's problem was that he saw himself as oppressed, so he saw everyone as an "other". If it might help you get a degree, then go with it, then use it as the begininning point for humor about people who have minor paranoia.

[JBI]

You could say that it does, but "otherness" is more about a general "us vs them" way of thinking. Said's problem was that he saw himself as oppressed, so he saw everyone as an "other". If it might help you get a degree, then go with it, then use it as the begininning point for humor about people who have minor paranoia.
I don't understand what you just said, about Said seeing everyone as an "other."

Basically the theory is simple, but complicated by 200 extra pages of a book with case examples.

British people in particular, as well as French people, and to a lesser extent Germans and other Europeans, go into the "Orient" which, in English English means more or less the Middle East, and as a greater category, the "near" east, and create an impression, and then seek to hammer out the impression, and keep it there. So, for instance, the scholars that come with Napoleon all try to "understand" the occupied people in Egypt, and in the process, they create a mythology of them, a typecast, and stick it in time. The same typecast is then applied to all the people, regardless of it not particularly applying, and then, by extension, applying to all people down the road, with motifs resurfacing.

That in general is what the book is about, all of which is contained within the 50 page introduction. The theory is rather simple, and for the focus on "others" you would probably better off with Franz Fanon. Either way though, the application of the theory is what I guess you are going at.

So we take the notion of a typcast, which, by extension implies everything said about these people, for better or for worse (some of it is true, some of it is not true, some of it is half true,some of it is limited) and then you apply it to Asian people. You basically give them a set of characteristics, and then judge them by it, so, for instance, Chinese people are supposed to eat rice (despite northern Chinese people eating wheat predominantly), Japanese people are supposed to be well mannered, shy, mechanical people who have a high capacity for being abused (as well as an erotic subservient female quality, as seen in movies like James Bond).

If you want to apply it to India then, for instance, you basically look at the following - what was the first impression, and what is its lasting effect on the understanding of an occupied people? What is what we call "Indianess" and how does it effect policy, judgement, and understanding of all that is implied and contained within?

[PeterL]

As I understand it, Said had some problems that he seems to have painted on other people, because he wanted to think that he was a wonderful person. I understand that later on he eased off on the bogus idea that Western people looked down on Oriental people, because his emotional problems had decreased.

Or to be more succinct, The idea of Orientalism was simply a reflection of Said's emotional problems.

[JBI]

As I understand it, Said had some problems that he seems to have painted on other people, because he wanted to think that he was a wonderful person. I understand that later on he eased off on the bogus idea that Western people looked down on Oriental people, because his emotional problems had decreased.

Or to be more succinct, The idea of Orientalism was simply a reflection of Said's emotional problems.

Where did you get that? I have read much of Said, and this never pops up. It seems like a rather poorly crafted ad hominem with no real historical or critical basis.

Have you even read the book? much less his other 2 volumes that he wrote later, which follow the same idea as case examples, and then his 1995 forward which addresses the reactions to the book, and then finally the criticism he wrote about various English readers? Where does this idea come from? it has no real critical basis, and much less, it is arguably useless to this discussion of this text, and by extension, the first poster's request for help.


As I see it, someone has some weird grudge.

[PeterL]

Where did you get that? I have read much of Said, and this never pops up. It seems like a rather poorly crafted ad hominem with no real historical or critical basis.


You probably should do you research. I have no use for your ad hominem.

[JBI]

You probably should do you research. I have no use for your ad hominem.

:p I have read the books.

[ralfyman]

From what I remember, by "Other" Said was referring to the way by which the West viewed the East as exotic and in the periphery, with Orientalism being the result of this view. This might be different from social exclusion.