Edward Saïd’s Orientalism is one of the most foundational texts in postcolonial theory. Saïd argues that the notion of the “Orient” was initially a European construction. He explains that historically, the Orient was not defined according to its ontological characteristics but instead based on preconceived notions and ideas advanced by Europeans (that the Orient was a strange and exotic place etc.) in order to justify colonization and the domination of the Orient. In other words, Europeans had invented the concept of the Orient in such a way to assert the superiority of Western culture to all other cultures. Even though such ideas are false, they were perpetuated over time via European journalists and scholars who visited, studied and wrote about the Orient. According to Saïd, it is through such pejorative discourse that the European culture had defined and empowered itself.

This argument highlights; however, that contrary to what the European culture posited, the Orient has a history, a tradition, a culture and thus, is part of a reality that cannot simply be constructed for personal gain. As Saïd would say, the Orient is not “an inert fact of nature,” it has been consciously created by man. Therefore, one cannot come to study or understand the Orient without taking into account everything surrounding this culture, such as the relationship of power between Orient and Occident. But since the Orient has always been “Othered” by the Western world, a true discourse on the Orient has never really existed. Ironically, the discourse on the Orient is rooted in the Western world. For this reason, we should not accept such discourse since Oriental identity is purely founded upon relations of power.

As cliché as it may seem, Saïd is insinuating the idea that power is knowledge. In this case, since the Western world possesses power, it is only them who claim the right to construct knowledge. This inverted cliché suggests that the knowledge that we acquire is often times simply a construction. When a French historian travels to Lebanon, the story he tells about the history of Lebanon is nothing more than a construction that he transmits based on what he sees. He will thus transmit the history of Lebanon for a French audience but what he will write will be imposed on Lebanese people as a reality. This is precisely the problem since a simple story has now become an imposed reality. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that since knowledge is a construction, it is also constantly changing. Although Saïd is a scholar, he will never fully become rooted in the Western world, but rather always remain between both worlds. He sees how the Western world constructs the Orient and vice versa.

One of the problems that arise is that people from the Orient may actually begin to believe the definition that the Western world makes of them to the point where they integrate this erroneous discourse and refuse their own identity. This is sometimes the case in France where minorities of Algerian or African descent will no longer recognize their cultural roots to avoid social exclusion. This is nonetheless a manifestation of power since the dominant discourse imposes itself on a victim and this person will no longer identify with him or herself but instead, simply disappear in the vast majority. The possibility of hybridity is thus completely refused since only the Western discourse is considered as veritable.

But although there are many Western texts that discuss the Orient, these texts should never be considered as being natural or absolute. We should always be skeptical and mindful of Western constructions of the Orient. If we think of the plethora of wars that have occurred in the Middle East, for example, I would argue that these wars have never been at all about peacekeeping (especially when the US is involved). The latter is simply being used as a pretext to justify the domination and appropriation of resources of these countries. Just like the Western world has mythicized the Orient in order to mask a desire for colonization, it continues today to find whatever reasons it can to justify imperialist aims. This is why Saïd’s work is so influential: the implications and questions that it raises continue to be very pertinent today.