Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography—Spivak
In this article, Spivak enumerated numerous fragmentary theories about cognition, humanism, consciousness and woman through the deconstruction of historiography and the Subaltern Studies. Derrida’s works had latent influence on her. The narrative of historiography represents the transition from feudalism to capitalism. This kind of knowledge reveals the inauguration of politicization for the colonized. All critical concept-metaphors would indicate force and power. Spivak thought Guha radicalized the historiography of colonial India, and she argued that to judge the failure and success in the terms of level of consciousness is too simple for the practice of the collective. For the elite historiography, the relation between manipulation and culture replaced the relation of consciousness and culture in the case of the subaltern. In acts of consciousness, the alienation is irreducible, thus, elite historiography, the bourgeois nationalist account and re-inscription by the Subaltern Studies group are all operated by alienation.
As a female critic, her theories have a distinct feminist flavor. The study of the subject-deprivation of the female and the female subaltern consciousness is important as a derived important question. Through the criticism and analysis of social change described in the historiography caused by economic and class relations, Spivak criticized the dual hegemony of imperialist discourse and male discourse which has marginalized female consciousness. There is an affinity between the Subaltern Studies group and subalternity, the perspective of historians and authors is underlined here. Despite of this affinity, Spivak believed “woman is the neglected syntagm of the semiosis of subalternity of insurgency”. Woman is the one who is always giving and sacrificing herself. Spivak suggested that the woman plays an important role in the “caste-solidarity” and consanguinal patrilineage. Especially the urban sub-proletarian female became the paradigmatic subject of the configuration of the International Division of Labor. Besides, Spivak also revealed the truth that the female subaltern is always silent in the historiography. Sexual difference is excluded from the Subaltern Studies, it seems the group don’t have to analyze the figure of woman. Authors of the historiography, the main part of the insurgence and ideological construction are male, the consciousness and subjectivity of female became a marginal issue. Under the gender discrimination and the oppression of class and race, the subordinate status and subaltern identity of the female were not being taken seriously, women are drained of their proper identity—they cannot represent themselves; they must be represented—like the epigraphs Said uses at the beginning of Orientalism. Moreover, Spivak also argued Orientalism of Said also remains in the perspective of a male author.
As for the function of female in the Subaltern Studies and the Insurgency, this “gendered subaltern” introduced by Spivak has a new female perspective, it brought a new direction for the research of post-colonization and the Subaltern Studies.
Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography—Spivak
In this article, Spivak enumerated numerous fragmentary theories about cognition, humanism, consciousness and woman through the deconstruction of historiography and the Subaltern Studies. Derrida’s works had latent influence on her. The narrative of historiography represents the transition from feudalism to capitalism. This kind of knowledge reveals the inauguration of politicization for the colonized. All critical concept-metaphors would indicate force and power. Spivak thought Guha radicalized the historiography of colonial India, and she argued that to judge the failure and success in the terms of level of consciousness is too simple for the practice of the collective. For the elite historiography, the relation between manipulation and culture replaced the relation of consciousness and culture in the case of the subaltern. In acts of consciousness, the alienation is irreducible, thus, elite historiography, the bourgeois nationalist account and re-inscription by the Subaltern Studies group are all operated by alienation.
As a female critic, her theories have a distinct feminist flavor. The study of the subject-deprivation of the female and the female subaltern consciousness is important as a derived important question. Through the criticism and analysis of social change described in the historiography caused by economic and class relations, Spivak criticized the dual hegemony of imperialist discourse and male discourse which has marginalized female consciousness. There is an affinity between the Subaltern Studies group and subalternity, the perspective of historians and authors is underlined here. Despite of this affinity, Spivak believed “woman is the neglected syntagm of the semiosis of subalternity of insurgency”. Woman is the one who is always giving and sacrificing herself. Spivak suggested that the woman plays an important role in the “caste-solidarity” and consanguinal patrilineage. Especially the urban sub-proletarian female became the paradigmatic subject of the configuration of the International Division of Labor. Besides, Spivak also revealed the truth that the female subaltern is always silent in the historiography. Sexual difference is excluded from the Subaltern Studies, it seems the group don’t have to analyze the figure of woman. Authors of the historiography, the main part of the insurgence and ideological construction are male, the consciousness and subjectivity of female became a marginal issue. Under the gender discrimination and the oppression of class and race, the subordinate status and subaltern identity of the female were not being taken seriously, women are drained of their proper identity—they cannot represent themselves; they must be represented—like the epigraphs Said uses at the beginning of Orientalism. Moreover, Spivak also argued Orientalism of Said also remains in the perspective of a male author.
As for the function of female in the Subaltern Studies and the Insurgency, this “gendered subaltern” introduced by Spivak has a new female perspective, it brought a new direction for the research of post-colonization and the Subaltern Studies.
The Prose of Counter-Insurgency–Guha
In view of the post-colonial elite ideology in the historiography and the absence of the subaltern masses in the historical narrative, the subaltern studies are in purpose of remodeling the historical image of the subaltern masses and restoring the sheltered history through the analysis of the overlook of subaltern history.
Guha believes the insurgency, in fact, is a motivated and conscious undertaking on the part of the rural masses. There is a blind spot in historical discourse, the historiography neglected the consciousness of the masses, that means the subjectivity of the reflex action are not reflected in historical narratives. The factors of economic and political deprivations are just external causes, these objective facts are not related to the rebellious peasants’ consciousness—their instinct for survival. However, on the one hand, indigenous elites denied that peasantry insurgence is a nationalist struggle; on the other hand, they have to admit that peasantry insurgence is part of national independence and liberation movements, this is the plight of nationalist discourse. Their solution to this problem is to admit their activities but deprive them of their subjectivity and conscious initiative. The Subaltern Studies group redefined the notion of “subalternity” and raised a strategy to reappear the consciousness and subjectivity of the masses.
Guha classified the historical discourses into three phrases according to chronology and their affinity with the official statements, dismantling elitist historical narrative and rereading historiography helped Guha formulate the strategy and keynote of the subaltern studies:
Primary discourse can be foreshortened and without a sequel. Compared to the primary discourse, the second discourse is more liberal but because of the identity of authors committed to colonialism, the neutrality is hard to be guaranteed. This genre of discourse concerned official interests and the beautified functions of colonization, it is a type of colonialist knowledge which gave service to the power of the regime of the Empire. It is noticeable that the perspective of the author of the instrument of national oppression is far from being impartial. As a datum which registered events of the Empire, these second discourses had nothing to do with the illumination of the consciousness of the insurgents. Neither the tertiary discourse indicated the importance of consciousness. The third one had another ideological orientation and it is of academic values and contemporary relevance from a viewpoint of understanding and supporting the rebels. Through the causes and motives of the uprising can help find out colonist solutions to suppress the insurgency. The tertiary discourse is more profound more the second discourse, it criticized the colonialism itself as the radical cause of insurgency, and took the India bourgeoisie as the real subject. However, the local administration is regarded by the second discourse as the main reason—a system of exploitation. They all avoid the status and the importance of consciousness.
How to define the function of religion is another important problem in the prose of counter-insurgency. Is the religion only a means to arouse enthusiasm of the backward masses and then manipulate them? Is the religion just a tool of propaganda? Did the leadership of insurgency who had the elite consciousness not believe in Messianism? Anyhow, the religion is still a great breakthrough point to illustrate the function of consciousness in the uprising that the historiography failed to comprehend. The combination of sectarianism and militancy always has a significant effect in the rural history.
The Prose of Counter-Insurgency–Guha
In view of the post-colonial elite ideology in the historiography and the absence of the subaltern masses in the historical narrative, the subaltern studies are in purpose of remodeling the historical image of the subaltern masses and restoring the sheltered history through the analysis of the overlook of subaltern history.
Guha believes the insurgency, in fact, is a motivated and conscious undertaking on the part of the rural masses. There is a blind spot in historical discourse, the historiography neglected the consciousness of the masses, that means the subjectivity of the reflex action are not reflected in historical narratives. The factors of economic and political deprivations are just external causes, these objective facts are not related to the rebellious peasants’ consciousness—their instinct for survival. However, on the one hand, indigenous elites denied that peasantry insurgence is a nationalist struggle; on the other hand, they have to admit that peasantry insurgence is part of national independence and liberation movements, this is the plight of nationalist discourse. Their solution to this problem is to admit their activities but deprive them of their subjectivity and conscious initiative. The Subaltern Studies group redefined the notion of “subalternity” and raised a strategy to reappear the consciousness and subjectivity of the masses.
Guha classified the historical discourses into three phrases according to chronology and their affinity with the official statements, dismantling elitist historical narrative and rereading historiography helped Guha formulate the strategy and keynote of the subaltern studies:
Primary discourse can be foreshortened and without a sequel. Compared to the primary discourse, the second discourse is more liberal but because of the identity of authors committed to colonialism, the neutrality is hard to be guaranteed. This genre of discourse concerned official interests and the beautified functions of colonization, it is a type of colonialist knowledge which gave service to the power of the regime of the Empire. It is noticeable that the perspective of the author of the instrument of national oppression is far from being impartial. As a datum which registered events of the Empire, these second discourses had nothing to do with the illumination of the consciousness of the insurgents. Neither the tertiary discourse indicated the importance of consciousness. The third one had another ideological orientation and it is of academic values and contemporary relevance from a viewpoint of understanding and supporting the rebels. Through the causes and motives of the uprising can help find out colonist solutions to suppress the insurgency. The tertiary discourse is more profound more the second discourse, it criticized the colonialism itself as the radical cause of insurgency, and took the India bourgeoisie as the real subject. However, the local administration is regarded by the second discourse as the main reason—a system of exploitation. They all avoid the status and the importance of consciousness.
How to define the function of religion is another important problem in the prose of counter-insurgency. Is the religion only a means to arouse enthusiasm of the backward masses and then manipulate them? Is the religion just a tool of propaganda? Did the leadership of insurgency who had the elite consciousness not believe in Messianism? Anyhow, the religion is still a great breakthrough point to illustrate the function of consciousness in the uprising that the historiography failed to comprehend. The combination of sectarianism and militancy always has a significant effect in the rural history.
Guha
In The Prose of Counter-Insurgency Ranajit Guha explores the way in which depicted peasant insurgency acts in XIX century India attributing the nature of the uprisings to factors outside the peasant’s conscious will. Guha states that in the way that these revolts are depicted, it gives the impression that they’re a natural consequence of a series of situations that in a primitive way alter the life of the peasant but never as a planned, mindful act. He then proceeds to explain the three types of discourses that can be found regarding the uprisings and how these discourses blatantly incorporate the subaltern only as an object that can serve to the construction of the hegemonic discourse.
Each of the three types of discourse have their particularities and their different levels of “objectivity” because they are written at different moments in time and, in the cases of secondary and tertiary discourses, the actions and previous texts are approached by people that did not have a direct link with the action. Even with this personal and chronological separation, the discourses seem to be highly permeated by colonialist or nationalist ideas that indicate and interpret history from their own point of view, even if their trying to avoid it like in tertiary discourses.
It is very clear, at least to me, that history is made by the people in power in order to legitimize themselves and create an Other that serves this legitimization, that is why on same action can be understood as the “upraising of peasants in the name of better life conditions” or as the “revolt of barbaric peasants intoxicated by religious fervor” depending on which side of the action is telling the story, the problem is that only one of those versions becomes official and the other one is silenced.
What Guha doesn’t explain clearly is how one would be able to understand or even to address the consciousness of the subaltern and how one can if not part of subalternity avoid inaccurate representations. That is, one of the main characteristics of the subaltern is that he doesn’t have the means to raise his voice because he’s oppressed, there is a more powerful voice silencing his. So the only way for him to make himself heard would be if he won power, in which moment he would stop being a subaltern, or through someone who is part of the group in power who decides to serve as a “microphone”- to continue with the voice metaphor-; to me this inevitably falls into the category of representation. In this way the subaltern is probably portrayed in a less subjective manner but he’s still “portrayed”, “represented”, “depicted”, he still has to go through the filter of the dominant; the dominant is still in control.
Foucault & Said
What is an Author?
In his essay What is an Author? Michele Foucault makes a direct reference to, although this is probably more than a reference but rather a reading of, Roland Barthes famous essay Death of the Author. It seems to me that what Foucault undertakes in this text is essentially a deconstruction of the ‘death of the author’. He is in principle not questioning or saying the proposition by Barthes or other critics and philosopher as he says are wrong or inadequate, but rather saying that reality proves that we are far from a real death or disappearance of the author; at least theoretically one cannot subtract him from the study of the text because the author has leaves traces in it that are inescapable at the time of critique. Perhaps the author is dead or has died, and our trying to find THE meaning of the text within him can stop, but not his specter, at least this is how I understood this. This specter is what Foucault calls the author function. Before his death, the author needs to be defined and from that perhaps a horizon for the real death can be seen or hypothesized. This ‘author function’ basically transcends the ideas ‘the death of the author’ and the notions by witch this was signified.
As I read this I thought again of what it is to leave out who the author of a particular text is and thought that when we look at the form of a text, we are looking at the arrangement that someone made. The ‘montage’ that they are making with, yes, as Foucault and the other philosophers think, words and discourses that they did not invent. For instance, the paratextual signs that are included in a novel or a book; for instance the tittle makes reference to someone’s choosing, that, at least as I see it, was the authors, cold be the editors, doing. If an editor changes a tittle we will criticize him for ‘altering’ the original text. This questions his authority and places it into the real author. Another point I thought of was that a narrative will have a ‘narrator’ or a poem a ‘poetic voice’. This device has an author function. Perhaps the author is not one which holds the meaning of a text of literature but just one that arranged the language in a way that we find interesting to study. (Lazarillo de Tormes: why have researchers and critics tried so hard to find out who its author is?)
Orientalism
Edward Said’s book Orientalism is an interesting study of knowledge as power. He situates the knowledge the West has about the Orient as that which intrinsically expresses a hierarchy; a division. The division itself, of the naming, west/east, occident/orient, is allowing the possibility of difference, hence hierarchy; and hegemony as Said demonstrates. The parts of these binaries are charged, or packed, with different connotations or meanings that will be interpreted as us vs. them. The interesting part as Said points out, is that all of these connotations are a mere construction, even that of the west itself. Itself… This concept is of importance. In the history of the relations between west and east nothing stands as a symbol of equality. These two geographical areas are not on equal terms; one stands higher than the other. Said traces the instances of colonization of the Orient by the West and says that in the later there is also a correlative undertaking in culture. He gets to the position that acknowledges a reciprocal feeding of interpretations of the Orient, between the political discourse and the cultural discourse. Itself… or rather just ‘self’. Who’s self? The West’s self. At the heart of the practice of Orientalism there is a construction more of this self than that of the other. According to Said Orientalism tells us very little about the Orient, it rather tells us about occident. So what is known about the other is constructed, it is fictionalized, to legitimize the construction of ourselves, the West, and legitimize our superiority, our legitimate and godly power over the East. So knowledge about someone can give you power over them; knowing them better than they know themselves is the key to maintaining hegemony over a region or a certain people.
Cultural hegemony is basically how Said is pointing out the overall project of western culture and its creation of Orientalism. He says that the Orient is not just a simple fantasy but rather a reality in western culture. That is to say, the fiction, or fantasy as Said calls it, is not experienced as unreal but as reality; perceived as the reality of the Orient. Said points this out very precisely with his example of the French journalist that references his knowledge of the Orient to Chateaubriand and Nerval as the real Orient instead of what he was seeing and living himself. So, when cultural hegemony has been consolidated, political domination will be an easy task.
Foucault & Said
What is an Author?
In his essay What is an Author? Michele Foucault makes a direct reference to, although this is probably more than a reference but rather a reading of, Roland Barthes famous essay Death of the Author. It seems to me that what Foucault undertakes in this text is essentially a deconstruction of the ‘death of the author’. He is in principle not questioning or saying the proposition by Barthes or other critics and philosopher as he says are wrong or inadequate, but rather saying that reality proves that we are far from a real death or disappearance of the author; at least theoretically one cannot subtract him from the study of the text because the author has leaves traces in it that are inescapable at the time of critique. Perhaps the author is dead or has died, and our trying to find THE meaning of the text within him can stop, but not his specter, at least this is how I understood this. This specter is what Foucault calls the author function. Before his death, the author needs to be defined and from that perhaps a horizon for the real death can be seen or hypothesized. This ‘author function’ basically transcends the ideas ‘the death of the author’ and the notions by witch this was signified.
As I read this I thought again of what it is to leave out who the author of a particular text is and thought that when we look at the form of a text, we are looking at the arrangement that someone made. The ‘montage’ that they are making with, yes, as Foucault and the other philosophers think, words and discourses that they did not invent. For instance, the paratextual signs that are included in a novel or a book; for instance the tittle makes reference to someone’s choosing, that, at least as I see it, was the authors, cold be the editors, doing. If an editor changes a tittle we will criticize him for ‘altering’ the original text. This questions his authority and places it into the real author. Another point I thought of was that a narrative will have a ‘narrator’ or a poem a ‘poetic voice’. This device has an author function. Perhaps the author is not one which holds the meaning of a text of literature but just one that arranged the language in a way that we find interesting to study. (Lazarillo de Tormes: why have researchers and critics tried so hard to find out who its author is?)
Orientalism
Edward Said’s book Orientalism is an interesting study of knowledge as power. He situates the knowledge the West has about the Orient as that which intrinsically expresses a hierarchy; a division. The division itself, of the naming, west/east, occident/orient, is allowing the possibility of difference, hence hierarchy; and hegemony as Said demonstrates. The parts of these binaries are charged, or packed, with different connotations or meanings that will be interpreted as us vs. them. The interesting part as Said points out, is that all of these connotations are a mere construction, even that of the west itself. Itself… This concept is of importance. In the history of the relations between west and east nothing stands as a symbol of equality. These two geographical areas are not on equal terms; one stands higher than the other. Said traces the instances of colonization of the Orient by the West and says that in the later there is also a correlative undertaking in culture. He gets to the position that acknowledges a reciprocal feeding of interpretations of the Orient, between the political discourse and the cultural discourse. Itself… or rather just ‘self’. Who’s self? The West’s self. At the heart of the practice of Orientalism there is a construction more of this self than that of the other. According to Said Orientalism tells us very little about the Orient, it rather tells us about occident. So what is known about the other is constructed, it is fictionalized, to legitimize the construction of ourselves, the West, and legitimize our superiority, our legitimate and godly power over the East. So knowledge about someone can give you power over them; knowing them better than they know themselves is the key to maintaining hegemony over a region or a certain people.
Cultural hegemony is basically how Said is pointing out the overall project of western culture and its creation of Orientalism. He says that the Orient is not just a simple fantasy but rather a reality in western culture. That is to say, the fiction, or fantasy as Said calls it, is not experienced as unreal but as reality; perceived as the reality of the Orient. Said points this out very precisely with his example of the French journalist that references his knowledge of the Orient to Chateaubriand and Nerval as the real Orient instead of what he was seeing and living himself. So, when cultural hegemony has been consolidated, political domination will be an easy task.
Said and Foucault
Said
Orientalism it is one of those text that are part of the intellectual canon in humanities nowadays. This text had a huge impact in the critical and cultural studies in general because propose an idea that still today is hard to understand (and to believe) for many people. This is a text abut the power of culture. And also, about the power of a hegemonic culture, the “Western Culture”. The main point of this text is the “Orientalism”, not “the Orient” as the author points at the beginning of his book. The main issue is to present how did “the west” represented and appropriated “the east”. “Orientalism” is a name that was selected from the people in the west to talk about “the other” who was not them.
I found a very interesting idea at the beginning of this text that I really like. The issue that “orient” would not be an idea. Every time we speak about representations and the ways that a dominant culture represents another one, we usually think that we are facing some kind of “idea”. There is, in this case, a “real” reference for “the Orient” that we can’t say doesn’t exist. The thing is that the link between “Orientalism” and “Orient” is a relation made by the strength of power of “the west”.
I would like to stop in one final point. The notion of author. Even when it is not the main topic of his discussion, Said refers to this problem in a few pages. He says nowadays there are some discussion about the relation of text and context. He cites the case of philosophy where many scholars just say “Locke”, “Hume”, etc., without taking into account the context where these authors were involved. For his argument, this idea doesn’t work. If we split the text to its author and context we miss the relations of power (the main topic in his text) that are under them. So, he ends this point saying that “investigations must formulate the nature of that connection in the specific context of the study, the subject matter, and it’s historical circumstances” (15).
Foucault
It is impossible to read this text and not recall Barthes’s text “Death of the Author”. Foucault mentioned it without name when he says “criticism and philosophy took note of the disappearance –or death- of the author some time ago” (103). But, here, the issue is not if the author is dead or alive, the main issue is, as the title says, “What is an Author?” Even when this may sound obvious, we must know what an author is before we kill him.
I don’t think that Foucault is “against” the figure of the author. He starts saying first of all that this is a very complex concept and the there are big varieties depending when we use the word. For him, the author doesn’t mean “the final signification” of a text. It is important to say that Foucault doesn’t use the word “text” very often, as Barthes does, he prefers to use one of his favourite concepts, discourse. In Foucault’s argument, author is not the meaning, there is, in same way, “something” that it is “out” of the text and whose functions are related to the existence modes and the circulation of the discourses. So, the author is not “someone/thing” that pre existed the text, the author is just a function, not a meaning.
For me was very interesting the distinction he makes between any author of a book, and those authors who created a tradition. Authors like Freud and Marx allows a wide variety of perspectives and reinterpretations. And every time reading may be reinterpreted. The case of the science discourse is quiet difference, as he pointed. If we read and re-read Galileo we are not going to be able to transform our era and the way we understand our time and life. But we do can rethink our time if we re-read Marx’s texts.
Said and Foucault
Said
Orientalism it is one of those text that are part of the intellectual canon in humanities nowadays. This text had a huge impact in the critical and cultural studies in general because propose an idea that still today is hard to understand (and to believe) for many people. This is a text abut the power of culture. And also, about the power of a hegemonic culture, the “Western Culture”. The main point of this text is the “Orientalism”, not “the Orient” as the author points at the beginning of his book. The main issue is to present how did “the west” represented and appropriated “the east”. “Orientalism” is a name that was selected from the people in the west to talk about “the other” who was not them.
I found a very interesting idea at the beginning of this text that I really like. The issue that “orient” would not be an idea. Every time we speak about representations and the ways that a dominant culture represents another one, we usually think that we are facing some kind of “idea”. There is, in this case, a “real” reference for “the Orient” that we can’t say doesn’t exist. The thing is that the link between “Orientalism” and “Orient” is a relation made by the strength of power of “the west”.
I would like to stop in one final point. The notion of author. Even when it is not the main topic of his discussion, Said refers to this problem in a few pages. He says nowadays there are some discussion about the relation of text and context. He cites the case of philosophy where many scholars just say “Locke”, “Hume”, etc., without taking into account the context where these authors were involved. For his argument, this idea doesn’t work. If we split the text to its author and context we miss the relations of power (the main topic in his text) that are under them. So, he ends this point saying that “investigations must formulate the nature of that connection in the specific context of the study, the subject matter, and it’s historical circumstances” (15).
Foucault
It is impossible to read this text and not recall Barthes’s text “Death of the Author”. Foucault mentioned it without name when he says “criticism and philosophy took note of the disappearance –or death- of the author some time ago” (103). But, here, the issue is not if the author is dead or alive, the main issue is, as the title says, “What is an Author?” Even when this may sound obvious, we must know what an author is before we kill him.
I don’t think that Foucault is “against” the figure of the author. He starts saying first of all that this is a very complex concept and the there are big varieties depending when we use the word. For him, the author doesn’t mean “the final signification” of a text. It is important to say that Foucault doesn’t use the word “text” very often, as Barthes does, he prefers to use one of his favourite concepts, discourse. In Foucault’s argument, author is not the meaning, there is, in same way, “something” that it is “out” of the text and whose functions are related to the existence modes and the circulation of the discourses. So, the author is not “someone/thing” that pre existed the text, the author is just a function, not a meaning.
For me was very interesting the distinction he makes between any author of a book, and those authors who created a tradition. Authors like Freud and Marx allows a wide variety of perspectives and reinterpretations. And every time reading may be reinterpreted. The case of the science discourse is quiet difference, as he pointed. If we read and re-read Galileo we are not going to be able to transform our era and the way we understand our time and life. But we do can rethink our time if we re-read Marx’s texts.
Said: Orientals and Aristocrats
Jefferson sent a the antlers of a moose to Buffon in Europe to prove that the flora and fauna of the Americas was not degenerate. It would be interesting to see whether the bias of any culture is always against the “Other”, whatever the evidence. In any case, it is clear that eminent naturalists such as Buffon did not display any of the good logic that the British imperialists attributed to Europeans in their conquest of the East.
Said digs deep into the prejudices of imperialistic culture — a very wholesome enterprise in the sense that it shows how the claim of logic is invariably the first sign of lunacy.
I do want to defend the British, but only so that I can better underline what seems to be a lacuna in Said’s project. The main caveat for the British is that whatever supremist discourse the political leaders of imperialism may have had — with no scrap of political correctness, of course — they would say the same thing about their own people (and even today, will say the same about the other people of Europe — see the British nationalist discourse). Said does not deal in any direct way with the fact that Great Britain was then and continues to be a royalist political system where one part of the society is considered the natural ruling class of another part. When contrasting Europeans to Orientals, Balfour would preferentially contrast the mass of Orientals to the aristocratic element of British Empire. Though he may include the mass of Englishmen in his parliamentary speech, I would be surprised if he did not consider the lower class of English society as just as inferior as Orientals.
The way upper and lower are used in the Orientalist discourse is of course unique, and certainly more extreme than the discourse that justifies a hereditary ruling aristocracy in England. But it seems important to understand how British aristocracy is promoted and how the same discourse might be recycled throughout the Empire. Can there be Orientalism without aristocracy? And even when the proclaimed superiority of the British is that parliamentary system that ensures self-rule?
