Orientalism, by Edward Said, is a controversial and extremely complex book that challenges the

standard conventions through which the West portrays the Orient. Said, a Palestinian American who
spent his childhood in British Palestine and Egypt, cites a plethora of reasons for assembling this
momentous piece of literature. First of all, he seeks to show that the Orient is not a static, monolithic,
and never-changing group, and that making such broad generalizations is harmful. In addition, he argues
against basic Western imperialism, against the idea of separating East from West, Oriental from
Occidental, through a humanistic approach, because all that fall under such grotesque categorizations
are ultimately human. Finally, Said desires to provoke debate, "widen the field of discussion," and
challenge commonly held views, such as the simplified version of the Orient promoted by the United
States media, for "in the demonization of an unknown enemy, for whom the label terrorist serves the
general purpose of keeping people stirred up and angry...media images can be exploited."

Throughout his book, Said defines "Orientalism" in several different ways. In essence, every time he
discusses a certain aspect of Orientalism, he ascribes it a specific meaning. Most generally, Said calls
Orientalism a "generic term...to describe the Western approach to the Orient." However, Orientalism
can also be the combined study of imperialism and culture. Including as many of the characteristics Said
mentions, perhaps Orientalism can be defined more decisively, for although he discusses dozens of
different types of Orientalism, a few common themes are omnipresent. Originating in the West,
Orientalism is the artificial categorization of an intellectually stagnant Orient that encompasses a vast
body of often degrading Western literature and justifies imperialist Western policies by promoting a
sense of inherent superiority over Orientals.

One must realize that such divisions have existed throughout human history. This process originates
from the basic human tendency to separate one's own group from others as soon as one encounters
another, different group. This was also done in Ancient Greece in regard to the Persian Empire and is
exactly what transpired when Islam collided with Christianity in the seventh century BC. "Islam became
an image...whose function was not so much to represent Islam in itself as to represent it for the
medieval Christian." This misrepresentation of Islam to the West was deemed adequate and
misconceptions like equating Muhammad to Christ were simply accepted. The view of the Orient, Said
argues, then stagnated, for unlike other fields of knowledge, Orientalism did not advance, and the
misconceptions and negative beliefs were thus engrained in Western thought. This lasted until 1798,
when Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt, founded the Institut d'Egypte, and thereby exposed Western
scholars to Oriental culture, which ultimately helped facilitate European imperialism of the 19th and
20th centuries. Arthur James Balfour, British politician during this time, claimed that Egypt needs British
rule because Egyptians could not rule themselves, while the infamously racist Lord Cromer goes so far as
to say that "subject races did not have it in them to know what was good for them." In Orientalism, Said
argues that these sentiments were largely imitated in American Orientalism after World War II. A great
example of this is Henry Kissinger, who separates the Pre-Newtonian Orient from the Post-Newtonian
West, and thereby argues that, "as thinkers, we are better off than they are." As such, the Orientalism
once practiced Cromer and Balfour has not changed.

Said asks an important question in regard to the effect of Orientalism. "Can one divide human reality, as
indeed human reality seems to be genuinely divided, into clearly different cultures, histories, traditions,
societies, even races, and survive the consequences humanly?" The answer to this question is no,
because of humanity's physical diversity. Difference, just as it causes the creation of distinctions, breeds
contempt, and drawing a distinct dividing line between two groups only aggravates this feeling of being
different, or in many cases, superior. This, in turn, exacerbates the issue of feeling hostile towards
"others," because once one feels superior to another group, the innate desire to control this inferior
group inevitably arises. Thus, the result of Orientalism, from a humanistic point of view, can only be
negative.

While Orientalism has successfully challenged common Orientalist views and created immense debate
among scholars, it is not without faults. For example, Said urges to stop the use of generalizations, but
he grossly lumps all Orientalists into one, treating them all in the same derogatory fashion. In addition,
his widespread use of French and German without translation is somewhat challenging to the unilingual
reader, which can negatively impact his book's common appeal. Finally, Said thoroughly criticizes
Orientalists' representation of the Orient, but fails to provide examples of scholars from the Orient to
convincingly prove that these Orientalist representations are in fact misrepresentations. In the end, it
would have been extremely useful and even more riveting if he had attempted to show his readers how
the Orient actually views itself.