Introduction - The University of Michigan Press

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 u.s. orientalisms body of the nation depends on an evocation of India as a dematerialized and disembodied spirit or soul; the investment in materiality and body is USAmerican, while the association with spirit is Oriental. Second, as my analyses demonstrate, the autonomy and wholeness of the imperial body is highly fragile, dependent on the raced/gendered Other that it presumes to control. Here, I am guided by Judith Butler’s attempts to resituate femininity out of the paradigm of dominated/othered and by Homi K. Bhabha’s theorizations on the stereotype as an “ambivalent, contradictory mode of representation,” based as much on anxiety as on assertion, the enunciation of a split subject. 14 Third, many U.S. Orientalist texts challenge heterosexist presumptions because the Oriental encounter opens up possibilities of homoerotic gendering that cannot be freely articulated at home. 15 My second major departure from Said is from the idea of Orientalism as an unchanging discourse. Most obviously, the construction of the Orient changes according to different contexts, and Said himself acknowledges that his focus is largely on the Muslim Near and Middle East. As my study demonstrates, the parodic U.S. Orientalism of the Near East, as exemplified in the works of such writers as DeForest and Cummins in the mid-nineteenth century, is very different from Emerson’s reverent Indological Orientalism during the same period. Similarly, the nationalistic fervor generated by the capture and enslavement of U.S. sailors in Algiers enters the representation of the Orient in the drama and novels set in Algiers in a different manner than does Egyptomania and missionary activity in the Near Eastern Orientalist literature a generation later. In departing from Said in these two crucial areas, however, I do not simply embrace ambivalence and hybridity apolitically and ahistorically, as universally applicable. 16 The major contribution of Said’s Orientalism was to make it impossible to think about Western constructions of the Orient in purely spiritual, philosophical, or symbolic terms and, by analogy, to make it problematic to deal with any construction of an Other without thinking about relations of power. To simply ignore such relations and questions of hegemony is, as Ella Shohat has suggested, to “sanctify the fait accompli of colonial violence.” 17 I thus use the term Orientalism throughout this study to call attention to the historicity of U.S. literary writings about various Orients and their participation in raced discourses of empire in the nineteenth century, not to suggest an unchanging, seamless, repetitive tradition. The three different Oriental sites explored in this study—Algerian, Egyptological,
introduction 7 and Indic—generate a wide variety of concerns within the omnivorous framework of imperial ideology; examining them together, however, points to the sheer magnitude of U.S. literary Orientalisms for a century prior to the 1890s. My use of Said’s and Foucault’s terms in the plural forms Orientalisms and discourses also indicates my need to open up these terms to the possibility both of different kinds of literary Orientalisms and of different kinds of discourses on the Orient. For example, although Poe and DeForest both critique the idea of mastering the Orient through Egyptology, Poe’s stories demonstrate the destructive consequences of this mastery tragically, while DeForest’s novel does so comically. Similarly, although many appeals for increasing trade with Asia were made on the grounds of national power, missionary appeals made on similar grounds were far more concerned with representing the wretchedness of Asia than were political diatribes. Because the idea of discourse has so often been linked with disciplinary practice and repression alone, it is important to clarify Foucault’s use of the term discourse, its relationship to this book, and the departure of this book from some of Foucault’s formulations. In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault explains the idea of discursive formation. Any type of statements, irrespective of the conventional fields they belong to or the time period when they were written, form a field of discourse if they refer to the same object. 18 Unlike conventional history, however, which unfolds as an oeuvre of collective statements or philosophy where statements are reconstituted as chains of inference, a discursive formation is linked together by systems of dispersion. 19 My pluralization of discourse emphasizes the differences that Foucault himself recognizes within a field of discourse. Throughout his career, Foucault remained aware of the ubiquity of the technologies of power through which laws, cultural values, and sexual practices were generated. His effort in Discipline and Punish was to present a “genealogy of the present scientifico-legal complex from which the power to punish derives its bases.” 20 In an interview in 1982, Foucault described his role as one of showing people “that they are much freer than they feel, that people accept as truth, as evidence, some themes which have been built up at a certain moment during history, and that this so-called evidence can be criticized and destroyed.” 21 Resistance, in other words, can come from the act of strategically historicizing discursive formations, a strategy I use in examining literary discourses on the Orient. Despite Foucault’s own massive studies of the juridical system and
Page 1 and 2: Introduction: A Cultural Aesthetics
Page 3 and 4: introduction 3 Incarnated as the go
Page 5: introduction 5 teaching it, settlin
Page 9 and 10: introduction 9 tensive with the beg
Page 11 and 12: introduction 11 Mosse’s analyses
Page 13 and 14: introduction 13 Chapter 1 of this s
Page 15 and 16: introduction 15 formations of Near
Page 17 and 18: introduction 17 ahistorical nature
Page 19 and 20: introduction 19 ing empire to descr
Page 21: introduction 21 not simply be colla

Introduction - The University of Michigan Press

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?