User:Hrotsvitha

Self-Orientalism 

Self-orientalism or self-orientalizing refers to the internalization, acceptance, and reproduction by Eastern societies of essentialist stereotypes and images originally constructed by Western Orientalist discourse. The concept extends from Edward Said's critique of Orientalism and later evolved as a critical reflection on Said's own thesis .In his critical work, Orientalism (1978), Said argued that Orientalism is not merely an academic discipline but a hegemonic and authoritative discourse, whereby the West produces the East not as it authentically is, but according to Western needs and desires, thus reducing the Orient to an imagined "Other.".

In this context, Self-Orientalism represents the continuation of Orientalist discourse within Eastern societies, either passively or actively perpetuated by Easterners themselves. The significance of Self-Orientalism lies in its demonstration of how Eastern cultures, under the influence of Western cultural dominance, come to present themselves through essentially Western perspectives, losing access to an authentic and self-grounded understanding of their own cultures. This phenomenon may manifest consciously and deliberately, sometimes even strategically employed as a means of anti-colonial or anti-imperialist resistance, or it may remain concealed and unconscious.

Early Critics
Sadiq Jalal al-'Azm

Although Sadiq Jalal al-'Azm did not use the term "self-orientalism" directly, his idea of "Orientalism in Reverse" is considered one of the earliest and most important critiques of a concept very similar to it. Al-'Azm describes two forms of this reversed Orientalism. The first form—which Edward Said himself also noticed—is when Arab nationalists turn Orientalist stereotypes upside down, claiming instead that the East is naturally superior to the West. The second form, which is more closely related to self-orientalism, happens when Eastern thinkers accept the basic ideas of classical Orientalism, such as the belief in a deep and essential difference between East and West, but apply different or opposite values to them.

Al-'Azm explains that this kind of thinking leads to accepting Western ideas about the East without much criticism—for example, the belief that the Islamic East and the rational, secular West are completely opposed to each other . He also criticizes how some reject all Western ideologies, including Marxism, simply because they are seen as foreign to the Eastern mind or culture. According to him, this kind of rejection is based on the same essentialist logic that Orientalism used in the first place.

One of his strongest arguments is against the obsession with old texts and languages among some Arab intellectuals. He sees this as copying the traditional Orientalist way of understanding the East mainly through ancient texts. For al-'Azm, this kind of reversed Orientalism is still very conservative, because it keeps the same old way of thinking from Orientalism, only with new labels. It does not offer a real alternative but continues to keep the East inside the limits set by colonial ways of knowing.

Aijaz Ahmad

Aijaz Ahmad offered a sustained and critical engagement with Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism, raising concerns that—while not framed in terms of "self-orientalism" explicitly—nevertheless intersect closely with its central themes. Ahmad focused much of his critique on the early interpretations of Said’s work, arguing that many of them devolved into an essentialist narrative that cast the West as wholly guilty and the East as entirely innocent. He regarded this framing as uncritical and reductive, warning that such a dichotomy risks encouraging the internalization of Western stereotypes by Eastern societies, reducing them to little more than historical victims of Western domination.

In Ahmad’s view, this essentialist approach, which places disproportionate emphasis on cultural representation and identity, often leads to a neglect of the material, political, and economic structures shaping postcolonial societies. He was particularly critical of Third World intellectuals based in Western academic institutions, arguing that their theoretical authority and intellectual legitimacy are frequently derived from Western epistemological frameworks and institutional recognition. As a result, these intellectuals may, often unconsciously, participate in the reproduction of classical Orientalist assumptions.

Ahmad emphasized that overcoming self-orientalist tendencies requires grounding critique in the concrete realities of postcolonial societies—specifically through serious attention to their socio-economic and political structures. Only by doing so, he argued, can a genuinely critical and historically informed understanding of the contemporary non-West emerge—one that moves beyond reactive culturalism and toward meaningful forms of political and intellectual autonomy.

Other Critics of Self-Orientalism

In addition to early critiques by Sadiq Jalal al-‘Azm and Aijaz Ahmad, a number of influential scholars—such as Homi K. Bhabha, Arjun Appadurai, Lila Abu-Lughod, and Timothy Mitchell—have offered important insights that complicate and extend the discussion of self-orientalism.

Homi Bhabha, through his concept of "mimicry," explores how colonial subjects who appear to adopt Western norms often do so in ways that are ambivalent and ironic. Rather than simply internalizing colonial discourse, mimicry, in Bhabha’s view, exposes the instability of colonial authority by subtly undermining it. This suggests that the reproduction of Orientalist representations is not always passive or uncritical but may carry within it gestures of resistance or subversion.

Arjun Appadurai approaches the issue from the perspective of globalization and cultural flows. He critiques the tendency to define cultures through fixed, essentialist categories, a tendency often reinforced by self-orientalism. For Appadurai, such essentialism overlooks the dynamic and hybrid nature of identity in a globalized world, and he warns that clinging to rigid notions of cultural authenticity can limit the capacity of postcolonial societies to respond creatively to modern challenges.

Anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod has critically examined how local elites in the Arab world can internalize and reproduce Western stereotypes, especially concerning Muslim women. In her article “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?” (2002), she challenges both Western liberal feminists and Arab elites for simplifying women’s lives into narratives of passive victimhood. Abu-Lughod argues that such portrayals are not only externally imposed but also often adopted by local actors for political or ideological purposes, such as appealing to international donors or legitimizing state power. These forms of self-orientalism, she contends, flatten complex cultural and historical realities and risk silencing the diverse voices of Muslim women themselves . Her later book expands on this critique, calling for more nuanced and locally grounded understandings of gender and power in Muslim societies .

Similarly, political theorist Timothy Mitchell explores how orientalist images are sometimes strategically adopted by Arab states or elites to engage with Western expectations. In his afterword to The Politics of Knowledge (2002), Mitchell explains that self-orientalism can function not only as unconscious internalization but also as a deliberate political strategy. For example, regimes may portray themselves as modernizers of a backward culture, or as guardians of authentic tradition, depending on what resonates with Western governments or funding bodies This kind of self-representation, Mitchell argues, reinforces orientalist frameworks while serving local interests, demonstrating how power and knowledge intersect in the global political economy.

Reflections in Iranian and Arab Historiography and Thought

The concept of self-orientalism has become a significant topic in both Arab and Iranian intellectual discourse. This introspective examination often critiques the long-lasting effects of colonialism and the universal influence of Western narratives. In the Arab intellectual tradition, this theme is notably explored by thinkers such as Mohammed Abed al-Jabri and Georges Tarabishi. Al-Jabri's influential work, Critique of Arab Reason (Naqd al-‘Aql al-‘Arabi), tries to deconstruct deep-rooted modes of thought in the Arab world. He argues that these modes have been shaped by both traditional metaphysics and modern Orientalist influences, creating epistemological barriers to modernity within Arab-Islamic philosophy. His project aims to resist externally imposed frameworks while fostering an authentic Arab rationality

George Tarabishi offers a comprehensive critique of al-Jabri's work in his book Critique of the Critique of Arab Reason (Naqd Naqd al-‘Aql al-‘Arabi). Tarabishi contends that al-Jabri inadvertently imitates essentialist logic and reinforces Orientalist dichotomies, thereby undermining the very foundations of his critique .

These debates underscore a broader concern within modern Arab thought regarding the internalization and contestation of Orientalist narratives. Beyond academia, contemporary Arab artists and filmmakers often engage with self-orientalist tropes—such as exoticism, veiling, and gender dynamics—especially when their works are tailored to Western audiences. This phenomenon reflects both conscious and unconscious engagements with self-orientalism .

In the Iranian context, the notion of self-orientalism manifests through various intellectual endeavors, although under different terminologies. Jalal Al-e Ahmad's influential essay Gharbzadegi ("Westoxication") criticizes the uncritical emulation of Western models, which he perceives as eroding Iran's cultural authenticity and fostering dependency. This work has been pivotal in discussions about cultural identity and resistance to Western hegemony .

Dariush Shayegan, in his analyses, addresses Iran's intellectual and psychological fragmentation in the face of Western modernity. He posits that Iranians occupy a liminal space between tradition and imitation, leading to a complex cultural identity crisis .

More recent scholars, such as Mashallah Ajudani and Javad Tabatabai, have provided in-depth critiques of modern Iranian historiography and political thought. Ajudani's Death or Modernity examines the contradictions between tradition, nationalism, and modernity during the Constitutional Revolution, highlighting the tensions inherent in Iran's modernization efforts . Tabatabai advocates for a reexamination of the Iranian philosophical tradition, emphasizing the need to address historical discontinuities in political thought .