Chinese History and the Question of Orientalism

Abstract

The discussion develops Edward Said's thesis of orientialism. Said approached as a construction of Asia by Europeans, and a problem in Euro-American modernity. This essay argues that, from the beginning, Asians participated in the construction of the orient, and that orientalism therefore should be viewed as a problem in Asian modernities as well. The essay utilizes Mary Louise Pratt's idea of zones to argue that orientalism was a product of the circulation of Euro-American and Asian intellectuals in these contact zones, or borderlands. While orientalism has been very much implicated in power relations between Euro-America and Asia, the question of power nevertheless should be separated analytically from the construction of orientalism. In support of this argument, the essay points to the contemporary selforientalization of Asian intellectuals, which is a manifestation not of powerlessness but newly-acquired power. I consider below some questions raised by orientalism as concept and practice. These questions have their origins in Edward Said's Orientalism, published in 1978, which has had a lasting impact on Third World cultural studies in Europe and the United States. ' Provocative as Said's book was in its critique of orientalism as practice, its larger significance rests on Said's relentless demonstration of the intersection of historical interpretation, culture, and politics in EuroAmerican studies of Asia. I will argue, contrary to critics of Said, that questions raised by this intersection are still very much relevant to problems of historical interpretation of Asia in general, and China in particular. On the other hand, I will suggest also that contemporary historiographical evidence calls for a recasting of the relationship between history, culture, and politics in a configuration that is significantly different from Said's conceptualization of it in Orientalism. On the basis of this reconfigured understanding of orientalism, I will reflect by way of conclusion on the possibilities of escaping the burden of orientalism in historical studies. Because orientalism as concept refers to the orient as a whole, in illustrating my arguments I will draw on evidence from the career of orientalism not just in the historiography of China but in other histories as well. Finally, I am concerned here not with specific historiographical questions, but with questions that are best characterized as metahistorical. 1. Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York, 1979). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.195 on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 06:05:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms CHINESE HISTORY AND THE QUESTION OF ORIENTALISM 97