Thierry Hentsch’s chapter on the Orient in Imagining the Middle East demonstrates that narratives of the Other can often provide insight into the writer’s own political, cultural, and societal context. Hentsch traces the progression of French writing on the Muslim Middle East during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to prove his argument that this distant region was “the essence of the Other at the historical moment when Europe had become fully aware of being the centre,” (Hentsch 82).
He distinguishes largely between the classicist representation of the seventeenth century and the subsequent perspective of the Enlightenment. The classicist’s Orient was one which affirmed European identity and self-admiration. It is important to note that many of the accounts on the foreigner were commissioned by the State (Hentsch 85) which was eager to assert itself as the defender of life and property in contrast to the Oriental despot. In addition, while travel writers such as Jean Chardin occasionally praised the Oriental’s scientific achievements they often took advantage of the moment to point out Eastern deficiencies (such as the lack of the printing press) (Hentsch 90).
In sharp contrast, the philosophers of the eighteenth century were more inclined to use the Middle East to criticize certain aspects of Western culture. This does not mean, however, that they praised all elements of Oriental society – far from it. Montesquieu and others would still criticize the despotism that they believed was rampant in the East. Nevertheless, Hentsch states that this was a sly way of making the reader aware of the absolutism that reigned within his nation’s own borders (Hentsch 110). Overall, his arguments echo Pagden’s concept of attachment yet Hentsch reveals that this principle was used by Enlightenment thinkers to show domestic, rather than foreign, defects.
Hi Amir, Helen also mentioned how the Hentsch chapter seemed to echo concepts from what we read by Pagden - that seems right and maybe helps us understand the nature of travel writing in general, especially when it is closely tied to feelings of loyalty to one's own country or tradition. I didn't get the sense that Hentsch was truly leaning toward believing the criticism of foreign despotism was a sly way to make readers aware of the despotism in their own countries. Some of that seemed to be going on, but I also got the impression that some critiques of "oriental despotism" really were embedded in claims to European superiority.
ReplyDeleteHey Amir, I actually share similar sentiments with Aysha; I didn't think (or realize) that Hentsch wrote that these narratives were a sly way to inform or enlighten the European reader to the despotism in his own land. However, perhaps I did indeed miss this point.... I'll go back and check.
ReplyDeleteDitto for me as Aysha and Billy. However, that would make sense since it WAS the Enlightenment after all. Though, from what I've learned, the Enlightenment didn't necessarily mean being less prejudiced toward the other. Hentsch briefly quotes Voltaire on Jewish people. I read that in another class, and it's pretty appalling that someone we consider to be such a vanguard of the Enlightenment held such beliefs.
ReplyDeleteOn Amir's side, Hentsch did make the point that many of the Enlightenment philosophes like Voltaire used their critiques of Islam and the Middle East as a round-about way of critiquing Christianity and keeping themselves safe from retribution from the Church.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Hentsch talks about in terms of depotism, was similar to the actual structure of many European kingdoms at the time. Despite this, I also did not think he was trying to advocate that when he wrote this people would pick up on this fact.
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Tudor
Good divide between seventeenth and eighteenth centuries here, though I don't think there was ever so much a 'sharp contrast' moment as a gradual refocus on other motivations when writing about the Orient.
ReplyDelete