I thought Hentsch’s discussion of changing European attitudes toward the Middle East recalled Pagden’s idea of “possession.” The Europeans developed a reified concept of “the Orient” in order to assert their own dominance and also gain metaphysical possession over the unknown or the other. As Mackenzie said, much of the travel writing served to confirm presuppositions about the other, but Hentsch points out that even more than that, when travel writers did happen to be more open-minded or contained more objective observations, there was a “perpetual gap between direct contact in the field and preconception, indicating how rarely…the traveller’s message is received” (86). An interesting metaphor that Hentsch used was of the Orient as both “window and mirror” (82). The reified Orient served the dual functions of allowing Europeans to satisfy their curiosity and need to explore the unknown, while helping them to construct a reified image of Europe in opposition. Hentsch put forth the example of Europeans describing the ruling Turks more positively than the subjugated Egyptians because Europeans saw themselves as subjugators or possible subjugators (87).
One aspect of travel writing that Hentsch added to the previous authors we read was that of state sponsored travelers. This brings the idea of one state observing another rather than just the gaze of one individual (though the perspective of the individual writing is obviously important too). I thought that, in general, Hentsch emphasized the “collective function” (91) of the voyages he discussed for the European worldview. Along the same vein, he also introduced the idea that travel writings describing the other served to confirm the modernity of Europe and to situate “the Orient” in stagnation and therefore irrelevance. This was a trend that developed more during the Enlightenment. Perhaps this trend was the result of a struggle to replace the idea of distance as difference with time as difference, since the Enlightenment emphasis on science could not coexist with previous vague geographical representations of the Orient.
The idea of Oriental despotism also proliferated during the Enlightenment. Hentsch explains that religion had ceased to serve as a complete and legitimate basis for difference. This is probably a result of Enlightenment debate and criticism regarding religion in general. Since Europe no longer defined its own identity, or “civilized-ness,” based on religion, it was necessary to also redefine the other. Despotism provided a new basis for difference. The Orient lacked the law and rationality in governance that Europe supposedly possessed and was thus both backward (or un-modern) and uncivilized.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Helen, Great characterization of the shift from thinking of religion as the basis of superiority to thinking of law and rationality in governance as that basis (I didn't think about that enough when I read the chapter)! I think you're right that Hentsch's discussion relates to Pagden's own description of possession during early encounters of the New World. Still perplexing to me: both seem to characterize curiosity as leading to appropriation, though I think curiosity also, by its nature, has something to do with resisting the instinct to appropriate and potentially appreciating challenging differences.
ReplyDeleteHey Helen, I really like your comments regarding "possession" and like how you phrased that the Europeans wanted to gain a "metaphysical possession over the unknown or the other." I agree that by constructing a notion of the Orient, the Europeans further developed their own conception of themselves.
ReplyDeleteAgree wit Aysha, you pulled out the most important parts of Hentsch's argument and eloquently synthesized them. Did you agree with all the reasoning and arguments, though?
ReplyDeleteI think that the evolution of the European interpretation of the 'Orient' also had a lot to do with the Ottoman Empire's political power relative to Europe. It's interesting that when they were strong relative to Europe we saw the outright condemnation. Later, when power was on the wane, Europeans could afford to be more objective and nuanced in their interpretations.
ReplyDeleteI had not thought of the fact that Europeans were trying to shift their system of measuring civilizations due to the fact that the enlightenment shifted the cultural focus of Europe. I wonder what was the next stage, post-enlightenment how did they choose to characterize? It seems that maybe modernization took the next role?
ReplyDelete~Mackenzie Tudor
I agree with everyone else that you did a good job of condensing Hentsch's argument that the legal system largely replaced religion in perception of difference between Europe and the Orient. When I was reading Hentsch, I did think, though, that the philosophe's appraisal of Islam was in a way part of their critique of Christianity. In saying that there was nothing contradictory between the two, they essentially denied Christian revelation and singularity.
ReplyDelete