The evolution from classicism in the 17th century to the Enlightenment period during the 18th century contained different European attitudes towards the Muslim Middle East. Classical Europe voyaged to the orient mainly to confirm their own identity. Whereas, Enlightenment Europe seemed to express genuine curiosity and intellectual interest in finding out more about the roots and background of Islam.
The Europeans in classical Europe had the luxury of travelling for travel’s sake, because they faced no serious threat. People were able to leisurely observe “Others” out of pure intellectual curiosity. Out of this time period, there was an “insatiable exploration of the planet” with many accounts of explorations of non-European lands. But in traveling, the Europeans were able to confirm their own identity. Europeans placed themselves at the center of the world. In so far, as they were the center, they gave order to all those civilizations that surrounded it. But in order to better understand this “ordering” of the known universe, the Europeans had to travel towards difference and abolish physical distance to “consolidate existing values and convictions”. As Hentsch notes, the Orient “existed as a global, unifying representation” for Europe to confirm its own identity as center of the universe.
Hentsch notes that commercial considerations were a factor to a certain extent, but he stresses this genuine curiosity as a driving force for traveling to the Orient. Religion was no longer a true issue; however, it did remain a stereotype that could “catalyze” the European federation. But gathering information on the foreigner had become so important to the State that they financed these travels. Because these 17th century Europeans traveled for the sake of learning, some of them like Thevenot tried to accurately portray the Middle East without preconceptions. However, it is about this time where Hentsch notes that racism was no longer expressed based on religious affiliation but on skin colour and alleged character traits.
The 18th century had a lot of curiosity about the background and founding of Islam. Europeans rejected the negative clichés about Islam. Because they argued that all religion was produced not by supernatural power but by man, they noted that all religions (including Christianity) were susceptible to “fables”. Therefore, the prophet was no longer seen as a hereti and the Quran was no longer seen as completely false. As Maxime Robinson notes, “the 18th century saw the Muslim East through fraternal and understanding eyes”.
Despotism originated from the Machiavellian era. Despotism had a negative connotation in which someone was the lord and master of all the possessions (items and people) of his kingdom in the same way that a master had absolute power over his slaves. Thus, despotism became popular as it strayed from a mere characterization of Middle Eastern kingdoms to the center of European political debates. People warned that despotism illuminated the potentiality of Western monarchies to become despotic. It was also noted how much of a “monstrosity” and threat they were. Other Europeans enjoyed monarchies and thus this term “despotism” triggered debate in Europe.
Hey Jimmy, I think this is an excellent analysis of Hentsch's article; you astutely trace how the Orient helped form the European identity. At the end, you begin a discussion of 'despotism.' While it was certainly detested in Europe, do you think European monarchical structure was very different from that of the Middle Eastern kindoms?
ReplyDeleteHey Jimmy I agree that you traced Hentsch's argument very well. Amir made a similar point about despotism being the potential state of European monarchies, but I think that Hentsch was more pointing out that during the Enlightenment the concept of despotism evolved to maintain European superiority and difference from the Orient.
ReplyDeleteHi Jimmy, My reading was similar to Helen's: although Hentsch does talk about how discussions of the described despotism in the Middle East prompted some linkages at home, many were impressively oblivious to the connection and in this sense talk of despotism was often an assertion of European superiority just as religion had been before.
ReplyDeleteI like your last point about the origin of the idea of despotism in Europe. I don't remember if Hentsch talks about it or not. Either way, it seems interesting and important to remember that the idea of the oriental despot not only entails the idea of "the orient" which was an invention of Europe, but also that "despotism" was similarly an invented European concept
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to know exactly when religious prejudice actually left the equation with the Middle East. While it's true that some authors focused on culture and race as reasons for discrimination, there were still plans in the works to unite Christian kingdoms against the infidel menace. I know in my History of Mass Violence class, the professors argued that race only became a primary motivation for genocide in the twentieth century with the Armenian genocide... I don't know how they'd respond to Hentsch!
ReplyDeleteI think you're right in pointing out that commercial motivations were only a small part of the reason travelers went East in the 'classical period', and that curiosity instead was the main motivator (Chardin is my source, quoted a lot by Hentsch, and that's certainly true of him).
ReplyDeleteI too thought Hentsch point about traveling for curiousity's sake was interesting. But contextualized in his idea that they were trying to reaffirm their beliefs and superiority of the European race, makes be question if that can be deemed as curiousity?
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Tudor
I agree that despotism invited a European self-critique. In fact, I think much of the travel writing of the time also led to doubts about European practices as a whole. For instance, Enlightenment thinkers were inclined to believe that Christianity and absolute monarchies were no different than the Islam and sultans of the East.
ReplyDelete