Hentsch recognizes an interesting aspect of travel righting in the 17th century, which has not been covered by are past readings. He believes that travelers went out into the 'Orient' because of commercial reasons, but also out of sheer curiosity. A lot of this curiosity stemmed from being able to prove and reiterate their superiority over other civilizations. Furthermore, in their travel writing they are able to put forth confirmation of the already held beliefs at home concerning the inferiority of the 'Orient'. As Hentsch says on page 92, their “fundamental aim was to consolidate existing values and convictions.” In doing so, “europe validated its own vitality by traveling to an unvarying world which incarnated the past.”
Hentsch also mentioned that by being able to go over to the 'Orient,' and analyze the people's history, they were reaffirming again their notion of culture as being superior. To them they saw themselves as superior again by the fact that they understood history and were able to categorized development. In fact, they were very focused on the past of the 'Orient' since they believed they had a common past. However, according to the writers of the time, while European people's had developed, 'Orient' people had remained the same except for some minor changes in religion. This led the people of the 17th century and 18th century to have admiration for the orient almost exclusively of the common power which they both been drawn from.
I believe this is another interesting fact because unlike many of the encounters with people's in the Americas and Africa's they believed they had a common history with the 'Orient.' This may because European's had more historical knowledge of the 'Orient' and were more familiar with the cultures. It also helped that some of their religious values, namely Islam, was not necessarily contradictory to Christianity. In fact at the time it seemed to be the religion most closely related to Christianity, and as Hentsch pointed out nothing in Islam directly contracts Christianity. The commonality of religion might have made European peoples more apt to believe that they had a common history.
Hentsch connects the 18th century view of the Orient with despotism. He believes that in the 18th century due to writers like Montesquieu, there was a surge in the belief that the 'Orient' was a despotic power. Furthermore that the orient was the antithesis of the “moderate power, Europe.” I was not sure what I thought about this idea. The relation of despotism to the previous idea of the 'Orient' as a mirror for the Europeans was unclear to me. It does make since that the European's would have to continue to make new reasons for the superiority of their culture and civilization. Was labeling the 'Orient' a despotic power simply a tool to prove superiority?
Hi Mackenzie, My instinct is yes, labeling the Orient a despotic power was a tool to prove superiority, although perhaps sometimes unconsciously. As Hentsch discusses, it at least showed a total lack of reflection by Europeans on their own political regimes, which could easily be labeled as "despotic" by many of the same measures.
ReplyDeleteHey Mackenzie, regarding your question at the end, I would definitely say it was a tool to prove superiority namely by belittling the Orient. As you noted, Hentsch writes about their shared histories of the two lands, and the commonality in their religions. Because they were so similar, labeling Oriental powers as 'despotic' was a way to distinguish them in a negative fashion and support European notions of superiority.
ReplyDeleteI think Europe's view of the Orient as a despotic power was part of the general political and cultural criticism conducted in both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As you said, it was part of a consolidation of numerous Eastern cultures into the "orient," the 'antithesis' of rational and developed Europe.
ReplyDeleteI think that Europe's immediate reaction when confronted by an outside power that had a centralized government was to critique them as 'despotic.' The religion subject was also an interesting one. It never really seemed like Europeans had a clear understanding of Islam, but rather like their interpretation of the religion fitted in with their larger interpretation of the Middle East (whatever that happened to be at the time).
ReplyDeleteI agree that the European accounts of the Middle East, while condescending, did reflect a certain admiration for the Oriental past. Nevertheless, I think that the European description of the Orient as despotic was not really a tool for them to prove their superiority. For many, the sultan's rule did seem to be capricious and absolute.
ReplyDelete