I like Irwin mostly because of two books of his that I count, in their respective categories, as some of the best I’ve ever read. The Arabian Nightmare is dark, trippy fantasy written in the style of Edgar Allan Poe (if he had been an arabist and on acid), while his The Arabian Nights: A Companion is an indispensable guide to any serious lover of the Nights. Both are written in a rather difficult prose, and the second can be especially tough in parts, but they are very rewarding if you put the time and effort into them.
His latest work, Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and Its Discontents, appears to be more in line with the second. It is a basically academic text on the Orientalist tradition in Western letters, focusing mostly on the British, French and German in the fields. As anyone who has done Middle Eastern Studies or dabled in the field at all, these early Orientalists, who were often wonderfully eccentric characters who produced very serious scholarship, are now mostly known for their reputation as agents of empire than their work. Irwin apparently attempts to restore their reputation and refute the idea that these men are inherently suspicious because of their (possible) association with colonialism in the last three or four centuries.
From what I’ve been able to put together from the three reviews that I’ve seen so far — one new but predictably second-rate in the NYT, an excellent one from May by the ubiquitous Christopher de Bellaigue in the Times Literary Supplement and an equally excellent and more critical one in the London Review of Books back in June — the book tells the story of the Orientalists, their lives, their manias, their unusual lifestyle choices. But the big controversy about the book is that it takes on Edward Said’s Orientalism in one of its final chapters, attacking its many mistakes and, more generally, Said’s (alleged) unfounded political agenda in giving the orientalists a bad name. The reviews argue Irwin makes a convincing case that Said was at least partly wrong, but doesn’t really address the links between imperialism and colonialism or quite deliver the fatal blow to the theoretical behemoth that Orientalism has become.
I won’t say anymore until I get hold of a copy of the book (and re-read the relevant passages of Orientalism — by the way, while I admired Said’s advocacy work, I was never a big fan of his most of his (sometimes stultifying) writing style or the amount of political bile he could work up against people who didn’t really deserve it. But I know I would look forward to any book by Irwin, and can’t wait to read this one.
Buy it from the link below (or any of the links above) and arabist.net gets a cut!
“Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and Its Discontents” (Robert Irwin)
I briefly met Irwin when he came to Wisconsin. He’s a really nice guy who doesn’t take life too seriously.
Irwin sounds like he’s strong on orientalists and their life histories but needs to beef up on his knowledge of colonialism, because as the reviews point out, there are some glaring gaps and errors that may undermine his argument. It sounds like he’s doing something like a mirror image of what Said has been accused of doing – weaving fascinating, detailed stories in erudite prose and then taking clever pot-shots at opponents, rather than rigorously and dispassionately assessing the record of orientalists and their relationship with imperialism, for better or for worse.
One could almost forgive everything else, but to leave out Bernard Lewis’ involvement in contemporary US middle east policy? Come on.
Do post a review, anyone who gets hold of the book.
Speaking of book reviews, has anyone ever read the review of “Orientalism” that Malcom Kerr wrote for IJMES in 1980?
A review like this is important for two reasons: One, the bona fides of the reviewer. (Kerr, the author of “The Arab Cold War,” was the president of AUB until his assassination in 1984.) And two, the fact that it was written before Said and Orientalism could be cannonized. Anyway, I’m not trying to start any internet wars out there between pro-Said and anti-Said factions, but check it out. I found a link below:
http://www.geocities.com/orientalismorg/Kerr.htm
Great find, Andrew.
talking about oritentialists of old and their strange habits, it’s worth having a look at Tom Reiss’ The Orientalist, which is an account of the life of Lev Nessimbaum. Lev was a Jew who wrote Azerbijan’s national novel and maintained the personna of a Muslim prince. While walking through Lev’s life, Reiss explores the motivations of Europe’s Jewish orientalists, who while looking for a territorial-rooted identity developed an emotional attachment to the Middle East. The time and views Reiss explores have that strange yet familar quality you get from reading a Robert Harris or Phillip Pullman novel, where one small historical pivot (the creation of Israel ?) transforms the world into a strange mutant likeness of itself.
No theory is flawless and there’s no ultimate truth out there, to my knowledge. Saids theory was by no mean revolutonary, but rather based on earlier theorists, who drew a connection between political power and cultural hegemony. Said was an idealist, a humanist who truly hoped we one day would grow beyond cultural stereotypes and be able to do research without some sort of hidden agenda. What strikes me as very sad is how some modern day academics (for example the neo-conservatives in the US and Europe) still work to legitimize their governments horrendous and imperialistic foreign politics, and, on the other side, how many Western academics specializing on the Middle East without hesitation are labelled ‘orientalist’ by the Middle Eastener, with all the negative feelings that connotates (dont forget that also modern Middle Eastern culture, as diverse as it is, is a result of Arabian imperialism and cultural hegemony) . Unfortunately, Saids theory has also been put to use to legitimize certain unfortunate attitudes, and provided a vocabulary for those unwilling to open up to each others. (…There’s no end to my idealism today… :))