Edward Said presents some interesting notions on the idea of Orientalism, as both a concept and as a field of study. Said’s concepts are similar to some of the readings we have done earlier in that he explains the difficulties we have in understanding another culture. We, as westerners, tend to view all things in relation to western thought. In fact there is a belief that “Orientals” cannot present a truly unbiased account of themselves, that only westerners have the ability to be objective in their analysis.

What strikes me as odd about this belief is that it is in itself a non-objective view. How can anyone presume to know more about another’s culture then those who actually experience it? It also shows a certain amount of arrogance about Western thought that westerners are not only capable of understanding their own culture as well as other’s cultures. In one of the examples that Said uses from Bernard Lewis, Lewis makes the argument that western interest in “…other societies is unique, that it is motivated by pure curiosity, and that in contrast Muslims neither were able nor interested in getting knowledge about Europe…” (Said 96) This would seem to imply that Muslims have no curiosity and because they were not interested in learning about Europe that they are somehow inferior because of this.

The other problem studies of Orientalism seem to share is a desire to view all of the “Orient” as being a homogenous society, rather then comprised of different cultures and differing religions. Even groups who are generally labelled as Islamic have differing beliefs, such as the Sunni’s and the Shi’ites. Though these groups are both technically Islamic in origin they have different views on how Islam should be practiced. If our nations in the west can be so culturally complex, why must we view other nations as being so simple and uniform?