Occidentalism: The Mindless, Heartless, Mechanical WEST

So far I have not touched on any theoretical work concerning Occidentalism and what exactly it might represent. I provided a very loose definition that is similar to Edward Said’s—that it represents anything that can be considered other than Orientalism.    Yet, clearly there must be more to Occidentalism than an opposition to anything considered Orientalism. 

Before I get into a major work of theory, I’d like to clarify what I have done so far and raise a few more questions.  I find myself posing more questions the deeper I get into this deconstruction study. 

 We know that Orientalism belongs to the West just as Occidentalism belongs to the East. We also know that Orientalism and Occidentalism are based on the process of fear and misunderstanding. 
But where and how far to do we stretch the geographical borders when it comes to understanding these mentalities?  Does everyone have to be from the Orient to be an Occidentalist, and does every have to be from the Occident to be an Orientalist?

What happens when we set geography not as a main factor, but a secondary qualification?

That’s exactly what Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit do because as they see it Occidentalism didn’t exactly establish itself within the far East—Asia and the Middle East.  INSTEAD it was a product of Europeans who were extremely anti-Western—Russians and Germans. BUT let make a clarification because Buruma and Margalit both keep geography in their work.  The West is still considered France and England, but they also see America as another place that represents the “New” West.

In 2004, Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit published a book called Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies.  Interesting, it only took 30+ years for anyone to investigate the opposite of Orientalism (Edward Said published Orientalism in 1978!).  Perhaps this is a declaration of just exactly how strong the binary is, or the hegemonic forces controlling the binary?   Either way, I have a problem with the title of Buruma’s and Margalit’s book.  First, it implies that all Occidentalist are Enemies of the West.  WELL that’s a little radical isn’t it? Edward Said showed that NOT all Orientalist considered the East their enemy.  I guess for the sake of the argument, I will just have to accept the title even if it does seemingly create a seedy picture of Eastern thinkers/intellectuals.

SO what is Occidentalism according to Buruma and Margalit? 

They state that “The dehumanizing picture of the West painted by its enemies is what we have called Occidentalism” (Buruma and Margalit 5).  This concept of dehumanizing reappears within their work over again.  They make the distinction that Occidentalism is not just “distaste for some aspects of modern Western, or American, culture…Symptoms become interesting only when they develop into a full-blown disease…the desire to declare a war on the West for such a reason [is a moment of great importance]”(Buruma and Margalit 5).   What an interesting way to put it, Occidentalism is only important when it becomes a “full-blown disease.” This would mean that Occidentalism only exists when it gets the momentum to start a war of destruction.   Why is that Said never called Orientalism a disease? I mean he highlights the violent domination of a culture, but never actually points out the destruction of a culture.    I wonder why it is that Occidentalism in terms of Buruma and Margalit is nothing but uncontrollable violence against the West.

So far it has been established that Occidentalism is a disease whose main goal is to reduce the West to something non-human.  With that said, I am more interested in the way the West is defined by Buruma and Margalit.   According to Buruma and Margalit, the West is connected to a variety of different concepts, and as such it is defined in relation to these concepts—it is not just directly chained to a geographical space, as I mentioned earlier Occidentalism wasn’t born in the East.  The “Modern” is associated with the West, but what does it mean to be modern (Buruma and Margalit 2)?  Well in simple terms, the Modern=Knowledge and Science=Technological Advances (2).  Therefore we have another binary!  West=Modern/East=Anti-modern.  Buruma and Margalit argue that because the West had “splintered the wholeness of Oriental spiritual culture…Science was to blame. And so were capitalism…and notions of individual freedoms and democracy [for the disease that had infected the East]” (2).   A lot can be gained from this sentence alone.  First the West—in terms of Modernity—is responsible for infecting the Spirituality of being human in the East.   Second, Eastern culture is based on spirituality, and Western culture is based on technology and the benefit of individual freedoms associated with Capitalism.   By forsaking spirituality, the West becomes a mindless mechanical global capitalist.   This is related to the concept of Rationalism—which is associated with the West:

Rationalism is a belief that reason and only reason can figure out the world.  This is tied to the idea that science is the sole source of understanding natural phenomena. Other sources of knowledge, especially religion, are dismissed by rationalist as superstitions.  Then there is political rationalism, which pretends that society can be run—and all human problems solved—by a rational blueprint, guided by general and universal principles.  The arrogant West, in Occidentalist eyes, is guilty of the sin of rationalism, of being arrogant enough to think that reason is the faculty that enables humans to know everything there is to know.  Occidentalism can be seen as the expression of bitter resentment toward an offensive display of superiority by the West, based on the alleged superiority of reason.  More corrosive even than military imperialism is the imperialism of the mind imposed by spreading the Western belief in scientism, the faith in science as the only way to gain knowledge. (95)

I understand what Buruma and Margalit are trying to do, make the argument that Occidentalism is a mode of Anti-Western thought—in fact they call this desire to free the mind from the mechanical west, “Westoxification” (29).  YET, I feel as though they are buying into the binary by doing so.  They set the binary up that the West is more civilized through scientific gain and knowledge.  The East is naturally civilized due to its spirituality.  THE Clashing of natural and un-natural ideology is where Occidentalism is given birth.  But the overall problem I have with these concepts and ideas that Buruma and Margalit present is that Occidentalism covers a variety of different modes of thoughts when it comes to the West.  The only thing that I agree with Buruma and Margalit is the fact that Occidentalism exists as a form of decolonization—decolonization of the mind, society, religion, politics which are all equal to CULTURE!  They never really say this out straight, or I would have not found myself questioning their motives.   OVERALL, I think this is more of a work that tries to not highlight the West in the eyes of its Enemies, but more like the East in the Eyes of its Enemies.   After all, it seems to harp on this notion that the ultimate goal of Eastern intellectuals is the complete and utter dehumanizing destruction of the West.   

These stereotypes appear over and over again within the text, and the West is constantly defined as an ideology, a geographical space, a certain group of people….and so on just as the East is vice versa. 

My overall disagreement comes from the fact that this study on Occidentalism is very broad, and narrow at the same time.   However, I do like the attempt that is made to historicize exact moments of occidental thought, and how geography and space do not limit its creation and production.

Occidentalism is no more a disease than Orientalism.  Labeling it as such is a cop out.  The disease doesn’t lie within the thought of Occidentalism or Orientalism.  The disease is the way each corrupt and instill fear of people who constantly fear the other of their own existence.

 Fear is the disease, not the label.