In the 1970s, Edward Saïd, an American literary critic of Palestinian descent, initiated a significant discourse with his book “Orientalism.” Shortly thereafter, Talal Asad, an Arab American anthropologist, contributed to this field with his work “Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.” These scholars were among the primary figures who laid the groundwork for what would later be broadly termed “postcolonial studies.”
The aim of these studies was to revisit a critique of the colonial era that had undergone two distinct phases. The first phase, which spanned the 19th century and continued until the mid-20th century, regarded colonialism as a positive force. It was perceived merely as a catalyst in a historical process deemed inevitable, one that would guide all nations toward a path of “development” and “civilization,” a trajectory that was believed to have already been experienced by the “West.” The assumption was that the “East,” like the “West,” would ultimately reach the same “point of flourishing.”
The second phase commenced after World War II and was characterized by a strong anti-colonial reaction. This reaction is often recognized in the writings of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon, who presented an entirely negative portrayal of the “West,” positioning it as an adversary against which the “East” must stand. This perspective called for a “return to roots” in order to liberate the non-Western world from the artificial and crisis-ridden situations imposed by Western powers. This movement was also referred to as “Third-worldism” (tiers-mondisme).
Subsequent intellectual actions and reactions continued this discourse through movements known as “anti-Third-worldism” (anti-tiers-mondisme) and eventually led to “postmodern colonial critique.” However, we will not delve into these later developments here.
The main argument of Saïd and Asad is that the “Orient” is a construction of the “Occident,” emerging during the process of European cultural development from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. During this period, a new industrial and capitalist culture and civilization arose in certain Western European countries, characterized by two pivotal events: the Industrial Revolution and the bourgeois political revolutions, as well as the formation of nation-states. This construction has led to the generalization of all non-Western countries and cultures under the umbrella term “Orient,” serving to establish the identity of the “West” and emphasize its superiority and model status. However, many of these cultures have neither connections nor similarities with one another. In fact, terms such as “Orient,” “Third World,” and even the contemporary phrase “developing countries” function as reductive mechanisms that simplify thought and analysis. Their primary utility has been to facilitate the work of policymakers, enabling them to devise uniform programs and policies for all these nations, often at a substantial cost that we are now familiar with.
In this context, many social scientists and historians gradually entered the discussion from the 1980s onward, introducing new concepts, including the notion that just as the “East” is a construct of the “West,” the “West” should also be considered a kind of invention of the “East.” In fact, just as the “West” perceives itself as the center of the world and thus names the world based on its geographical position relative to itself, with the colonial entry into non-Western countries, the “Eastern” peoples not only recognized themselves as “Eastern,” but they also integrated the “Western” identity into their own perceptions. A well-known example in this regard is Frantz Fanon and Aimé Césaire, who instead of denying the concept of being “Black,”(nègre) transformed it from a negative connotation to a positive one, establishing “Blackness”(négritude) as a culturally recognized concept. Thus, although race lost its value as a biological concept, it became a cultural concept with specific components. Similarly, in the broader context of colonialism, the “Eastern” peoples gradually not only participated actively in the construction of the “East,” but they also went further and constructed their own version of the “West.”
The invention of the “West,” much like the invention of the “East,” was carried out in various forms based on the subjective and material positions of those involved in this construction. A group of “Eastern” countries and figures, who harbored anti-colonial sentiments or claimed to do so, attributed everything that befell the “East” to the exploitative nature of the “West.” They increasingly demonized the “West,” portraying it as the epicenter of all forms of corruption, crime, cruelty, insensitivity, apathy, and social ills. When confronted with the reality that such morally and socially deficient people could establish well-organized social systems and treat their citizens with dignity and respect—drawing global interest and admiration, their explanations were often vague or dismissed as mere propaganda aimed at misleading public opinion. Meanwhile, these same countries and figures could not help but contradict their own assertions daily by showcasing and promoting “Western” cultural products (including films, books, newspapers, articles, etc.), nor could they avoid linking the advancement of their academic faculty to the acceptance of their work by those same corrupt and malevolent “Westerners.”
In contrast to this group, there was a second group consisting of countries and individuals enamored with the “West.” Beginning in the early twentieth century, for instance in our own country, they regarded anything that bore even a hint of their imagined “West,” including the simplest aspects such as clothing and appearance, as a hallmark of “civilization.” They believed that they could “civilize” the populace through force, violence, and dictatorship, convincing them that adopting a “Western” appearance would elevate their intellect. They insisted that people should reason like “Westerners,” eat like them, walk like them, and essentially do everything possible to resemble them more closely, believing that this would undoubtedly propel them rapidly into the ranks of civilization. Some even went so far as to view any form of dictatorship or oppression in the past (including in our country during two periods of Pahlavi dictatorship) as a necessary “pain” for the “birth of modernity.” When faced with widespread public backlash during a revolution that discarded all notions of “modernity,” they resorted once again to the ever-ready conspiracy theory to justify everything that transpired.
Our question now is: which “West” are we referring to when we consider it the “center” of our aspirations? Or do we regard it as the center of corruption and the source of all evils? Which “East” do we celebrate as a golden past, and which do we blame for our present and future problems? Neither “West” nor “East” exists as concrete entities; rather, these terms have emerged merely as geographical categories (every East is the West of another East, and every West is the East of another West). They have been transformed into politically charged concepts embedded within symbolic and cognitive systems of language, which in turn have fueled a series of arguments that are theoretically entirely deniable but can practically incite real actions such as enmity and hatred, or friendship and alliance.
The historical reality is quite different: human cultures have developed in a highly diverse array, originating either from limited civilizational domains (at least six distinct areas among Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, and Central and South America) or from hundreds of thousands of small cultural spheres that are not necessarily civilizational in the urban sense. For thousands of years, these cultures have engaged in a process of permeability and mutual influence, creating hybrid forms. The “West” referenced in the sixteenth or seventeenth century—which soon opened the world with its technological, theoretical, and political advancements—is itself the product of thousands of years of Greek Roman, Islamic, Christian, and Jewish and Mesopotamian civilizations, all of which were actively present until the fifteenth century. The “East,” which is too easily categorized in a general sense, encompasses billions of people possessing millions of ideas, skills, technologies, indigenous knowledge, and limitless capabilities across various fields—from art and philosophy to industry and social organization. Today, Europe and the Western world are striving to rediscover these elements while moving beyond outdated nineteenth-century stereotypes.
The perception of large human collectives through manipulable categories like “West” and “East” ultimately serves no purpose other than to reduce thought. While this approach may have been necessary at certain historical junctures for mobilizing movements and energizing societal dynamics, its continued application in a time when it is no longer accepted—neither in the “East” nor in the “West,” except by those who wish to perpetuate their post-colonial dominance or exploit these constructs for authoritarian purposes—is both futile and meaningless. Conversely, returning to human culture in all its diverse forms and seeking identity and meaning in life across much broader and deeper realms than the political—such as religion and new spiritualities, social activism and civil engagement, profound philosophical and scientific inquiries, and understanding oneself and others—are pathways available to contemporary humanity to escape the terrifying and destructive models bequeathed by the nineteenth century, which have yielded nothing but suffering and misfortune. The nightmare of “West” and “East” must one day come to an end, allowing us to reconnect with the existential reality of humanity and to pursue aims that existence can embody. This task is undoubtedly not simple, but it may be the only way to evade a world where opportunism continually seeks to portray reductive conceptualizations as the only practical means for achieving coexistence and managing human interactions.
This note is an AI generated translation from Persian into English and has been also published on February 19, 2009, in “Khabar Online Agency” , Iran.
Original paper in Persian:
