Orientalism

In re-reading Orientalism, I am struck by a few strategic points in the argument which I missed the first time. In the original introduction (p.15 in my copy), Said asks "how can we treat the cultural, historical phenomenon of Orientalism as a kind of willed human work-- not of mere unconditioned ratiocination-- in all its historical complexity, detail and worth without at the same time losing sight of the alliance between cultural work, political tendencies, the state, and the specific realities of domination?" I had not realized that he intended to navigate so fine a line. I considered the work quite polemical in my first few readings of it. I remembered the pointed jabs at the academy for its collusion with the imperialist project. I overlooked the "methodological question" at the heart of the work. Said questions authority and unmasks cultural values and prejudices that shape the canon. On p.41, he describes Orientalism as " a library or archive of information commonly and in some aspects, unanimously held...a family of ideas and a unifying set of values." When Said dissects Lord Balfour's addresses to the House of Commons, he brings into relief "the reservoir of accredited knowledge, the codes of Orientalist orthodoxy" (p.39) which birthed the modern Middle East. I am particularly intrigued by the argument that Said makes with regard to the literary front for this intellectual assault. I know well the constraints of La Chanson de Roland, which vilifies Saracens in order to "upstage" Frankish betrayal and I am familiar with the condescension at the heart of of Salambo. I am less familiar with(but now curious to read)Hugo's Les Orientales. Said, by the end of chapter one, weaves a convincing narrative that culminates in the Napoleonic "coup de theatre" in Egypt. De Lesseps, in particular, manipulated the Orient (literally, in the case of the Suez Canal) to fit European ambition.