The Specter of Orientalism in Europe: From Exotic Other to Stigmatized Brother
The Specter of Orientalism in Europe: From Exotic Other to Stigmatized Brother
复制标题
欧洲东方主义的幽灵：从异域他者到污名化兄弟
DOI：
10.1353/anq.2006.0032
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
M. Buchowski
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Buchowski
“每个人都有自己的东方，与空间和时间有关，最常见的是两者兼而有之”（Todorova 1997：12）。“东方主义”作为一个批评范畴是由爱德华·赛义德于1978年创立的。对他来说，东方主义首先是一套话语实践，通过这些实践，西方在政治、社会、军事、意识形态、科学和艺术上构建了想象中的东方。东方主义也是“一种基于‘东方’和……之间本体论和认识论区分的思维方式。“东方”（赛义德，1978年：2）东方本身是存在的，真实的人民生活在有关地区，但欧洲人对这些人民的代表是一种典型的文化创造，使那些强大的人能够合法化他们对那些被征服和征服的人的统治。东方他者构成了西方的另一个自我，这种二分法的延续证明了一种强大的文化霸权仍然在起作用。话语硬化允许政治上较强的群体定义较弱的群体。东方主义已收到既赞成和批评。最重要的批评指的是这样一个事实，即“赛义德的工作经常复发到本质化模式，它的攻击和矛盾的总的西方人文主义的习惯”（克利福德1988年：271）。尽管受到批评，这本书还是激发了一系列作品的灵感，其中一些作品直接涉及东欧（Wolff 1994）和巴尔干半岛（Todorova 1997; Bakiii-Hayden 1995; Bakic-Hayden and Hayden 1992; Hayden 2000）。沃尔夫以类似萨义德的风格描写了启蒙时期西方知识分子、旅行者和作家对东欧的发明。托多罗娃说得更具体。她以巴尔干半岛为重点，断言在西方人眼中，这个地区可以说是“非驴非马”，半东方，不完全欧洲，半发达，半文明。“与东方主义不同，东方主义是一种关于归属对立的话语，巴尔干主义是一种关于归属模糊的话语”（托多罗娃1997：17）。引起焦虑的模棱两可。巴尔干地区是欧洲化（西化、民主化）的产物，该地区必须通过实施理性主义、世俗主义、商业活动和工业，永远摆脱“帝国[即奥斯曼帝国]遗产的最后残余”（第13页）。她从米兰·昆德拉那里借用的意象学一词，尽管被缩小和重新定义，但也集中在西方创造其“准殖民地”的方式上，这种殖民地必须在政治上和智力上都受到支配和服从。在讨论东方主义时，萨义德、沃尔夫和托多洛娃触及了几个对当今人类学至关重要的问题，我将在后面部分地（尽管有时只是间接地）讨论这些问题。所有这些都围绕着他者性和他者概念的认识论有效性问题。因此，人们可以认识到，它们涉及（1）大它者被创造的模式。在人类学中，以及在所引用的著作中，他者经常假设（2）在社会和个人身份工厂中的一个普遍认知范畴，将宇宙划分为“我们”和“他们”。“然而，它也是（3）一个分析性的概念，使作者能够建构叙述，同时（4）以最微妙的方式解构范畴本身。在社会生活中，制造他者的过程呈现出各种形式。集体身份的转变和“他者”的意义已成为1989年后欧洲转型的一部分。有几个因素影响这些变化，但其中一个似乎特别突出：霸权自由主义意识形态对社会不平等的看法的重组。各个国家、当局、社会团体和个人对自由市场和民主的接受程度--总是由制定游戏规则的权势者来评价--已经成为将不同地区、国家和团体或多或少归入“我们”类别的尺度，即，…
"Everyone has had one's own Orient, pertaining to space and time, most often of both" (Todorova 1997:12). Orientalism Revisited "Orientalism" as a critical category was instituted by Edward Said in 1978. For him orientalism is, first of all, a set of discursive practices through which the West structured the imagined East politically, socially, military, ideologically, scientifically and artistically. Orientalism is also "a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between 'the Orient' and...'the Occident'" (Said 1978: 2) The Orient as such exists and real people live in the region concerned, but the European representation of these people is a typical cultural creation that enables those powerful to legitimize their domination over those subjugated and conquered. The oriental Other constitutes the alter ego of the West and a perpetuation of this dichotomy proves that a powerful cultural hegemony is still at work. Discursive hardening permits politically stronger groups to define weaker groups. Orientalism has been received both approvingly and critically. The most important critiques refer to the fact that "Said's work frequently relapses into the essentializing modes it attacks and is ambivalently enmeshed in the totalizing habits of western humanism" (Clifford 1988:271). Critique notwithstanding, the book inspired a sequel of works, some of them directly addressing Eastern Europe (Wolff 1994) and the Balkans (Todorova 1997; Bakii-Hayden 1995; Bakic-Hayden and Hayden 1992; Hayden 2000). Wolff wrote about the invention of Eastern Europe in the period of Enlightenment by Western intellectuals, travelers and writers in a style similar to Said's. Todorova is more specific. She focuses on the Balkans and asserts that in Western eyes this region appears, so to speak, as "neither fish, nor fowl," semi-oriental, not fully European, semi-developed, and semi-civilized. "Unlike orientalism, which is a discourse about imputed opposition, balkanism is a discourse about an imputed ambiguity" (Todorova 1997: 17). An ambiguity that raises anxiety. The Balkans emerge as the product of attempted Europeanization (westernization, democratization), a region that permanently has to shed "the last residue of imperial [i.e. Ottoman] legacy" (p. 13) by implementing rationalism, secularism, commercial activities and industry. The work in imagology, the term she borrows from Milan Kundera, despite being narrowed and redefined, also focuses on the way the West has created its "quasi-colony" which has to be dominated and subordinated both politically and intellectually. While discussing orientalism, Said, Wolff and Todorova touch upon several issues vital for today's anthropology that I will partly, although at times only indirectly, address later. All of these revolve around the issue of alterity and the epistemological validity of the concept of the Other. Thus, one can recognize that they are concerned with (1) the modes by which the Other is created. In anthropology, as well as in the works cited, the Other often assumes the status of (2) a universal cognitive category in the factory of social and individual identity that divides the universe into "us" and "them." However, it also figures as (3) an analytical concept that enables authors to construct narration and at the same time, somehow paradoxically, and in the most subtle approaches, to (4) deconstruct the category itself. In social life, the process of making the Other assumes various forms. Shifts in collective identities and the meaning of "the Other" have become a part of the transformations in Europe after 1989. There are several factors influencing these alterations, but one among them seems especially salient: a restructuring of the perception of social inequalities by the hegemonic liberal ideology. The degree to which various countries, authorities, social groups and individuals have embraced the free market and democracy-always evaluated by those powerful who set rules of the game-has become a yardstick for classifying different regions, countries and groups as fining more or less into the category of "us," i. …