Scan barcode
alexsintschenko's review against another edition
4.0
The basic thesis was revolutionary at the time and remains relevant today. However, the dense literary analysis went a little bit over my head and I thought was not as interesting as Said's more political writings.
tzurky's review against another edition
5.0
Every time I start writing a review for this in my head it feels like I’m having a fight with unknown people. So I’m going to just accept that this is the mindset it puts me in for some reason and have at it.
First of all, this is a book about literary criticism. That’s what the man was and that’s what he writes about. The imperialism comes into it as a new framing device through which he analyses multiple works of fiction (including for some reason an opera). His thesis in this regard is simple, straightforward and seemed to me to something so self-evident that I can’t imagine people having overlooked it (which obviously means I owe a heavy debt of gratitude to Said and others who figured this out and spread the knowledge around until it became so self-evident): people are a product of their environment and if these people happen to write books they bring all that into the book. They can’t help it because they most certainly aren’t even aware of all of it consciously. And so if that environment happens to be imperialist, it’s worthwhile to look at their works through that lens. Furthermore, it’s unbelievably short-sighted to basically scope out the historical, political and geographic context of a work of fiction when analyzing it.
Since the literary critic is also, in the broadest sense, a writer, that applies to literary criticism itself as well. So no matter how much they’d like to live in an ivory tower, literary critics can’t properly exercise their vocation without dealing with their political context as well and they have a duty to be aware of how this may affect their criticism too.
Now this is obviously such a heavy simplification that it’s almost a misinterpretation of the book. Said actually develops the technique of ‘contrapuntal reading’ of the literature of the colonizer and the colonized and does an excellent job of applying it in practice. Most importantly, his stance isn’t anything as ridiculous as merely saying that a work is ‘imperialist’ and stopping at that but much more akin to a precise psychological dissection of the ways the imperialist mindset affected the work and the stance of the author. In obnoxiously simplified terms, he’s a ‘middle of the road’ guy, all about acknowledging both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ in a work of art.
So far so good and nothing I think anyone could take issue with. Now, there is a more unexpected idea put forward as well: that the novel itself as a literary category is a product of imperialism. I’m not even close to being able to have an educated opinion on this but I liked the way he made his case.
Where the book gets more morally complicated though is in dealing with the different phases of the colonizer’s reaction to imperialism and particularly the revolutionary violence and subsequent oftentimes very oppressive regimes it engenders. Here Said tries to walk a very thin line between an empathetic understanding of the source of that violent energy and a very strong criticism of the means it is expressed and particularly the way the oppressed in turn all too often become oppressors of their own people. Of course, he isn’t critical of the struggle for liberation as such.
He gives it his level best and I admired the subtlety of reasoning and argument here. I’m not sure he succeeds, but that’s not necessarily a fault of his own. It causes no small amount of cognitive dissonance in me personally to be simultaneously aware that regime change (even much-needed one) is very seldom realistically achievable without violence and to abhor violence as a personal stance. This dissonance is all the more jarring given that violent regime change has most often only succeeded in replacing one tyrant with an even worse one. And even where democracy has established a foothold in these cases we have recently been seeing a backslide to more authoritarian regimes or simply just corrupt oligarchies. So I really did feel for the man.
Now, YMMV on this, especially if you don’t have the misfortune to come from a place that has a violent revolution in its recent past. In my personal case it would be terribly weird NOT to empathize with the colonized given that my country only recently escaped what was very clearly a typical imperialist exploitative relationship (and hasn’t run far enough away, at that). I realize though that most people reading this don’t have that perspective (or haven’t re-contextualized their past in this manner) and so might not have any qualms outright dismissing the right of oppressed people to riot and be violent.
First of all, this is a book about literary criticism. That’s what the man was and that’s what he writes about. The imperialism comes into it as a new framing device through which he analyses multiple works of fiction (including for some reason an opera). His thesis in this regard is simple, straightforward and seemed to me to something so self-evident that I can’t imagine people having overlooked it (which obviously means I owe a heavy debt of gratitude to Said and others who figured this out and spread the knowledge around until it became so self-evident): people are a product of their environment and if these people happen to write books they bring all that into the book. They can’t help it because they most certainly aren’t even aware of all of it consciously. And so if that environment happens to be imperialist, it’s worthwhile to look at their works through that lens. Furthermore, it’s unbelievably short-sighted to basically scope out the historical, political and geographic context of a work of fiction when analyzing it.
Since the literary critic is also, in the broadest sense, a writer, that applies to literary criticism itself as well. So no matter how much they’d like to live in an ivory tower, literary critics can’t properly exercise their vocation without dealing with their political context as well and they have a duty to be aware of how this may affect their criticism too.
Now this is obviously such a heavy simplification that it’s almost a misinterpretation of the book. Said actually develops the technique of ‘contrapuntal reading’ of the literature of the colonizer and the colonized and does an excellent job of applying it in practice. Most importantly, his stance isn’t anything as ridiculous as merely saying that a work is ‘imperialist’ and stopping at that but much more akin to a precise psychological dissection of the ways the imperialist mindset affected the work and the stance of the author. In obnoxiously simplified terms, he’s a ‘middle of the road’ guy, all about acknowledging both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ in a work of art.
So far so good and nothing I think anyone could take issue with. Now, there is a more unexpected idea put forward as well: that the novel itself as a literary category is a product of imperialism. I’m not even close to being able to have an educated opinion on this but I liked the way he made his case.
Where the book gets more morally complicated though is in dealing with the different phases of the colonizer’s reaction to imperialism and particularly the revolutionary violence and subsequent oftentimes very oppressive regimes it engenders. Here Said tries to walk a very thin line between an empathetic understanding of the source of that violent energy and a very strong criticism of the means it is expressed and particularly the way the oppressed in turn all too often become oppressors of their own people. Of course, he isn’t critical of the struggle for liberation as such.
He gives it his level best and I admired the subtlety of reasoning and argument here. I’m not sure he succeeds, but that’s not necessarily a fault of his own. It causes no small amount of cognitive dissonance in me personally to be simultaneously aware that regime change (even much-needed one) is very seldom realistically achievable without violence and to abhor violence as a personal stance. This dissonance is all the more jarring given that violent regime change has most often only succeeded in replacing one tyrant with an even worse one. And even where democracy has established a foothold in these cases we have recently been seeing a backslide to more authoritarian regimes or simply just corrupt oligarchies. So I really did feel for the man.
Now, YMMV on this, especially if you don’t have the misfortune to come from a place that has a violent revolution in its recent past. In my personal case it would be terribly weird NOT to empathize with the colonized given that my country only recently escaped what was very clearly a typical imperialist exploitative relationship (and hasn’t run far enough away, at that). I realize though that most people reading this don’t have that perspective (or haven’t re-contextualized their past in this manner) and so might not have any qualms outright dismissing the right of oppressed people to riot and be violent.
xvicesx's review against another edition
4.0
Gods, did I struggle with this one. I'd been somewhat disillusioned thinking that Edward Said was something you could read before bed and keep up with but that was dispelled rather quickly. I think it's just the mass of additional literature invoked that makes 'Culture and Imperialism' something one might struggle with, especially if not familiar with those works. Because while the critique is extensive, the original work still seems fundamental to understanding the underlying issues.
On the other hand, an interesting view on the world and the issues of culture as opposed to what might be considered 'fringe' culture, as well as the necessary path towards a more peaceful cohabitation as people rather than specific identities which must fundamentally differ in order to earn their right in discourse.
On the other hand, an interesting view on the world and the issues of culture as opposed to what might be considered 'fringe' culture, as well as the necessary path towards a more peaceful cohabitation as people rather than specific identities which must fundamentally differ in order to earn their right in discourse.
maria_pulver's review against another edition
3.0
Had to read it for my Literature studies.
Though I understood the point of view and the anti-imperialistic stand, the book is one-sided, often far fetching (see a chapter on Jane Austen for example) and simply boring.
Though I understood the point of view and the anti-imperialistic stand, the book is one-sided, often far fetching (see a chapter on Jane Austen for example) and simply boring.
piratebear's review against another edition
4.0
An interesting read and a great companion read if you have already read Orientalism.
In my opinion it wasn’t as impactful or as easy to read as Orientalism; however, it is packed full of sources and notes to follow along with.
4/5
In my opinion it wasn’t as impactful or as easy to read as Orientalism; however, it is packed full of sources and notes to follow along with.
4/5
graphitepowder's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
Said makes incredible connections between cultural production, with reference to novels and the imperial and colonial enterprise that the cultures participated in. It’s accepted as a landmark in postcolonial studies and cultural studies in general but I believe every person must read it for better understanding of the insidious ways in which power structures are constructed and maintained.