Culture and Imperialism
Culture and Imperialism
Culture and Imperialism
Jonathan Worth
Whether or not one is in agreement with all of his conclusions there are two very
valuable, fundamental lessons offered by Edward Said in Culture and Imperialism. The first is
fairly broad in scope: because history, culture, and politics do not—indeed cannot—exist in a
vacuum, sealed off from external influences, cultural discourse throughout the world has been
profoundly affected by the long era of European imperialism. A lasting influence from this age
has permeated literature, the arts, the media, and political and social discourse in the West and in
the developing world as well. The second lesson follows from the first and is essentially a
practical recommendation: political and cultural discourse (in particular the news media and
especially literature) should therefore be digested critically with an awareness of its cultural and
world-historical context. Said rails against the prevailing tendency to categorize and subdivide
fields of study and expertise (e.g. “Middle Eastern studies”), because doing so inhibits the
prejudices, and memes that inform a society’s cultural traditions undermines the cross-cultural
As an Arab-American and a Palestinian exile, Said is very sensitive to, and angry about,
what he sees as the failure of Western scholars to transcend the “imperial dynamic and above all
its separating, essentializing, dominating, and reactive tendencies” (p. 37). It is one thing for the
media, as a cheerleader of sorts for Western pop culture, to fail in this—Said quite reasonably
does not expect the corporate media to challenge Western society’s self-image. Rather, Said
seems to regard this undertaking as the responsibility of academes and literati. Indeed, it is for
them that this book has been written, which is evident in the complexity of his language. His is
an important message that should be conveyed and understood by all but, unfortunately, its
The cultural debate, therefore, should not concern what to read but how to read it. The
author calls this “contrapuntal” reading: the interpretation of works of literature not only for their
aesthetic merit but also with an awareness of their historical, cultural, and political associations,
which he calls “structures of attitude and reference” (which phrase appears frequently throughout
the book.) Thus the “great canonical texts” of the Western imperial age should be read in the
In practical terms, “contrapuntal reading” as I have called it means reading a text with an
understanding of what is involved when an author shows, for instance, that a colonial
The “particular style of life in England” mentioned here, of course, refers to the ownership of a
large English estate being made possible by the colonial enterprise of slave labor on expropriated
Liberation forms a central theme of the book: that is to say, liberation from constraining
and outmoded patterns of thought regarding personal and cultural identity. Said wants the West
to recognize how its imperial legacy continues to inform its cultural identity and to liberate itself
from its perpetual need to dominate and to diminish “others” (nonwhites). Reactionaries in the
Third World should not equate postcolonial liberation with nationalism because doing so merely
continues the imperial experience whereby one exploitative oligarchy is exchanged for another.
To be free of the residue of colonialism (which is impossible considering that the very political
boundaries of so many former colonies were created by their former overlords), Third World
Culture and Imperialism 4
reactionaries should also resist the nativist impulse, which “plays the same game” with
imperialism by reinforcing an artificial demarcation between “us” and “them” and giving rise to
“demagogic assertions about a native past, narrative or actuality that stands free from world time
itself” (p. 228). And today’s American society should liberate itself from the exceptionalist
prejudices and justificatory propaganda served up by an acquiescent media (of course, Said’s
Said reserves some of his harshest criticism for the American “information hegemony,”
which he feels contributes little to enlightened debate over the issues, particularly with regard to
the Middle East. Said expresses considerable disdain for and distrust of American television
news outlets, such as CNN, which wield so much influence not only in the United States but
around the globe. The media serves as a propagandistic mouthpiece for the government by
justifying foreign policy and disseminating a neo-imperial perspective of the world. Said even
dreads the information superhighway itself because he feels it will merely propagate uncritical,
polemical, and biased information that will do more harm than good. Said verges on polemic
here; his argument is less convincing in light of the ascendancy of non-U.S. news providers like
al-Jazeera and Asian News International. Indeed, the book shows its (and its author’s?) age a
little—the Internet also now provides many sources of independent information (and
Said is at his best in his discussion of the impact of imperialism on Western artistic
creativity, where he supports his qualitative arguments with compelling evidence: the relegation
characters are confined to a passive and silent backdrop, while Camus’s anonymous, dead Arab
Culture and Imperialism 5
serves the practical function of setting the story in motion—a forgotten grain of sand around
which the pearl of the plot develops. The Indian characters in Kipling’s Kim, so accepting of
their British masters, are never permitted to question the foreign presence in their land. Nor does
Kim experience any conflict of loyalties between his Indian mentor and the British authorities
because Kipling never considers that objections to British rule in India might exist. In Verdi’s
Aida we see the Western capacity to synthesize a totally idealized version of ancient Egypt at
odds with historical fact and which completely disregards the contemporary Muslim presence.
And yet, this seems to be the result of the very human tendency to identify with others who share
Still, there are several soft spots in the underbelly of Said’s methodology that deserve
some attention. Throughout the book he makes some fairly expansive yet unsupported assertions,
as in his broad-brush treatment of the U.S. involvement in the Gulf War and his rather
ungenerous view of Western academia. With the same broad brush he also paints a universalistic
portrait of the West as a homogeneous whole while largely disregarding the contribution of
abolitionists). Indeed, Said is at his most polemical in the final section concerning American
exceptionalism. I do agree with him that, in general, American attitudes are largely skewed
against the Muslim world, particularly after 9/11, but there again he wields a broad brush in his
indictments. I do not agree with his assertion that the founders of the United States envisioned a
Christian Empire because, in fact, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (not to mention
the Treaty of Tripoli) excludes religion from American politics (though, granted, it is hardly
completely separate). Said also seems to ignore or, at least, to downplay the violence committed
by Saddam Hussein when he derides the American media’s characterization of Saddam as “the
Culture and Imperialism 6
butcher of Baghdad” and as an Arab “Hitler.” But the fact is that he was indeed a violent man.
(By way of disclaimer I do not think that this is exceptionalism on my part because I am aware
that the United States has on a number of occasions pursued a shameful course—e.g. the
extermination of Native Americans, the Vietnam War, etc.) Said’s castigation of the U.S. for its
interventionism and support of despotic regimes to suit its own strategic and economic interests
and admonishment that the U.S. should act more altruistically are a little on the idealistic side.
The United States could (and should) pursue more peaceful and equitable ends, but the
discounts the influence of the Ottoman Empire upon Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle
East, and the Indian Ocean rim. It is true that Britain and France accumulated vaster colonial
realms and that the Ottoman Empire never achieved the level of extractive efficiency of either of
these European empires. But the Ottomans exerted considerable cultural and religious power
over a significant portion of the planet, and this omission from Said’s book is glaring. There was
indeed a considerable transmission from the ancient Muslim world to the West of science,
mathematics, and astronomy, to name just a few fields of knowledge—perhaps, therefore, a more
apt title for this book might be “Culture and Western Imperialism.”
Moreover, by focusing solely on the impact of the Western imperialist enterprise, Said
presents us with a one-sided view of what is really an innate human propensity toward prejudice
and chauvinism. For all his discussion of the “human community,” Said does not explore in
that which is different, fear of change. He acknowledges that “[all] cultures tend to make
representations of foreign cultures the better to master or in some way control them” (p. 100) and
Culture and Imperialism 7
that imperialism distinguishes and emphasizes “otherness”: we are more advanced and therefore
stronger than they are; they are inferior because we are stronger. But this is about the limit of his
psychological exploration. What about the underlying motivations behind greed, aggression, and
chauvinism that propel imperialism? Nor does Said consider the common human tendency to
gravitate towards that which holds more meaning or familiarity, with regard to the primacy of the
legacy of ancient Greece and Rome in Western culture. Is it such a surprise that the West should
gravitate towards all things Greco-Roman since, after all, this tradition formed such a significant
foundation of Western life? And is it such a surprise that so many Americans are geographically
illiterate, thanks to their geographic isolation in North America? I do agree with Said that the
West mistakenly derived universality from its Classical tradition and that the West has
Throughout the book Said takes the stand that the West should have taken a moral “high
ground,” that the technologically superior Europeans should have exercised withstraint and not
appropriate foreign lands and foreign peoples. True enough, but again, human nature is being
discounted and the assumption made that politics is necessarily moral. Indeed, politics should be
moral, but it isn’t always so, just as not all individuals conduct themselves morally. Politics
reflects human nature—it is moral in some ways and not so in others. Human beings for the most
part can empathize with a child suffering before their eyes, but considering the wider picture of
human suffering in lands over the horizon is another prospect entirely—more so when these
people differ in the color of their skin, in their dress, and in their customs. Personal self-interest
is reflected in politics, where the self-interest of the nation is analogous to the self-interest of the
Culture and Imperialism 8
individual. How and why did the West conduct such an expansive imperial program throughout
the globe? Was it because it could—is the answer that simple? Said does not really tell us.
These exceptions aside, reading Culture and Imperialism was for me a revelatory
experience that illuminated certain misgivings I have felt about the American cultural project,
misgivings I have felt since growing up the son of American diplomats—whose sole purpose, I
might add, was of course to promote the American national interest. I have taken away from the
book a renewed and hardened resolve to read critically, to read “contrapuntally,” to search for
those “structures of attitude and reference.” Whatever the book’s flaws, Said has illustrated the
necessity of to understanding that everything is interconnected, that the past lives in the present,
and that there is always more than one side to any story. Every society needs people like Edward
References
Said, Edward. (1993). Culture and Imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage.