Fred Dallymayr's "Beyond Orientalism: Essays on Cross-Cultural Encounter" (Book Note)

 

Decades since its initial publication, Edward Said's Orientalism (1979) has emerged as a seminal interdisciplinary work, reshaping scholarly approaches to cross-cultural studies across various fields. At its core, the book delves into the intricate interplay between power dynamics and knowledge production. Said's thesis, asserting that "the Orient" is a construct originating in the West, serving as a framework for broader Western endeavors encompassing economic, military, and cultural dominance, retains its profound relevance. It stands as a linchpin within contemporary critiques challenging the assumptions and categories of modern knowledge. Said has further expounded on the political dimension of his argument in extensive writings concerning the Palestinian question. For those engaged in the critical examination of knowledge, this work serves as a provocative call to broaden the scope of their intellectual pursuits.

 

"Beyond Orientalism," authored by Fred Dallmayr, a distinguished political theorist with a specialization in continental philosophy, endeavors to meet this challenge. Dallmayr establishes a connection between his own body of work and Said's critique of Western representations of the nonwestern world. Comprising a series of interrelated essays, the book explores the nexus between Asian philosophical traditions and internal critiques of the rationalist model that have emerged within the Western tradition. The initial chapter delves into Tzvetan Todorov's "The Conquest of America" (1984), while the subsequent eight essays predominantly scrutinize Indian philosophers or writers whose contributions directly engage with trends in Indian philosophy. These essays serve as a commendable introduction to the philosophical musings of several relatively lesser-known Indian and Japanese thinkers, including Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, J. L. Mehta, Wilhelm Halbfass, and Kitaro Nishida and the Kyoto School of Buddhist philosophy. Dallmayr adeptly elucidates these thinkers' philosophical concerns, the interplay between their texts, and their connections to the writings of more familiar Western philosophers like Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, and Habermas. Despite being independently written essays, the book remarkably maintains a cohesive thread, attesting to the author's sustained engagement with this specific facet of Asian thought.

 

Nonetheless, while immensely successful, the book doesn't truly extend Said's political and intellectual project. Said's endeavor entailed a reevaluation of the terms underpinning cross-cultural intellectual encounters, rather than merely an invitation to engage with the foreign as the new. Regrettably, Dallmayr tends to reexamine the contributions of Asian philosophers to modern epistemology within the confines of the same established intellectual discourse that lends his book its satisfying coherence—a discourse largely defined by figures like Gadamer, Derrida, Habermas, and most notably, Heidegger. It is worth noting that many of the Asian thinkers discussed by Dallmayr appear to implicitly accept the definitions established by the dominant epistemological discourse, further underscoring this issue.

 

Said's seminal work drew attention to the classificatory paradigms shaping all cross-cultural projects, especially those straddling the East/West divide, and the power structures underpinning them—from the eighteenth century to the present day. However, Dallmayr misconstrues Said's argument by equating Orientalism with a specific historical period (nineteenth-century colonialism), rather than recognizing it as a set of enduring power dynamics requiring ongoing scrutiny. Given that Dallmayr explicitly premises his book on Said's argument, this misinterpretation leads to theoretical and methodological complications. Additionally, certain classificatory patterns employed by Dallmayr prove to be particularly problematic. Chief among them is the selection of authors—not to suggest that these thinkers are unworthy of consideration. They are undeniably significant. However, it is striking that none of them seem to be scrutinizing the role of power in the construction of knowledge, a crucial emphasis in Said's work. Instead, Dallmayr appears to have chosen philosophers whose work tends to exemplify a pattern within the Orientalist project: the reconciliation of ostensibly authentic Eastern modes of thought with ostensibly distinct Western norms. This impression is further reinforced when Dallmayr approvingly notes Radhakrishnan's 1936 appointment to an Oxford chair as a sign of the demise of Orientalism, rather than recognizing it as a potentially insidious confirmation. Similarly, describing Wilhelm Halbfass as an Indologist who can act as an "honest broker" for cross-cultural encounters suggests a certain bias. These stylistic choices reflect a deeper issue in the selection of authors—a question not just of who is being included, but also of who is being excluded.

It is disconcerting that Dallmayr makes no reference whatsoever to Muhammad Iqbal, a Muslim Indian philosopher. Iqbal, who underwent training in Heidelberg during the 1920s and grappled with the concept of the self in Islamic thought, would appear to be a fitting candidate for inclusion. His notable absence underscores the glaring omission of any Muslim thinkers in Dallmayr's discussions. This oversight contributes to the portrayal of the Indian tradition as predominantly Hindu, with a smattering of Buddhism. Perhaps Dallmayr's focus lies solely on what could be deemed authentically Indian philosophy—those originating organically within the subcontinent. However, this particular classification of cultural authenticity has been fundamentally challenged by the Subaltern Studies collective. Comprising notable Indian writers like Partha Chatterjee and Ranajit Guha, this group has played a pivotal role in reshaping the terms of the intellectual encounter between India and the West. It is noteworthy that Dallmayr does not acknowledge their contributions. While the philosophers that capture Dallmayr's attention appear engrossed in the epistemological categorization of Eastern (Hindu or Buddhist) vis-à-vis Western (secular) modes of thinking, the Subaltern project is centered on the interrogation of historical categories such as caste, race, nation, and religion. This endeavor involves deconstructing the very categories that once underpinned the authenticity of India's precolonial past, its customs, and philosophies. Dallmayr's decision to overlook thinkers whose work expands and redefines the tradition he seeks to engage with ultimately constrains his own project. "Beyond Orientalism" stands as a serious and valuable introduction to the intellectual endeavors of writers deserving of greater attention in the West. However, if it falls short of being genuinely post-Orientalist, perhaps this in itself serves as an indication of the enduring influence of the Orientalist paradigm and the continued relevance of Said's original critique.