MacKenzie's book underscores his disagreement with Said
regarding the connections between Orientalism, history, theory, and the arts.
The title itself suggests MacKenzie's intent to defend the distinctions he
perceives between history and theory, as well as between theory and the arts.
While expressing admiration for Said's contributions to scholarship and
acknowledging the importance of Said's political stance on Palestine, MacKenzie
is critical of what he views as Said's overly negative portrayal of
Orientalists.
The book serves as a defense against Said's
characterization of Orientalists, aiming to restore their positive image before
Said's influential works. MacKenzie contends that, historically, being an
Orientalist signified possessing knowledge of and respect for Oriental cultures
and artifacts. He laments that, post-Said, this positive connotation has been
replaced by associations with imperialism and a repressive, intentionalist mode
of power. MacKenzie seeks to redefine Orientalism as just one tradition among
many invoked by the arts, moving it away from the cultural criticism prevalent
in the twentieth century.
MacKenzie argues that historians exhibited wisdom by
refraining from embracing Orientalism hastily, having pre-empted Said's
perspectives and considering imperial power outside totalizing frameworks. He
suggests that historians, particularly those studying popular texts rather than
exclusively elite ones, were more pragmatic in their approach. In contrast, he
criticizes literary critics for appearing to engage in theoretical discussions
without effectively converting their historicism into meaningful historical studies.
While MacKenzie embraces interdisciplinarity,
appreciating the exploration of literary sources alongside visual arts, design,
and architecture, he struggles with intellectuals like Said traversing
contemporary disciplinary boundaries between 'Literature' and 'History.' This
defense of a capitalized 'History' impairs an otherwise commendable collection
of primary material and nuanced analysis. MacKenzie contends that historians,
anticipating paradoxes, would not depict the monolithic imperialism presented
by Said.
However, he appears blind to the paradox that
well-intentioned artists may inadvertently be complicit in the imperial power
relations they aim to undermine. MacKenzie's desire to accentuate the positive
aspects of Orientalism leads him to excuse unequal power dynamics in
transcultural exchange, relying on a traditional perspective of genius,
individuality, and creativity often associated with high culture. This stance
contradicts his emphasis on the popular cultural adoption of Orientalism.
MacKenzie's inclination to see Orientalism as both
oppositional and consensual to established power structures, fostering ferment
in ideas and artistic innovation, prevents him from acknowledging the market
for products—whether elite or popular—that perpetuate racism and
destructiveness. His optimism blinds him to the fact that these artifacts
thrive because people desire them or because their crude negative aspects
persist, albeit softened by a veneer of respect for ancient traditions or
documentation of 'disappearing' ways of life. In reinforcing a reassuring
Western superiority, such artifacts work effectively.
While not asserting that all artists, designers, and
audiences were part of an evil Western conspiracy, MacKenzie's reluctance to
recognize artistic inspiration as ideologically non-neutral prevents a
comprehensive understanding of the contradictions and paradoxes inherent in
cultural artifacts, contrary to the historian's expectation of such
complexities.
MacKenzie excels in contextualizing art objects within
the market, probing market influences on elite and popular taste, and
dissecting their impact on cultural production. In response to what he
perceives as a vaguely defined notion of imperialism—anything offensive to late
twentieth-century anti-racist sensibilities—in the works of Linda Nochlin and
others aligned with Said, MacKenzie advocates a detailed examination of the
temporal relationship between cultural production and colonial and imperial
activities. Using a five-phase division of Orientalism from the eighteenth to
the early twentieth century, he identifies the peak of French and British
Orientalist painting between 1840 and the 1890s, positioned between two periods
of heightened imperial activity.
MacKenzie argues that since Orientalism's zenith did not
coincide with a significant period of colonial expansion, it cannot be
inherently motivated by imperialism. This historical precision, however,
downplays ongoing imperial experiences in the second half of the century,
sidelining the occupation of Algeria and Britain's interests in India as
exceptions. MacKenzie seeks to emphasize the 'genuine respect' European artists
and designers felt for Oriental visual skills, asserting that there is 'no
consistent or monolithic relationship between aesthetic movements and power.'
He supports this by highlighting the contradictory strands within European
Orientalism and the existence of Oriental Orientalists like the Ottoman artist
Hamdy Bey.
While MacKenzie's attention to individual cases
illustrates differences within European Orientalism, there's a concern that
this approach may underestimate the broader imperial climate in which European
artists operated. For an artist socialized in an imperial center, the size of
the empire might not necessarily be decisive, but power relations cannot be
disregarded. If MacKenzie rightly notes that images conveying strong gestures
to imperial ideology precede the direct expansion of colonial rule, it suggests
they may contribute to the formulation of the ideological cluster supporting
eventual hands-on colonial rule rather than being entirely free of imperialist
associations. While MacKenzie argues that Orientalist paintings did not turn
consumers into imperialists and that the arts and dominant politics operate in 'counterpoint
rather than conformity,' one might question whether these works were entirely
devoid of imperialist influences.
The endeavor to absolve Western artists from
anachronistic accusations of racism or imperialism stemming from a
twentieth-century perspective is valid. However, this doesn't negate the
possibility that they were entangled in contemporary power relations and
exploitation, even if their intent was oppositional (which wasn't always the
case). Herein lies MacKenzie's slipperiness: while his critiques of Said are
often agreeable and well-researched, his proposed solutions may not be
universally convincing.
MacKenzie engages with feminist critics of Said,
positioning them seemingly on his side of the argument, especially regarding
gender analysis in Orientalism. Yet, these critics primarily engage with Said's
work, not necessarily departing from it, and they certainly don't defend the
good intentions of Western Orientalists. While MacKenzie provides persuasive
examples, the interpretations often appear open-ended. For instance, in the
analysis of paintings depicting Arab horsemen hunting, he argues against
emphasizing the cruelty of the hunt, proposing that artists were genuinely
enthusiastic and projecting nineteenth-century interests in hunting and
medieval chivalry onto the scene. However, this interpretation seems plausible,
but it also raises questions about discussing the projection of medieval
chivalry onto Arabs without acknowledging the racist and anti-Semitic legacy of
the crusades.
In highlighting the admiration many Orientalists felt for
Oriental cultures, MacKenzie overlooks the fact that positive stereotypes often
make sense in contrast to negative ones. While accusing Said of selectivity,
MacKenzie himself appears selective. The harem, a central institution in
Orientalist culture, receives only a brief mention, despite its significance in
shaping the sexualized myth of the fantasy Orient. Ignoring the harem, an area
where Westerners consciously opposed popular prejudice, creates a gap in an
otherwise comprehensive study, particularly given its centrality to Orientalist
culture during the period and its relevance in postcolonial theorizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment