John M. MacKenzie's "Orientalism: History Theory and the Arts" (Book Note)

 

 

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 He laments that, post-Said, this positive connotation has been replaced by associations with imperialism and a repressive, intentionalist mode of power.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.