Orientalism . . . or, What's in a name?

On the front door of what was the Faculty of Oriental Studies in Cambridge, I have just spotted a new notice. Next to the stern warnings about not leaning your bicycle against the windows (a hopeless prohibition in Cambridge), is the following equally stern announcement: “Name Change. We are now known as The Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies”.

I am sure that this has been the subject of long discussions. And I can see why they wanted to change. The word “Oriental” now reeks of unacceptable “orientalism”, a nastily Western construction of any culture slightly to the east: decadent, effeminate but at the same time slightly menacing. (It’s what the Greeks felt about the Persians, and the Romans in their turn about the Greeks, and so on westwards.) How, for a start, do you explain to a group of new first year undergraduates what an “Oriental” Faculty is all about, and why it doesn’t exactly mean what they might think it does? More to the point, how do you get them, in the first place, to apply to something with a name like that?

It’s a bit like having “Women’s Studies” being called the “Department of the Second Sex”.

All the same, I can’t help feel that it might have been more courageous and confident to sit it out with the old name. There would, after all, be some good company in that project. The Oriental Institute in Chicago shows no sign of turning itself into an Institute of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. And the School of Oriental and African Studies likewise seems happy enough with the title.

Wouldn’t the cleverer strategy have been to try to reclaim the adjective “Oriental” as an acceptable label again?

There are all kinds of example of this sort of problem. One recent commenter on this blog took me to task for using “BCE” instead of “BC”, and I must say I think he had a point. I’ve tended to fall into this politically-correct habit recently. But, no, “BCE” doesn’t honestly seems any less “Christian” in its emphasis than the old BC.  If BCE stands for “Before the Common era”, then (unless you change the counting system) isn’t it simply admitting that Christian time IS the Common era. And why should that satisfy any other of the world religions?

In my defence, I’d like to say that haven’t given in with the word “pagan” – which I continue to use of traditional Greek and Roman religion, despite the fact that it was a disapproving Christian coinage hardly ever used by “civic polytheists” (as we’re supposed to say) themselves.

I haven’t got my head entirely in the sand here. It’s not that I think that the precise words we use are unimportant. But being blown by the political wind is not always the best political course of action. Isn’t it better, and smarter, to reclaim the language of oppression. Look at the word “black”. When I was a kid, you were told off fiercely if you were ever caught using it. Some version of “negro” was the order of the times…which would now sound like a terrible bit of colonialism. The same is true too for “queer”. When I was a student, it was enough to get you thrown out of the college bar. Now we all use “queer theory”.

So, wouldn’t it have been smarter to rebrand “Oriental”, not change the name into a temporarily acceptable periphrasis?

Comments

[Tony Francis]

Maybe I am just a dunce, but I don't get this Wiki article on Year Zero. I got lost somewhere between ISO year 8601:2004 and South Asian Moon Calenders. I wonder how this fits into The Foska "Dennis System"? Would 1 BC be 1 BDE? Does the Foska/Dennis System have a year zero? So many questions. So few answers.

[StB]

(Very much) belated comment:

> One thing that I have long found a
> stumbling block is that there is
> no year zero.
> [...]
> Posted by: Robert H. Olley | 7 Oct 2007 21:31:39

Indeed, in the astronomical year numbering, often used by historians of astronomy, there *is* a year zero, and it is the year 1 BC/BCE of the Julian calendar, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

[Liang]

It's the speakers, or their ability to soar above existing definitions. I am a Chinese with social-democratic sympathies. Sometimes my non-Chinese Hayakean friends call me a commie. It is funny because it shows we appreciate one's ability to appropriate and reinvent a word or an ideology behind it. I don't mind being called an oriental in a chemistry department by someone who just assumes she could call me that, either, but for a different reason: That only shows how unmusical she is to positive social changes, not my own backwardness. I would be happy to see the said institute retain its name, precisely because as a follower of the FOS's research programs I trust the people inhabiting that inscribed house as a community are capable of keeping reinventing and reinterpreting it, hopefully in increasingly open,interesting,and ethically constructive ways.

[Mark]

“Name Change. We are now known as The Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies”.

Or the FAME Academy for short?

[David Weir]

It was Major Bloodnok,(sic) I recall (unless he got a posthumous promotion.
And a widely-used term of art for these kinds of studies is MENA
(Middle East and North Africa).
It avoids the Orientalism debates.

[David Weir]

On the whole I agree with XJY: except that
1 As far as I recall it was Major Bloodnok(sic) (unless he got promoted on retirement)
2 The term of art that has become fairly generic and non-contentious is "MENA" (MIDDLE EAST and NORTH AFRICA)
3 And Venables Preller is right to warn that there may be sinister implications for jobs in some of these name change episodes.

[zainabadi]

They changed their name because they were made to by the School. Where have you been for the last 4 years that you missed the furore? Not to mention the deliciously vicious debate in Oriental Studies' defence in the Senate? You're just lucky there's a faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies left at all -- if certain folks had had their way there would have been a hostile takeover, and no more rest of the world. . .

[Dr. Anya Barbremmen]

Dear XJY,
you employ powerful language in a deliciously jarring way. You're quite right: the naming of cultural and political regions simply depends on the might and promulgation of the leading empire. Also, quite right about the "cleanliness" of institutions.

[Tony Francis]

There are several problems with using "Oriental" as a name or a decription. First: it is imprecise, in that it can be applied to any area outside Europe and America: North Africa, Egypt, Near or Middle East, Pacific Rim, etc. It also has emerged (as I have learned) as a pejorative. This would appear to be something of a US phenomenon. "Non Occidental Studies", as has been suggested, is equally imprecise. It could include anything from Astronomy to Marine Biology, and everything in between. "Asian" is also imprecise. Why not simply say what a course or paper really is: "Study of Chinese Sociology"; "Review of Indian Literature", etc.? Concerning the use of "Classics": I'm not so sure this associated with "Imperialism", per se. The Greeks and the Romans thought their cultures superior. Neither had any qualms about destroying conquered cultures and implanting their own. The Greeks did this all through the Middle East, and the Romans did it in Western Europe. Rome could never up-root the pre-existing Greek Culture in the East. Whether this was Imperialism, in an 18-19th century perspective could be the subject of yet one more college course, or the writing of dozens of doctoral dissertations.

[Kristian]

If "Oriental" isn't acceptable any more (despite the fact that it has apparently already survived almost 30 years of incessant postcolonial discourse since the original publication of "Orientalism" in 1978), then what about "Classics"? The latter is clearly an infuriating example of how highly questionable normative assumptions are championed by the insidiously hegemonic university establishment - after all, what's so "classical" about the imperialist legacy of pre-modern, proto-fascist social conformists such as the ancient Greeks and Romans? Wouldn't eternal justice for all be best served by renaming all remaining Classics departments to something like "The Department of Really Old Mediterranean Stuff"? ;)

Seriously, though, I guess the word "Oriental" nowadays is an even more vague and puzzling term than it ever was, and especially so in an international perspective. For example, if you would ask any ordinary Swedish teenager what "Orient" or "Oriental" means you'd probably get nothing but a blank stare in reply; whereas he or she would most likely be able to name at least a few of the contemporary states in the "Middle East", "South Asia", "East Asia" or any other part of the world that used to be widely recognized in the West (Sweden included) as belonging to "the Orient".

[SW Foska]

Dan, that's about how long the years should be, not how they should be numbered. And why use the date of the establishment of an (imperfect) system for calculating the former as the datum for the latter? And even if you must, why call this 'common'? Dennis is not that dangerous.

[Robert H. Olley]

One thing that I have long found a stumbling block is that there is no year zero. So if one calculates the difference between two dates both on the same side of the divide there is no problem, but 1AD and 1BC give 1-(-1)=2. Alas, Brahmagupta did not appear on the scene to give us zero and negative numbers until about 600 years later.

Interestingly, the radiocarbon wallahs use BP (before present) where "present" is defined as 1950(AD). But it could also be stated as "before plastic", because at that time there started to appear loads of plastic artifacts made from fossil fuel, with a radiocarbon date of donkey's years plus. Very confusing to future archaeologists!

[Dan Schwartz]

Regarding BC vs. BCE, the "common era" may have started as the Christian "Anno Domini," but since it is now used as the primary calendar around the world, it makes sense to acknowledge this change of scope with a change of name.

Besides, although it seems to be not widely known, the "common era" can be defined without any reference to Christianiy or Dionysius Exiguus.

The Julian calendar was established in the year we know as 45 BC(E), which was a common (non-leap) year. The following year, 44 BC, was a leap year - and Caesar was assassinated within weeks of the first single-day intercalation that year. After that, the calendar was administered according to an interpretation of Caesar's instructions, probably by the Pontifex Maximus. Unfortunately, it was an incorrect interpretation. Romans counted "inclusively", so "every four years" was taken to mean what we would call "every three years", and leap years were held in 41 BC, 38 BC, 35 BC ... 8 BC. In 8 BC, Augustus realized that something was wrong. He ordered that the next 10 years (7 BC through 3 AD) be common years, and that the year we call 4 AD (or 4 CE) be the first leap year in the corrected scheme, with leap years thereafter being separated by three intervening common years.

The upshot of this is that the year 1 AD was the first year in which the calendar that was actually observed fully corresponded, then and thereafter, to the standard Julian calendar. That is, the period from 1 AD onward until the adoption of the Gregorian calendar consists of repeating blocks of 3 common years and a leap year, whereas the period from 1 BC onward does not. So this can serve as a religiously neutral reason/excuse for dating the "common era" from that point.

[Tony Francis]

Dear Ushekim: Answering your questions: A.) I was around Chinese grad students from 1990 until 1999. It was in a chemistry department. B.) It proves they didn't mind being called "Orientals", but did mind being called "Red Chinese". C.) My point was that they didn't mind being called "Orientals", but did mind being called "Red Chinese". This had nothing to do with the N-word, as you suggest. How about a suggestion from me: Why don't you "Chill Out, Already?"

[ushekim]

Tony Francis: "When I was around Chinese students in grad school, none objected to being referred to as 'Orientals'".
A. When was this?
B. What does it prove?
C. What is your point?
The whole thing is as stupid as black people don't like to be called a N-word, but don't mind calling each other such. It is not the word that is offensive, but who said it. In the doctrine of the PC, the substantive meaning of the definition is irrelevant. While we all agree that while the "Orient" is a sound distinguishing with another sound "Occident," a preferred substitute would simply to refer it as the Faculty of Non-Occidental Studies.

[anthony alcock]

Yes, the "Orient" is a big place, with lots of languages and cultures in it. Yes, it might be a good idea to reflect that elementary fact in the name given to an institute devoted to the study of all of it, but inevitably some bits will be left out. What happens to North Africa ? Middle East ? Culturally but not geographically, perhaps. I am sure the long discussions took this into account and I hope that those responsible for pushing it through are aware of this and will think twice before messing around with anything else. I am also pretty sure that Said's prolix and in some ways short-sighted book was an influencing factor, but I wonder why it took so long to react to the attitude changes brought about by book. For my own part, the Arabic word for "orientalist" is quite useful, because it refers to a westerner who studies the language and culture of the Arab world. I suspect it will not be abandoned by them, any more than the "Year of the Birth" to mark the Christian era.

[Neighbour]

The change of name was indeed "the subject of long discussions", as show by the transcripts:
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2006-07/weekly/6063/17.html

Perhaps a warning to others who may be considering similar changes...

Common my foot. In a world ridden with hierarchies, walls, opiniated argument and might-is-right, WHERE has there even been a common era. To count time via a something that has never existed is a slap in the face of history - and those whom it has trodden on.

And I'm an optimist!

[F.Gamberini]

Robert:
that's the passage I said I saw with the title "Veni, vidi, reorganizi". I've just looked online and it would seem to be a spurious quote, attributed for some reason to Petronius. But, for some reason, it's associated in my mind with Ammianus -whom nobody reads anyway, so that's where it might well come from. Otherwise, somebody here he talki bullshit.

[Tony Francis]

Dearest Foska: I can hardly get my mind around the AD/CE-BC/BCE controversy. Now you suggest "DE"? This is too much for me to comprehend. It is just too radical, and really is making a little frightened and a little nervous. Please withdraw this scary suggestion, forthwith.

[SW Foska]

On dating why not have DE which stands for Dennis's Era. The current chronology was worked out by a guy called Dennis (Dionysius Exiguus, or Dennis the Small). Short, clear, & enables analogous acronyms for alternative chronosystems.

[Tony Francis]

The Wiki article on Orientalism has some interesting facts:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
But is really just a so-so article. What is really interesting is Egyptian hieroglyphics in Australia:
http://www.beyondtopsecret.com/History_Australia_Hieroglyphics.html
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~classblu/egypt/glyphpic.htm
http://www.zakairan.com/CosmicCookies/EgyptHierosInOZ.htm
Some of these are questionable, but the mummy and Anubis appear convincing. Mummies in Egypt have been found to have traces of nicotine and cocaine, indicating possible trade with South America. Maybe someone knows something about this.

[F.Gamberini]

I once saw a brilliant title (it may have been to a passage of -I think- Ammianus on the chopping and changing of military units) that went: "veni, vidi, reorganizi" -though in this case it's more a matter of "renominati".
CE/BCE sounds like a good compromise. It's not so much a matter of being respectful to other religions (every culture has its own dating system) as of being relatively neutral among ourselves.
For one thing, CE stops you speaking Latin and sounding like a religious sermon (even the Italian AC/DC -"avanti" and "dopo"- is better in this respect), while those who are religious can continue to think of it as meaning "Christian era".
But whether it is Christian or "common", the reference to an "era" would appropriately point to the fact that the traditional date of Jesus's birth is a matter of convetion anyway -an uncertainty which, in turn, would allow us to believe, if we wished, that in geopolitical terms we are counting approximately from the establishment of the Roman Principate.
Now what date was that again?.....

[ABC]

I guess it is good we have got a constitutional monarchy...

[Candadai Tirumalai]

I have no quarrel with Oriental in your sense of the word, and read it as the opposite of Occidental -- or Eastern and Western. But when I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Walter Pater nearly forty years ago, I explained that I did not like his term "Asiatic" and had substituted "Asian" for it.
As for "pagan" (strictly, a "rustic"), I do associate it with a Christian judgment of value. For Dante, Aristotle was both the Master of those who know and a virtuous pagan, and therefore assigned to limbo, unforunate to have been born before Christ.

[Alex]

Of course there is also the equivalent problem: are we the 'West'? How should we describe so-called 'Western Civilisation', when some of it is in Australia and New Zealand, which are certainly not in the West?

The Cambridge change also preserves the same logical problems as the older name, as they continue to use 'Middle Eastern'. What is 'Middle Eastern', other than the view from Europe? Indeed, why 'Middle Eastern' rather than 'Near Eastern'? Do the Balkans continue to be the Near East, although a good proportion is now part of the European Union?

Actually the Cambridge name change probably has much to do with Edward Sa'id's well-known work 'Orientalism', where orientalists are described as having a colonial vision of the east as eternally inferior cultures, although exotic. 'Oriental' has become a tainted word.

[Robert]

Perhaps Mary can enlighten me on a quotation about changing names that I am sent by students from time to time. it is said to be from Petronius. it reads "We trained hard...but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization". it sounds so modern, can it be from the Petronius of the first century AD (or CE)?

[Adrian Colhoun]

The world's Orthodox Christian churches are divided into two main groups, one of which is usually called "Eastern", (Greek, Russian etc) and the other "Oriental" (Coptic, Armenian, Syrian et al). This has always struck me as a bit odd, firstly because Eastern and Oriental are meant to be synonymous, and secondly because the geography doesn't really work (eg, the "Oriental" Ethiopian church is in Africa.) Is it another case of "Oriental" actually meaning "exotic and a bit weird"?

It's also a bit odd that in Britain's culture of political correctness the word "Asian" is confined to people from India and Pakistan, and Chinese Britons are "Oriental". It's different in America, where they realise that China is part of Asia. The British usage seems a bit sinister to me, full of assumptions about an oriental "race", rather like calling Africans "negroes". If I was of East Asian descent I think I would find it offensive.

Another question that I have never heard satisfactorily explained is this: when did the Near East become the Middle East, and why?

[dr venables preller]

Mary, one fascination of your blog is the range of discussion which seemingly minor topics can tease forth.

As one who enjoys some institutions for the comfort zones they can offer, and is generally averse to change for the sake of it (unless evidence based need-driven – but when evidence is somewhat more than ticked boxes) I would make the observation that apart from the sense of belonging and shared values, some institutions can also offer a sense of purpose transcending mortality. Insofar as that can be a stimulus to deliver the best possible, there can be a force for good.

XJY provides much food for thought, but it seems to me that language as a tool is more responsible than one might like to admit for thought patterns, analytical method and much cultural embellishment, including dross. To practitioners of lateral thinking, different cultural groups offer such diversity of ideas and solutions as to make some research methods seem almost superfluous.

Perhaps correlation of cultures, language and geographic location will enjoy a renaissance and greater public awareness with the continuing application of data manipulation, pattern analysis and digital processing.

[Tony Francis]

When I was around Chinese students in grad school, none objected to being referred to as "Orientals". They didn't like the term "Red Chinese". I ran into some Koreans when I worked for the US Army who bristled at "Orientals" and thought it a pejorative. They preferred "Asians". During my adolescence, "Black" was the proper reference, and "Negro" was considered an insult. Now, Black is out and Afro-American is better. Native-Americans is given as better than Indians. But American Indians refer to themselves as Indians: just look at their various websites. Euro-American never really caught on. The American Psychology Association in 1994 recommended against various terms such as "Orientals", "schizophrenics" (better: persons diagnosed with schizophrenia; etc.)
http://www.sv.uit.no/seksjon/psyk/apacrib.htm#avoid
Oh yes, manic-depressives are now called "Bipolar". BCE always seemed a little artificial: as in "and when did the Common Era begin?"

[Xjy]

Oriental is probably a better name here - who the hell decides what is the Whole East and in relation to what? and then who gets to be Far East and who Middle East and who Near East?
Why should Russian be a Modern Language and not an Asian one, but Turkish Middle Eastern, not Near Eastern? And where does Arabic begin and end? How about the Finnic languages strung across Eurasia? How about the Sami and the Samoyed?

Language is just our tool - the needs of institutions shape a lot of its visible/tangible/written aspect, and the needs of certain people shape institutions into more or less useful tools for serving the needs of these people - not necessarily the majority of those giving social shape to the institution (think: Imperial Army, World War I, Tommy in the trenches, General Bloodknock swigging champagne with the "ladies" and ordering another rousing charge through the mud, barbed wire and bullets).
Institutions are very prone to Euphemasia. So desperate to appear clean they disappear up their own arses with disinfectant and stiff brushes and scrub themselves away.
The problem is not a general one - language and thought will survive and be bearers of culture as long as humanity does. It's more of a quantitative one - how much culture does language need to carry, for who, where, and how long? Then there's the interface between people/language/thought and culture/institutions/customs. Does institutional separation between language speakers necessitate cultural apartheid? Does cultural separation or antagonism necessitate linguistic isolation? Does a Fleming or Walloon need to give a shit about the other's culture? How much cultural crossfertilization will happen if German, Japanese, Russian Chinese or Arabic (say) are only institutionally approved as tools of interrogation and espionage?
The documentation and synthesis of all the culture and experience contained in recordable language is obviously something of great use to humanity as such, but just as obviously impossible for any present government to even contemplate, even on speech day. Let alone making the barriers between languages more pervious and the chasm between languages and language more bridgeable.
Good old Goethe went on about World Literature and Always Striving... Our current national representatives seem more intent on petrifying the past and regarding the Future that is to Come as a mere extension of today's Fat Cat Fantasia.
Think I'll go and listen to the ThreePenny Opera...
And tomorrow I'll pee in the street and call it an installation deconstructing What the Romans Gave Us...

[SW Foska]

Foska rejoices to concur. As A. D-Francis wrote in 2003, "Dieser Prozess scheint ziemlich falsche Hoffnungen in die Macht der Nomenklatur zu setzen, Dinge zu ändern" (Enzyklopädie des Europäischen Ostens, Bd. 11).
Cambridge is of course merely engaged in slavish imitation either of the British Library (Oriental & India Office > 'Asian and African Studies Reading Room', c. 2005) or of Liverpool Arts Faculty (School of Archaeology, Classics & Oriental Studies > Sch. of A., C. & Egyptology, 2004), just as the design for Cambridge's library is nicked from Liverpool Cathedral.
The problem is not that the category 'Oriental' is not tainted, but that any alternative categories are of course equally open to knowledge/power manipulation.
'Levant' is just a French (via Italian) word for 'Orient' = rising.

[dr venables preller]

Tinkering with long-established Department names can frequently seem to have ulterior motive.

Aside from some correctness absurdities, the confusion caused can mask excuses for undebated change or personnel firing and hiring.

A particularly reprehensible tactic is the timely use of a name change to complicate or attempt to frustrate pending legal action against the organisation, perhaps of a compensation nature. There might even be a suspicion that some juggling with Departments of government and consequential re-naming could have such objectives, amongst others.

If the Orient, with its fascinating mysteries is to be banished, what is to become of its nearer cousin, the Levant, one may wonder?