Knowledge is not, and cannot be, entirely neutral. It has, from time to time, been a battleground for the conflicting interests through power, something that Said discusses in his monumental Orientalism. One of the more elastic points made by Orientalism is the durability and potency of Orientalist discourse. To him, Orientalism is not just a collection of myths or inaccuracies but rather a system of knowledge that has become embedded in Western intellectual and political traditions (Said pg , 14). This struck me because it speaks wholly against the belief that knowledge is neutral. Said claims that knowledge about the Orient” has performed, during a long story course, European imperial interests, shaping how the West perceives and interacts with Eastern societies. Such considerations raised the uncomfortable question of how many narratives we are fed are couched, even unknowingly, in the grandiose framework of the power structures rather than absolute truth.
Another excerpt that piqued my interest was his conversation on the self-referential loop of Western writers and scholars perpetuating Orientalist stereotypes by citing one another (Said, pg 28).Works claiming scholarship is built on older assumptions, often not based on direct experiences or objective research. What I found fascinating about this was the extent to which ideas gain credence simply through repetition. How many other fields of knowledge are based on such self-reinforcing systems?
Finally, Said’s proposal for a more “nonrepressive and nonmanipulative” way of studying other cultures (Said, pg 32) struck home. In this sense, Said’s work makes me realize the proximity of power and knowledge in our daily lives.