Nationalism Vs Orientalsim
Moreover, Nationalism has shaped the US culture to be dependent on liberal tradition, universal rights, individualism, civic republicans, self-governance, collective rights and white population’s desire for continued dominance. Bonikowski says "a large majority apparently viewed Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and naturalized citizens as something less than “truly American” (Bonikowski, 2016, p. 11). Nationalism in the US resulted in social attitudes and policy preferences. Nationalism created “Americanism”, which often means rough attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. At the same time, different forms of nationalist sentiments may reflect attitudes toward outsider groups. Nationalism divided the US as a nation into two groups of national attitude. Some groups might have negative views of religious minorities, whereas symbolic patriotism shows more solidarity, collective
…show more content…
interest, and citizenship tolerance. And in turn these nationalist groups favor different type of politics. the first group emphasis more on authoritarian positions, restrictive national membership, while the second group supports national community influence and pride in America’s achievements. Nationalism divided Americans internal attitudes (Bonikowski, 2016, p. 12).
On the contrary, Orientalsim is the superior outlook of the West to the Arab World.
Orientalism in the Arab World creates imaginative geography, where people place themselves imaginatively within a known territory, and geographic common sense of belonging and exclude the other. Orientalism is a form of imaginative geography that is focused on the Arab World. Al-Mahfedi states "the Orientalist mis-representation and misconception of the other people, regions and cultures...reduces human geography into a space of inequality and difference rather a space of hybridist and intertwined partnership" (Al-Mahfedi, 2011, p. 3). Thus, Orientalism divides geographies and makes geographical distinctions based on the imagination of “ours” and “theirs”, or "us" and "them". The idea of considering the Arab World as “them” accordingly means different territory and mentality (3). Labeling a group as "otherness" defines their geographical space. The West representation of the Arab World is driven by fantasy, desire, and comparative measures, which produces distance between the West and Arabs (Al-Mahfedi, 2011, p.
4).
Similarly to the US, Orientalism created geographical spaces and divisions in the Arab world. Orientalism is composed of knowledge, power, and geopolitical mapping. Foucault’s notion of power reveals how the US created illusions of security and false expectations of the Arab World. Al-Mahfedi states "the universalist European discourse…renders the “Other” as a “homeless” subject out of place…connection between power, knowledge and geography has transformed the ways in which we conceptualized human geography and space” (Al-Mahfedi, 2011, p. 6 & 18). Thus, Orientalism made other nations treat the Arab World as otherness and as a threat that should be cleansed away. Orientalsim created knowledge and power discourses that distinguished the Arab World and co-constituted particular geographies of representation against it. The production of geographical knowledge meant to view the Arab World in particular ways, as excluded from the modern world. In the Arab World, Orientalism created power and knowledge discourses that disciplined Arabs and made them to see their image as less modern and discriminated “Other” (Al-Mahfedi, 2011, p. 19).
On the contrary, the positive effect of Orientalism enhanced Arabs definition of their civilization. The different views between groups and the interaction between civilizations helped Arabs to become aware of their reality, definitions and that they belong to a civilization. Huntington states "Westernization thus promotes modernization. In the later phases, modernization promotes de-Westernization and the resurgence of indigenous culture" (Huntington, 1996, p. 76). Orientalism spread Arabic language and Islamism over the entire Arab world. Orientalism created knowledge and realization in the Arab world, by challenging the West institutionalized memory of knowledge that controls past knowledge, present knowledge, and future knowledge. Orientalism helped the Arab world understand what they are not, in order go beyond the idealization of the West. The Arab world discovered itself by discovering Europe and the United States. And so, the Arab world relied on Orientalism to discover itself, to be objective, to compare the process of information they have, and to create their own new body of knowledge. The Arab world became a threat to the Western world, due to its ability to play with power relations, flipping the West regime of truth to be against the West (Huntington, 1996, p. 76).
Yet, Orientalism remains a main cause for the Arab World’s division after the Ottomans. The Arab world is still paying the price of the foreign selfish knowledge and interests, which developed after the Ottomans. The results of the British and the French colonial powers divided the Middle East and shaped the Arab world by Oriental decisions. Danforth said "the Sykes-Picot plan made an attempt to account for the local ethnic, religious or cultural groups" (Danforth, 2016, p. 1). The Middle East was divided by Orientalism rather than being unified by understanding the logic of Orientalism. To illustrate, Orientalism allowed the West interference in the Arab world. The West used plans like Sykes-Picot map line to split the Arab world into entities based on Western interests and preferences. Thus, the more interests are raged on between countries, the greater instability split the Arab world. Sykes-Picot and Oslo agreement lusted for monopolizing the main infrastructure sources in the Middle East, such as water and oil resources, and transformed the Arab world to be chaotic. Sykes-Picot and Oslo trade interests divided the Arab world to the so called Middle East and later into conflicts of secular nationalists, democrats, autocrats, jihadists, Kurds, Sunni and Shiite groups. Thus, Orientalism made the Middle East hell on earth. The fight on oil, water, and trade resources has cost the Middle East, rather than benefited it. Orientalism made from Sykes-Picot, and Oslo agreement a police man keeping the West interests in the Arab world, which played a key role in the modern Arab world’s division, after the Ottomans (Danforth, 2016, p. 2).
Yet, nationalism in the Arab world appeared to grant states greater independence from colonial powers, meanwhile utilize European states’ model. Arab states have many things in common religion, history, and language, and different political regimes. Despite these connections one should look beyond mechanisms of power and Orientalism. And focus on the basic identity of revolutions and power. Fawcett states "Arab politics were primarily focused on gaining independence from colonial rule" (Fawcett, 2013, p. 56). The Arab World defined the concept of state as sovereign, compulsory association with organized and centralizes domination. Nationalism enabled Arab States to monopolize the legitimate use of force within a given territory. The shift to the state in the Arab world was a product of European history. Power moved from the king to the state, so people loyalties shifted to the state. After the French revolution in Europe, the state came with different ideas like sovereignty, representation and socialization of politics. How the king back then created parliament and at the end controlled its power. The European model of secular sates came to the Arab world (Fawcett, 2013, p. 56).
Likewise, the fact of being “modern”, made the Arab world view Europe as intellectual people, and made them try to stop the decline, catch up with Europe and revive the spirit of Arab nationalism. Afterward, nationalism was a counter-movement to that of the state. And so the idea of uprising (Nahda) started in the Arab world. Nahda as the opposite of decline was rejected by the idea of Arab nationalism, because Arab nationalism turned to be against liberalism and instead strength Arab rules. Fawcett states "the Middle East is lost in a world of illiberalism and ‘oriental despotism" (Fawcett, 2013, p. 801). The Arab world is lost among three trends of nationalism. These trends are Arab identity, territorial unity and Islam as the source. In the 8th-18th century, (Shara’a) existed in the Arab world but not demanded. In the 19th century, Arabs turned to the process of secularization and the importation of European state. And in the 20th century, the Arab world was divided between religious nationalism based on (shari’a) law. The transitional history of Arab’s Nationalism has divided the Arab world into legalist, revolutionist, violent trends, and splits between radicals and moderates (Fawcett, 2013, p. 801).
However, the existence of nationalism and Orientalism in Europe or throughout the world was doubted. Anderson states "that no scientific definition of the nation can be devised; yet the phenomenon has existed and exists" (Anderson, 2006, p. 3). Some considers that nationalism is universal, since everyone has it. Nationalism includes a great political power but without a philosophical content (5). According to Anderson, nationalism is related to "kinship", "religion", and was formed in the late 18th century due to various historical forces. Anderson considers the nation imagined as limited, sovereign, and community. In the United States, the nation is bounded with cultural, ethnic and social differences between people, but has limited and specific boundaries which give other nations their place (9). It is also sovereign in Europe, because it emerged when the period of Enlightenment happened to achieve sovereignty and overthrown religious structures. Finally, in the Arab World, nationalism is a community, because it’s based on kinship and people are willing to die for it voluntarily. In the Arab world if local identity is strong, then local nationalism is easier to be accepted. The existence of nationalism throughout the world includes various meanings and it is often doubted (Anderson, 2006, p. 10).
In conclusion, the growth of Orientalism and nationalism shaped Europe and the Unites States’ attitudes, knowledge and political decisions toward the Arab world, while played Arab states against each other. Orientalism and nationalism effects brought to light Arab’s weaknesses in regional affairs. The US and Europe colonial powers affected the emergence of modern Arab world. Coming out of the Ottoman experience, British and French colonial rule, often divided Arab states under European or American rule. In turn, colonialism divided the Arab World domestic interests to generate ideas of national self determination. It’s the manner in which the Middle East came to replace weak state with a strong state. The Arab world understanding of “weak state” became ineffective. Arabs viewed weak state as too many sectors not under the state authority. While a “strong state” is one that controls everything, has great institutional power over society, controls the private sector, the public sphere, and should be able to guide economic development. States with time troubled the region national order, introduced a period of nationalist agitation and civil wars. The rival national claims were featured by the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraq-Kuwait invasion, the US invasion of Iraq, and the Arab spring uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria. The emergence of nationalism in the Arab world shaped a history of independent states and destabilizing conflicts (Fawcett, 2013, p. 56).
interest, and citizenship tolerance. And in turn these nationalist groups favor different type of politics. the first group emphasis more on authoritarian positions, restrictive national membership, while the second group supports national community influence and pride in America’s achievements. Nationalism divided Americans internal attitudes (Bonikowski, 2016, p. 12).
On the contrary, Orientalsim is the superior outlook of the West to the Arab World.
Orientalism in the Arab World creates imaginative geography, where people place themselves imaginatively within a known territory, and geographic common sense of belonging and exclude the other. Orientalism is a form of imaginative geography that is focused on the Arab World. Al-Mahfedi states "the Orientalist mis-representation and misconception of the other people, regions and cultures...reduces human geography into a space of inequality and difference rather a space of hybridist and intertwined partnership" (Al-Mahfedi, 2011, p. 3). Thus, Orientalism divides geographies and makes geographical distinctions based on the imagination of “ours” and “theirs”, or "us" and "them". The idea of considering the Arab World as “them” accordingly means different territory and mentality (3). Labeling a group as "otherness" defines their geographical space. The West representation of the Arab World is driven by fantasy, desire, and comparative measures, which produces distance between the West and Arabs (Al-Mahfedi, 2011, p.
4).
Similarly to the US, Orientalism created geographical spaces and divisions in the Arab world. Orientalism is composed of knowledge, power, and geopolitical mapping. Foucault’s notion of power reveals how the US created illusions of security and false expectations of the Arab World. Al-Mahfedi states "the universalist European discourse…renders the “Other” as a “homeless” subject out of place…connection between power, knowledge and geography has transformed the ways in which we conceptualized human geography and space” (Al-Mahfedi, 2011, p. 6 & 18). Thus, Orientalism made other nations treat the Arab World as otherness and as a threat that should be cleansed away. Orientalsim created knowledge and power discourses that distinguished the Arab World and co-constituted particular geographies of representation against it. The production of geographical knowledge meant to view the Arab World in particular ways, as excluded from the modern world. In the Arab World, Orientalism created power and knowledge discourses that disciplined Arabs and made them to see their image as less modern and discriminated “Other” (Al-Mahfedi, 2011, p. 19).
On the contrary, the positive effect of Orientalism enhanced Arabs definition of their civilization. The different views between groups and the interaction between civilizations helped Arabs to become aware of their reality, definitions and that they belong to a civilization. Huntington states "Westernization thus promotes modernization. In the later phases, modernization promotes de-Westernization and the resurgence of indigenous culture" (Huntington, 1996, p. 76). Orientalism spread Arabic language and Islamism over the entire Arab world. Orientalism created knowledge and realization in the Arab world, by challenging the West institutionalized memory of knowledge that controls past knowledge, present knowledge, and future knowledge. Orientalism helped the Arab world understand what they are not, in order go beyond the idealization of the West. The Arab world discovered itself by discovering Europe and the United States. And so, the Arab world relied on Orientalism to discover itself, to be objective, to compare the process of information they have, and to create their own new body of knowledge. The Arab world became a threat to the Western world, due to its ability to play with power relations, flipping the West regime of truth to be against the West (Huntington, 1996, p. 76).
Yet, Orientalism remains a main cause for the Arab World’s division after the Ottomans. The Arab world is still paying the price of the foreign selfish knowledge and interests, which developed after the Ottomans. The results of the British and the French colonial powers divided the Middle East and shaped the Arab world by Oriental decisions. Danforth said "the Sykes-Picot plan made an attempt to account for the local ethnic, religious or cultural groups" (Danforth, 2016, p. 1). The Middle East was divided by Orientalism rather than being unified by understanding the logic of Orientalism. To illustrate, Orientalism allowed the West interference in the Arab world. The West used plans like Sykes-Picot map line to split the Arab world into entities based on Western interests and preferences. Thus, the more interests are raged on between countries, the greater instability split the Arab world. Sykes-Picot and Oslo agreement lusted for monopolizing the main infrastructure sources in the Middle East, such as water and oil resources, and transformed the Arab world to be chaotic. Sykes-Picot and Oslo trade interests divided the Arab world to the so called Middle East and later into conflicts of secular nationalists, democrats, autocrats, jihadists, Kurds, Sunni and Shiite groups. Thus, Orientalism made the Middle East hell on earth. The fight on oil, water, and trade resources has cost the Middle East, rather than benefited it. Orientalism made from Sykes-Picot, and Oslo agreement a police man keeping the West interests in the Arab world, which played a key role in the modern Arab world’s division, after the Ottomans (Danforth, 2016, p. 2).
Yet, nationalism in the Arab world appeared to grant states greater independence from colonial powers, meanwhile utilize European states’ model. Arab states have many things in common religion, history, and language, and different political regimes. Despite these connections one should look beyond mechanisms of power and Orientalism. And focus on the basic identity of revolutions and power. Fawcett states "Arab politics were primarily focused on gaining independence from colonial rule" (Fawcett, 2013, p. 56). The Arab World defined the concept of state as sovereign, compulsory association with organized and centralizes domination. Nationalism enabled Arab States to monopolize the legitimate use of force within a given territory. The shift to the state in the Arab world was a product of European history. Power moved from the king to the state, so people loyalties shifted to the state. After the French revolution in Europe, the state came with different ideas like sovereignty, representation and socialization of politics. How the king back then created parliament and at the end controlled its power. The European model of secular sates came to the Arab world (Fawcett, 2013, p. 56).
Likewise, the fact of being “modern”, made the Arab world view Europe as intellectual people, and made them try to stop the decline, catch up with Europe and revive the spirit of Arab nationalism. Afterward, nationalism was a counter-movement to that of the state. And so the idea of uprising (Nahda) started in the Arab world. Nahda as the opposite of decline was rejected by the idea of Arab nationalism, because Arab nationalism turned to be against liberalism and instead strength Arab rules. Fawcett states "the Middle East is lost in a world of illiberalism and ‘oriental despotism" (Fawcett, 2013, p. 801). The Arab world is lost among three trends of nationalism. These trends are Arab identity, territorial unity and Islam as the source. In the 8th-18th century, (Shara’a) existed in the Arab world but not demanded. In the 19th century, Arabs turned to the process of secularization and the importation of European state. And in the 20th century, the Arab world was divided between religious nationalism based on (shari’a) law. The transitional history of Arab’s Nationalism has divided the Arab world into legalist, revolutionist, violent trends, and splits between radicals and moderates (Fawcett, 2013, p. 801).
However, the existence of nationalism and Orientalism in Europe or throughout the world was doubted. Anderson states "that no scientific definition of the nation can be devised; yet the phenomenon has existed and exists" (Anderson, 2006, p. 3). Some considers that nationalism is universal, since everyone has it. Nationalism includes a great political power but without a philosophical content (5). According to Anderson, nationalism is related to "kinship", "religion", and was formed in the late 18th century due to various historical forces. Anderson considers the nation imagined as limited, sovereign, and community. In the United States, the nation is bounded with cultural, ethnic and social differences between people, but has limited and specific boundaries which give other nations their place (9). It is also sovereign in Europe, because it emerged when the period of Enlightenment happened to achieve sovereignty and overthrown religious structures. Finally, in the Arab World, nationalism is a community, because it’s based on kinship and people are willing to die for it voluntarily. In the Arab world if local identity is strong, then local nationalism is easier to be accepted. The existence of nationalism throughout the world includes various meanings and it is often doubted (Anderson, 2006, p. 10).
In conclusion, the growth of Orientalism and nationalism shaped Europe and the Unites States’ attitudes, knowledge and political decisions toward the Arab world, while played Arab states against each other. Orientalism and nationalism effects brought to light Arab’s weaknesses in regional affairs. The US and Europe colonial powers affected the emergence of modern Arab world. Coming out of the Ottoman experience, British and French colonial rule, often divided Arab states under European or American rule. In turn, colonialism divided the Arab World domestic interests to generate ideas of national self determination. It’s the manner in which the Middle East came to replace weak state with a strong state. The Arab world understanding of “weak state” became ineffective. Arabs viewed weak state as too many sectors not under the state authority. While a “strong state” is one that controls everything, has great institutional power over society, controls the private sector, the public sphere, and should be able to guide economic development. States with time troubled the region national order, introduced a period of nationalist agitation and civil wars. The rival national claims were featured by the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraq-Kuwait invasion, the US invasion of Iraq, and the Arab spring uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria. The emergence of nationalism in the Arab world shaped a history of independent states and destabilizing conflicts (Fawcett, 2013, p. 56).