Anti-Post Modern

This is a painting by a famous Ottoman painter named Osman Hamdi Bey. Though I had seen the painting before, I was not aware of it's creator of of the general dialog that it is associated with. Today, our program had a lecture on 'How to be an Orientalist: the Case of Osman Hamdi Bey." By using examples of his work, the lecturer tried to make the case that Osman Hamdi Bey represented a Ottoman Orientalist, who created his works based solely on the Orientalist notion of the 'static' east. I must admit I was not convinced, as overall I am starting to have doubt about the Orientalist discourse and post-modernism as a whole.

First of all, post-modernism has infiltrated the field of history. It has sought to expose hidden symbols and discourses. This of course is not unique to post-modernism, though some claim it is. Post modernism in my mind has exposed nothing particularly new or innovative. Michel Foucault's pan-opticon for example is a given it seems. Of course societies are set up to self regulate. The Ottoman millet system was a deliberate way to regulate the empire through self government. This is nothing new, in fact, self regulation has been a conscious goal. Foucault himself is ageist, if such a word exists. He assumes that pre-modern societies were based on violent demonstrations of power by the monarch. This is not the case, it's unhistorical. Therefore, what is an unhistorical hypothesis doing in the field of history!

Now on the the Orientalist dialog. I buy parts of it, certainly. This painting for example is something romantic, and by its nature depicts idealism over reality. Does this mean that it's necessarily Orientalist? If Said's original idea of Orientalism meant a power relation of the West to subjugate the east, then how can you lump a eastern Ottoman artist in the Orientalist camp? Yes, he may have produced art for the sake of wowing the Europeans, and yes, the art may have been unhistorical and highly romanticized, but does it necessarily demonstrate the same 'power relation' that Said was speaking of?

Nostalgia is not equal to Orientalism. This painting is nostalgic. Perhaps Osman Hamdi Bey painted it as a nationalist nostalgic longing for a time when the Ottoman Empire was stronger. Also, religious Turks and Turks who idealize the Ottoman empire have and admire copies of paintings such as these. So though scholars attempt to group paintings such as these into a movement that 'dominated' the east, it does not necessarily ring true. Paintings such as these are admired today and are used as symbols for a generation or a time that once was. This painting is in many ways like the film Gone with the Wind. Both are idealistic/romantic depictions of what the artists thought the age in question was like. Does that mean that they are connected with reality? Well, there could very well be aspects of reality as much as there are aspects of fantasy.

Orientalism is Orientalist! It assumes that the all encompassing 'West' HAD the power to dominate every aspect of the east. It assumes the east was a passive player in this process. Which 'east' are we talking about here? China, Japan, the Ottomans? And which west: Britain, France, Portugal, Spain? And why do we limit it to modern times, what about the Caliphate in Spain, the Persian Empire, Greece, Rome, India. This 'domination' is not unique to the west, and 'subjugation' is not unique to the east. Most major empires/civilizations throughout history have 'dominated', most peoples have been 'subjugated'. But domination/subjugation themselves are not able to be commonly applied.

Empires were a fluid system. The people in Empires where a fluid people. There was a negotiation between the ruler and ruled. There was overlap (as I spoke about yesterday) between domination and subjugation. And most importantly, there was participation on behalf of the rulers and ruled. This reality works against the meta narratives of both post-modernist and Orientalist dialogs.

There is no exact common experience to history. Each case and each time has to be studied and researched individually. There are certainly patterns over time, but that does not mean that patterns breed commonality.