Scan barcode
A review by marc129
Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies by Ian Buruma, Avishai Margalit
2.0
This booklet somewhat confused me. I read this immediately after [b:Orientalism|355190|Orientalism|Edward W. Said|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1409777781s/355190.jpg|2310058], the acclaimed and reviled book by Edward Said, that uncovered how Western culture had created a derogatory image of the East that was the source and justification for colonialism and imperialism. With a title like "Occidentalism" you expect a study of the reverse movement, and Buruma and Margalit confirm that in their introduction. And indeed: they zoom in on various historical examples of resistance against the West, that have in common an image of that West as inhuman, barbaric and soulless. Regardless of whether this image is correct, it is indeed a finding that, for example, Russian slavophiles in the 19th century, Japanese militarist nationalists in the 1930s-1940s and the current Muslim fundamentalists cherish(ed) that image and use(d) it as justification for their fight.
Paradoxically, Buruma and Margalit state that in many cases these 'Occidentalists' not only fully adopted and adopt Western technology, but were and are also ideologically inspired by Western thinkers: the Japanese by fascism and Nazism, the Muslim fundamentalists very often by Marxist-Leninist frameworks. They are certainly not the first to see that paradox. The anti-Western resistance may often be presented as a return to the own, original culture, it is clearly "contaminated" by the same West.
What really struck me and also astonished me was that Buruma and Margalit constantly indicate German Romanticism from the 18th and 19th centuries as the source of this Occidentalism. And in the same line they call Hitler and Nazism the worst exponents of it. Excuse me? That’s a bit strange. Because both Romanticism as Nazism are typical Western products, aren’t they? We are hitting a conceptual knot, here. Because it is clear that Buruma and Margalit equalize Occidentalism, hatred of the West, with anti-modernism, resistance to modernity as it first took shape in the West. Obviously there is a kinship between the two and hence the confusion; but it would be better to make a certain distinction. That would at least make clear that not only German Romanticism is the source of Occidentalism, but that there were quite a few thinkers and writers with reactionary traits in France and Great Britain also (in this respect, Buruma and Margalit seem rather anti-Germanic, a form of "Germanotalism"?). In the end both currents, modernism (Enlightenment) and anti-modernism (Romantics), are intertwined aspects of Western identity and their dynamics form the engine of the cultural evolution in the West.
This booklet is struggling with this conceptual knot, that is clear, and it is therefore not surprising that a term such as "Occidentalism" has never caught on. But of course, it does expose the particularly complex and paradoxical side of the interdependence between hatred against the West and opposition to modernity, and the adoption of modernist/Western conceptual frameworks and technology. In this interesting, yet too carelessly written book, you are not going to get a conclusive answer on this, and that’s a pity.
Paradoxically, Buruma and Margalit state that in many cases these 'Occidentalists' not only fully adopted and adopt Western technology, but were and are also ideologically inspired by Western thinkers: the Japanese by fascism and Nazism, the Muslim fundamentalists very often by Marxist-Leninist frameworks. They are certainly not the first to see that paradox. The anti-Western resistance may often be presented as a return to the own, original culture, it is clearly "contaminated" by the same West.
What really struck me and also astonished me was that Buruma and Margalit constantly indicate German Romanticism from the 18th and 19th centuries as the source of this Occidentalism. And in the same line they call Hitler and Nazism the worst exponents of it. Excuse me? That’s a bit strange. Because both Romanticism as Nazism are typical Western products, aren’t they? We are hitting a conceptual knot, here. Because it is clear that Buruma and Margalit equalize Occidentalism, hatred of the West, with anti-modernism, resistance to modernity as it first took shape in the West. Obviously there is a kinship between the two and hence the confusion; but it would be better to make a certain distinction. That would at least make clear that not only German Romanticism is the source of Occidentalism, but that there were quite a few thinkers and writers with reactionary traits in France and Great Britain also (in this respect, Buruma and Margalit seem rather anti-Germanic, a form of "Germanotalism"?). In the end both currents, modernism (Enlightenment) and anti-modernism (Romantics), are intertwined aspects of Western identity and their dynamics form the engine of the cultural evolution in the West.
This booklet is struggling with this conceptual knot, that is clear, and it is therefore not surprising that a term such as "Occidentalism" has never caught on. But of course, it does expose the particularly complex and paradoxical side of the interdependence between hatred against the West and opposition to modernity, and the adoption of modernist/Western conceptual frameworks and technology. In this interesting, yet too carelessly written book, you are not going to get a conclusive answer on this, and that’s a pity.