Introduction: “Edward Said and Colonial Discourse” by Robert C. Young
“Edward Said and Colonial Discourse”by Robert C. Young first appeared in the 1990 issue of the journal Critical Inquiry, has been instrumental in shaping the field of postcolonial studies, offering a comprehensive analysis of Edward Said’s groundbreaking work, Orientalism. Young’s essay illuminates Said’s exploration of the ways in which Western culture has constructed the “Orient” as a subordinate and exotic other, highlighting the power dynamics inherent in colonial discourse. Through his insightful analysis, Young contributes significantly to our understanding of the complex relationship between literature, colonialism, and power.
Summary of “Edward Said and Colonial Discourse” by Robert C. Young
- Introduction to Postcolonial Theory and Said’s Influence
Robert Young explores the rise of postcolonial theory, emphasizing Edward Said’s pivotal role in transforming the academic understanding of colonialism. Said’s Orientalism (1978) provided a foundational critique of how the West constructs knowledge about the East, shifting postcolonial theory from a political movement to an academic discipline. Said “effectively founded postcolonial studies as an academic discipline” (Young, 2016, p. 384). - Colonialism as Epistemic Violence
Said’s analysis of colonialism, as outlined by Young, introduced the idea that colonial domination was not just physical or military but also epistemic. Said argued that “colonization involved epistemic as well as physical violence” (p. 382), showing how the West imposed its own cultural and intellectual frameworks upon colonized societies. - The Role of Discourse in Colonial Domination
Said’s key theoretical contribution was framing colonialism through discourse, particularly drawing on Michel Foucault’s concept of power and knowledge. Young summarizes this by stating that “colonialism operated simultaneously as a discourse of domination” (p. 383). Orientalism, according to Said, was a systematic discourse that justified colonial rule by constructing an image of the East that was used to govern it. - Critique and Reception of Said’s Work
While acknowledging the profound impact of Orientalism, Young highlights that Said’s work has been “theoretically and politically problematic” (p. 384). The vast array of critiques that followed its publication became almost a rite of passage for postcolonial scholars. Said’s work became a target for critique from figures like Bhabha, McClintock, and Spivak, making Orientalism the basis upon which many postcolonial critiques were formed. - Said’s Use of Foucault’s Notion of Discourse
Young explains that while Said borrowed from Foucault’s notion of discourse, he didn’t entirely follow Foucault’s theories. Said “loosely affiliated to Foucault’s theory of discourse” (p. 387), focusing more on the textual representations of the Orient than on Foucault’s broader discourse analysis that included non-discursive elements. This has led to criticisms of Said’s “textual emphasis” (p. 387), which overlooks the material and institutional contexts Foucault emphasized. - Orientalism as a Hegemonic Discourse
Young stresses that Said’s primary contribution was highlighting how Orientalism functioned as a hegemonic discourse, producing and reinforcing Western dominance over the East. Said wrote that Orientalism was “a kind of Western projection onto and will to govern over the Orient” (p. 387), and this discourse did not merely justify colonial rule but actively shaped the ways in which the West understood and controlled the East. - Criticism of Said’s Concept of Discourse
Young discusses the criticisms of Said’s notion of colonial discourse, particularly from historians. Many objected to Said’s over-reliance on textual analysis, arguing that he dehistoricized colonialism by treating it as an unchanging discourse. Historians, Young notes, prefer to examine texts as “documents providing evidence about historical events” (p. 391), whereas Said focused on how these texts functioned within a larger discursive framework. - Representation and Misrepresentation
Said’s emphasis on representation, Young argues, raises significant questions about truth and misrepresentation. Said admitted that “there may be no true representation of anything” (p. 391), and thus Orientalism was not just a misrepresentation but an ideological construct. This led to further critiques that Said’s approach to discourse was too deterministic, failing to account for the complexities and variations in colonial histories. - The Limitations of Colonial Discourse Analysis
Finally, Young suggests that colonial discourse analysis, as derived from Said’s work, has its limitations. It often focuses too much on textual analysis at the expense of material history. Moreover, the general category of “colonial discourse” has been criticized for being too totalizing and not reflective of the historical and geographical diversity of colonial experiences (p. 391).
Quotations from the Article:
- “Colonization, in short, involved epistemic as well as physical violence.” (p. 382)
- “Said did, however, make a decisive contribution with respect to the problematics of language… moving the analysis of colonialism, imperialism and the struggles against it to the question of discourse.” (p. 383)
- “It was above all the idea of Orientalism as a discourse in a general sense that allowed the creation of a general conceptual paradigm through which the cultural forms of colonial and imperial ideologies could be analysed.” (p. 385)
- “What Said shows is that the will to knowledge, and to produce its truth, is also a will to power.” (p. 387)
- “Said’s deployment of the concept of a ‘discourse’ for his analysis of Orientalism enabled him to demonstrate a consistent discursive register of particular perceptions, vocabularies and modes of representation common to a wide variety of texts…” (p. 388)
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Edward Said and Colonial Discourse” by Robert C. Young
| Literary Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Relevance in Young’s Analysis |
| Postcolonial Theory | A body of academic study that examines the cultural, political, and historical legacies of colonialism and imperialism. | Young credits Edward Said’s Orientalism with the establishment of postcolonial studies as an academic discipline. Said’s work bridges political commitment and theoretical critiques of colonialism. |
| Colonial Discourse | A body of knowledge and representations produced by the West about the colonized, which helps to justify and perpetuate colonial rule. | Young explores how Said adapted Foucault’s idea of discourse to understand colonialism as not only a political or military process but also an epistemic one, where knowledge and language were used to dominate colonized societies. |
| Orientalism | The Western tradition of creating stereotypical representations of the East as exotic, backward, and uncivilized. | According to Said, Orientalism is a discourse used by the West to justify its colonial and imperial dominance over the East. Young highlights the centrality of this concept to postcolonial studies. |
| Discourse | A system of representation governed by rules that shape what can be said and thought within a particular field of knowledge. | Young emphasizes Said’s use of Foucault’s concept of discourse to analyze how colonialism operated through specific forms of knowledge production, like Orientalism, that shaped perceptions of the East. |
| Power/Knowledge | A concept from Foucault that describes how power relations are embedded in and reinforced by knowledge systems. | Said applied this idea to colonialism, showing that the knowledge produced about the East was inseparable from the power the West exerted over it. Young explores how this framework underpinned Orientalism and postcolonial theory. |
| Representation | The depiction or portrayal of people, places, and things in texts, often through stereotypes or ideologies. | Young notes that Said’s analysis focused on how the Orient was represented in Western texts, often inaccurately or ideologically, as part of a broader system of domination. |
| Hegemony | The dominance of one group over another, maintained through cultural, political, and ideological means, as theorized by Antonio Gramsci. | Young explains that Said used the concept of hegemony to describe how the West maintained ideological dominance over the East through Orientalism. |
| Textuality | The quality or nature of a text as a written or spoken artifact, often examined through the lens of its language, structure, and meaning. | Young highlights the tension in Said’s work between discourse and textuality, where Orientalism becomes focused on the textual representations of the Orient rather than its material realities. |
| Epistemic Violence | A term used to describe the imposition of a dominant system of knowledge that marginalizes or invalidates other knowledge systems. | Young points out that Said emphasized the epistemic violence of colonialism, where Western knowledge systems were imposed on colonized societies, erasing indigenous ways of knowing. |
Contribution of “Edward Said and Colonial Discourse” by Robert C. Young to Literary Theory/Theories
- Introduction of Postcolonial Theory as an Academic Discipline
Young credits Edward Said’s Orientalism with establishing postcolonial studies as a formal academic discipline, stating that Said “effectively founded postcolonial studies as an academic discipline” (p. 384). Said’s work shifted the focus from a solely political and historical examination of colonialism to a cultural critique that incorporated literary and theoretical frameworks.
Contribution: Postcolonial theory became institutionalized within academia, creating a space for analyzing colonialism’s cultural impacts. - Application of Foucault’s Concept of Discourse to Colonialism
Young highlights how Said adapted Michel Foucault’s notion of discourse to analyze how colonialism operated not only through military and political means but also through knowledge and representation. Said’s work demonstrated that “colonialism involved epistemic as well as physical violence” (p. 382).
Contribution: This adaptation allowed literary theory to incorporate political and historical dimensions, merging textual and material analysis to understand power/knowledge dynamics in colonial contexts. - Critique of Western Epistemology and Power Structures
Said, as discussed by Young, challenged the Western knowledge system by exposing how academic disciplines such as history, literature, and the social sciences had been complicit in constructing the Orient as an object of knowledge to be controlled and dominated. Young states that “academic knowledge is also a part of the apparatus of Western power” (p. 387).
Contribution: Postcolonial theory, as informed by Said, critiques the Eurocentric bias in the production of knowledge, calling for an examination of how literary and academic texts contribute to imperialism. - Shift from Economic to Cultural Analysis in Colonialism
Young points out that Said’s Orientalism moved beyond the Marxist focus on economic factors to incorporate the role of culture and representation in sustaining colonialism. He states that while Marxist theory emphasized the economic, Said introduced “a general conceptual paradigm through which the cultural forms of colonial and imperial ideologies could be analysed” (p. 385).
Contribution: This shift expanded the scope of literary theory to include cultural and ideological analysis, thereby enriching the theoretical understanding of colonialism. - Problematization of Representation in Literary and Cultural Texts
Young emphasizes that Said’s work called into question the accuracy and truthfulness of representations, particularly those produced by the West about the Orient. Said argued that representations are never neutral but are “embedded, intertwined, interwoven with a great many other things besides the ‘truth’” (p. 391).
Contribution: Said’s analysis of representation brought attention to how literary and cultural texts construct and perpetuate stereotypes, influencing subsequent theories of representation and identity in postcolonial, feminist, and cultural studies. - Incorporation of Hegemony in Postcolonial Discourse
Said drew on Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, as noted by Young, to explain how Western dominance was maintained not just by force but through cultural and ideological means. Said’s critique of Orientalism emphasized that “Orientalism was a rationalization of colonial rule” (p. 387).
Contribution: The concept of hegemony became central in postcolonial theory, contributing to discussions of cultural domination and resistance within literary and cultural studies. - Challenge to Traditional Historiography
Young mentions that Said’s work disrupted traditional historical narratives by focusing on how colonialism had been justified and reproduced through discourse. The critique was that “colonial discourse analysis typically examines a restricted number of largely literary texts but then proceeds to make large historical generalizations based on them” (p. 390).
Contribution: Postcolonial theory called for a reevaluation of history and historiography, influencing how historical narratives are constructed and critiqued within literary theory. - Interdisciplinary Approach to Literary Theory
Said’s incorporation of Foucault, Gramsci, and other theoretical frameworks showed how literary analysis could be interdisciplinary, combining political theory, history, and cultural studies. As Young notes, Said’s work used “a hybrid perspective” (p. 388) to analyze the cultural effects of colonialism.
Contribution: This interdisciplinary approach broadened the field of literary theory, making it more inclusive of other academic disciplines and theories, such as philosophy, sociology, and political science.
Examples of Critiques Through “Edward Said and Colonial Discourse” by Robert C. Young
| Literary Work (Title) | Critique Through Edward Said and Colonial Discourse | Key Concepts Applied |
| Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad | Conrad’s depiction of Africa and Africans is critiqued as part of the Orientalist tradition, where Africa is represented as the “Other,” a place of darkness and primitiveness in contrast to Europe’s supposed civility. The novel reinforces the binary between the West and the non-West. | Orientalism, Representation, Epistemic Violence |
| A Passage to India by E.M. Forster | Forster’s portrayal of India is seen through the lens of Orientalism, where the British colonizers view India as an enigmatic and inferior place. The novel reflects colonial power dynamics and how the East is constructed as unknowable and subordinate. | Colonial Discourse, Power/Knowledge, Representation |
| Kim by Rudyard Kipling | Kipling’s Kim is critiqued for perpetuating colonial stereotypes of India as a mysterious, exotic land to be controlled and administrated by the British. The novel enforces British dominance through its portrayal of surveillance and governance over the Indian population. | Hegemony, Discourse, Western Projection |
| Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe | Defoe’s novel is examined as a reflection of colonial ideology, particularly in the relationship between Crusoe and Friday. Crusoe’s dominance over Friday symbolizes the colonial subjugation of indigenous peoples, representing the power imbalance central to colonialism. | Colonial Discourse, Power/Knowledge, Epistemic Violence |
Criticism Against “Edward Said and Colonial Discourse” by Robert C. Young
- Over-Reliance on Textual Analysis: Critics argue that Young, following Said, places too much emphasis on literary and textual representations, which can lead to a dehistoricization of colonialism. The focus on texts overlooks the material and economic realities of colonialism, reducing complex historical phenomena to discursive structures.
- Lack of Attention to Counter-Hegemonic Resistance: Said’s and Young’s analyses are often critiqued for focusing predominantly on the hegemonic power of colonial discourse, while neglecting the forms of resistance by colonized peoples. Said’s concept of discourse does not sufficiently address the ways in which colonized subjects resisted and reshaped colonial ideologies.
- Homogenization of Colonial Discourse: Critics argue that Young, by following Said’s concept of discourse, tends to homogenize colonialism, suggesting a singular colonial discourse. This overlooks the diverse historical, cultural, and geographical contexts in which colonialism operated, leading to a generalized and totalizing view of colonial domination.
- Theoretical Ambiguity in the Use of Foucault’s Discourse: Young’s reliance on Said’s adaptation of Foucault has been criticized for its theoretical ambiguity. Critics point out that Said’s interpretation of Foucault’s notion of discourse is incomplete, and Young does not fully resolve the tensions between Foucauldian discourse and Said’s focus on textuality, leading to conceptual inconsistencies.
- Idealism Over Materialism: Some scholars, especially Marxist critics, argue that Young’s analysis, following Said, leans toward idealism by focusing on discourse and ideology rather than the material conditions that underpin colonialism. This critique highlights the neglect of economic and class-based analyses in favor of cultural and linguistic ones.
Representative Quotations from “Edward Said and Colonial Discourse” by Robert C. Young with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Colonization, in short, involved epistemic as well as physical violence.” (p. 382) | This highlights how colonialism imposed Western knowledge systems, marginalizing indigenous knowledge, showing that colonialism was both mental and physical domination. |
| “Said did, however, make a decisive contribution with respect to the problematics of language…” (p. 383) | Young emphasizes Said’s role in shifting the focus to language and discourse in analyzing colonialism, showing the power of representation in maintaining colonial control. |
| “Orientalism was a rationalization of colonial rule, justified in advance by Orientalism.” (p. 387) | This reflects Said’s argument that Orientalism did not merely explain colonial rule but actively justified and promoted it, making the East governable. |
| “What Said shows is that the will to knowledge, and to produce its truth, is also a will to power.” (p. 387) | Said’s analysis, as explained by Young, illustrates how the production of knowledge about the Orient is inherently linked to exercising power over it. |
| “Said’s use of the notion of a discourse allowed Orientalism to be analysed as an ideological production.” (p. 385) | Said transformed the analysis of colonialism by using discourse analysis, enabling critics to understand Orientalism as a system of thought that justified domination. |
| “The representations of Orientalism rely upon institutions, traditions, conventions, agreed-on codes of understanding…” (p. 388) | This shows how Orientalism was institutionalized through consistent representations across various texts and disciplines, reinforcing stereotypes about the East. |
| “The Orient is constructed in a representation that is transmitted from text to text…” (p. 388) | Young explains that Orientalism is not based on reality but on a self-referential system of representations, continually reproducing the same distorted image of the East. |
| “Colonial discourse has never been fully theorized or historicized…” (p. 386) | Young critiques the lack of thorough theorization of colonial discourse, pointing to the need for a more historically grounded analysis of how colonialism operated. |
| “Said’s deployment of the concept of a ‘discourse’… enabled him to demonstrate a consistent discursive register…” (p. 388) | This highlights how Said used the idea of discourse to show the uniformity of colonial representations across various texts, uniting them under one ideological framework. |
| “Said never even claimed to offer a theory of ‘colonial discourse’ as such in the first place…” (p. 387) | Young points out that Said’s work was not intended to be a formal theory of colonial discourse but rather an analysis of how specific representations (Orientalism) operated. |
Suggested Readings: “Edward Said and Colonial Discourse” by Robert C. Young
- Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, 1992.
- Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994.
- Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Charles Lam Markmann, Pluto Press, 1986.
- Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, International Publishers, 1971.
https://www.amazon.com/Selections-Prison-Notebooks-Antonio-Gramsci/dp/071780397X - Hulme, Peter. Colonial Encounters: Europe and the Native Caribbean, 1492-1797. Routledge, 1986. https://www.routledge.com/Colonial-Encounters-Europe-and-the-Native-Caribbean-1492-1797/Hulme/p/book/9780415033947
- McClintock, Anne. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. Routledge, 1995.
https://www.routledge.com/Imperial-Leather-Race-Gender-and-Sexuality-in-the-Colonial-Contest/McClintock/p/book/9780415908900 - Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Duke University Press, 2003. https://www.dukeupress.edu/feminism-without-borders
- Parry, Benita. Postcolonial Studies: A Materialist Critique. Routledge, 2004.
https://www.routledge.com/Postcolonial-Studies-A-Materialist-Critique/Parry/p/book/9780415311823 - Said, Edward. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/166094/orientalism-by-edward-w-said/ - Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea. Edited by Rosalind C. Morris, Columbia University Press, 2010.
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/can-the-subaltern-speak/9780231143851