Said and representations of the 'Other'

Arup Kumar Sen’s (EPW, March 13, 2004) tribute to Said’s Orientalism, stresses on the post-colonial nature of Said’s analysis. However, I would also like to add to this a question on the powerful interpretative legacy of Said’s philosophy in terms of race and representations of the ‘other’.

Editorial Introduction: Religion and Postcolonialism

After the beginning there appeared some stranger texts
West’s Orientalism objectified the corpus’s otherness
And Modernity’s philology rendered their syntax as his own;
Thence followed the postmodern disruption of the aporia
Re-citing the alterity and the ousia of the Other’s face;
But it awaited the hybrid-angst of postcolonialism’s site
Whence the interrupted texts begun miming an-other meaning.

Game of Tropes: the Orientalist tradition in the Works of G.R.R. Martin

George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire novels (and their television adaption, Game of Thrones) have become arguably the most well known fantasy epic of the last decade. However, the world of A Song of Ice and Fire conforms to many of the same Orientalist tropes that have dominated Western literature since the popularisation of the 'Arabian fantasy' in the 18th and 19th centuries and its subsequent perpetuation in film and television. Derivative imaginings of the real world Middle East are commonly reflected in non-Earthly fantasy worlds and Martin's work incorporates this standard vision of the Eastern Other. Owing to its popularity, the A Song of Ice and Fire series represents a significant reinforcement of Orientalist stereotypes and proves that fantasy locations have significant power to cement these ideas in the popular imagination. Moreover, the negative portyal of the East in these works supports Said's argument that the Orient is an invention of the West, and that our depiction of the Other is a means of framing our own cultural superiority.

Eurocentrism and the history of democracy

Building atop these earlier works, this article offers a fresh critique of the work of Dunn and other political scientists and historians who have propagated the Eurocentric history of democracy. The papers argues that such work can be dissected and critiqued along several key lines: their reliance on a distinctly patriarchal discourse riddled with prejudices; the assertion that one can understand the history of democracy via the etymology of the word itself; and the deeply Eurocentric roots of the study of democracy’s past embedded in the canon of Western political thought. The paper concludes by calling on contemporary political scientists and political historians concerned with the history of democracy to be careful in re-iterating this deeply flawed history of democracy and to instead work towards a history of democracy that retrieves the silenced histories and the forgotten democratic moments that lay behind the roar of Western power.