In the past 30 years, ”the Orientalism” has been a big success on a global scale. Inspired by ”the Orientalism”, the scholars, one after another, expose how the Oriental other is constructed and denounce the Orientalism in their own countries. Therefore, with regard to its orient (ation), post-Said Orientalism has neither the Orient nor orientation, though Orientalism is founded on the absence of the Orient from the very beginning. But it does not mean that Orientalism no longer makes any sense; on the contrary, it always keeps a good sense: Orientalism as a metonym for all the dominant/ dominated relationship in the symbolic system of culture. The ”Orientalism” itself had better be considered as a traveling theory and a textual attitude developed among oriental scholars and others, including E. Said and post-Saidians from 19th century on. This article tries to analyze the ability of Orientalism to repeat and differ in different contexts in terms of J. Derrida's ”iterability” and suggests Orientalism's always-already-supposed ”otherwise”. This article also reevaluates the meanings of the Orient as other(s) in the perspective of E. Lévinas' ethical philosophy. Putting the Orient in the transcendent position of the absolute other, we reexamine the essentialized and fossilized relation of the Orient and the Occident. The Orient, as another other and other's wise, signifies the always-openness, which implicates a being-with otherwise and being-out of otherwise (with-out Orient), and so on.
|Translated title of the contribution||Orientalism without Orient(ation), or the other Orient|
|Original language||Chinese (Traditional)|
|Number of pages||34|
|State||Published - 2010|