Gregor Samsa
That Guy
Has anyone read Keith's works that are not directly related to the Australian 'history wars'? Other than the supposed 'fabrication', it's interesting how many luminaries Keith attacks in his various articles (On
).. Michel Foucault (Poor historiographical credentials, or something similar..), Edward Said, Noam Chomsky (For 'hypocrisy'), John Steinbeck (For 'The Grapes Of Wrath' not being historically accurate, and supposedly giving a distorted perspective of the 1930's..)
There are some pretty serious flaws in some of these criticisms, I believe.. To give an example from his Edward Said article;
For a start, he should have realized that Abdel Maleks analysis of the essentialist failings of Oriental scholarship and Foucaults thesis that knowledge always generates power are quite incompatible. If, as Malek and Said claim, Orientalisms picture of the Arabs is false, then it is difficult to see how it could have been the source of the knowledge that led to the European imperial domination of the region. According to Said, Orientalist essentialism is not knowledge, but a series of beliefs that are both distorted and out of date. Surely, though, if these beliefs are wrong, they would have contributed to poor judgment, bad estimates, and mistaken policies. Hence the political power of Western imperialism must have been gained despite them, not because of them. -Windschuttle, 'Orientalism Revisited'.
I feel that at least in this criticism, Windschuttle has entirely mis-read Orientalism, due to his vehement criticism of post-modernism. One of Said's basic points is that the beliefs held by imperialists (and others) were incorrect, but they became knowledge through propagation, which is the crucial element here. Windschuttle appears to view 'truths' as static, when although 'truth' does exist, erroneous statements can become 'truth' in certain systems, especially when used to justify ideologies..
This is un-related to the 'fabrication' dispute, but is another example of his work. (Apologies for my subjectivity.) The full article can be found at; Edward Said's 'Orientalism' Revisited
(Incidentally, the sectional headings on the site are pretty overt.. 'Anti-Westernism' and so-on..)
HTML:
www.sydneyline.comThere are some pretty serious flaws in some of these criticisms, I believe.. To give an example from his Edward Said article;
For a start, he should have realized that Abdel Maleks analysis of the essentialist failings of Oriental scholarship and Foucaults thesis that knowledge always generates power are quite incompatible. If, as Malek and Said claim, Orientalisms picture of the Arabs is false, then it is difficult to see how it could have been the source of the knowledge that led to the European imperial domination of the region. According to Said, Orientalist essentialism is not knowledge, but a series of beliefs that are both distorted and out of date. Surely, though, if these beliefs are wrong, they would have contributed to poor judgment, bad estimates, and mistaken policies. Hence the political power of Western imperialism must have been gained despite them, not because of them. -Windschuttle, 'Orientalism Revisited'.
I feel that at least in this criticism, Windschuttle has entirely mis-read Orientalism, due to his vehement criticism of post-modernism. One of Said's basic points is that the beliefs held by imperialists (and others) were incorrect, but they became knowledge through propagation, which is the crucial element here. Windschuttle appears to view 'truths' as static, when although 'truth' does exist, erroneous statements can become 'truth' in certain systems, especially when used to justify ideologies..
This is un-related to the 'fabrication' dispute, but is another example of his work. (Apologies for my subjectivity.) The full article can be found at; Edward Said's 'Orientalism' Revisited
(Incidentally, the sectional headings on the site are pretty overt.. 'Anti-Westernism' and so-on..)