An Ante Litteram Critique of Orientalism: The Case of Abu’l-Faḍā’il-i-Gulpāyigānī and E.G. Browne

Author:

Yazdani Mina1,Ghaemmaghami Omid2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of History, Philosophy, and Religious Studies, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475, USA

2. Department of Middle Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Studies (MEAMS), The State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA

Abstract

Since the late 1970s, the term Orientalism has been closely associated with Edward Said (d. 2003) and his influential monograph of the same name. First published in 1978, Orientalism advanced a number of critiques about the discipline of “Oriental Studies”, its frequently condescending portrayal and depiction of the Eastern world, and the complex relationship between knowledge and power in the context of the Middle East. As revolutionary as a number of Said’s theses have been, in his critique of Orientalism and in particular his penetrating analysis of the relationship between knowledge and power, Said was not breaking entirely new ground. In fact, seven decades earlier, a voice from the Orient itself, the Persian Bahā’ī scholar Mīrzā Abu’l-Faḍā’il-i Gulpāyigānī (d. 1914), expressed a similar, albeit embryonic, critique of Orientalism. Abu’l-Faḍā’il’s analysis, presented in the opening chapters of his final book Kashfu’l-Ghiṭā’, focused on one of the foremost Orientalists of his time, the Cambridge scholar Edward Granville Browne (d. 1926). Rather than studying the extent to which Browne fits the paradigm of Orientalism (a topic some scholars have previously expressed views on), this article explores ways in which Abu’l-Faḍā’il’s critique of Browne’s study of the Orient can be viewed as a nascent prefiguration of some of the theses developed and advanced by Said decades later. Gulpāyigānī’s precedence as a Bahā’ī scholar in discerning and addressing the link between Western scholars’ knowledge production and the colonial power relations of their respective governments with the countries or areas they studied, helps correct a misconception forged about Bahā’īs. Historical narratives produced in anti-Bahā’ī polemics decades after Gulpāyigānī’s death created a master-narrative that cast Bahā’īs as agents of colonial powers, sweeping under the rug counterarguments such as those posed by Gulpāyigānī’s critique. The authors of this article have been motivated by this corrective goal.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Religious studies

Reference34 articles.

1. Amanat, Abbas (1989). Resurrection and Renewal, Cornell University Press.

2. Amanat, Abbas (2017). Iran: A Modern History, Yale University Press.

3. Amīnī, Tūraj (2015). Abu’l-Faḍā’il Gulpāyigānī dar Āyiniy-i-Asnād, Niḥal.

4. ‘Awaḍ, Ḥāfiẓ [Biography of E.G. Browne]. Majjalatu’l-Majjalāti’l-‘Arabīyyah, 2, 159–62. 1320/1903.

5. Algar, Hamid (1984). Occidentosis: A Plague from the West, Mizan.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3