New Age Orientalism

New Age Orientalism describes a modern, Western perception of Tibet, and other Asian majority countries. The term was coined by, Tibetologist Donald Swell Lopez Jr., who specializes in Western discourse on Tibet.[1][2] A tibetologist is a person who studies tibetology, the study of things related to Tibet, including its history, religion, language, politics and the collection of Tibetan articles of historical, cultural and religious significance.[3] Tibet is a historical region covering much of the Tibetan Plateau in Central Asia. It is the traditional homeland of the Tibetan people as well as some other ethnic groups such as Monpa, Qiang, and Lhoba peoples and is now also inhabited by considerable numbers of Han Chinese and Hui people.[4]

Orientalism on Tibet

Dr. Donald S. Lopez Jr. studied the depiction of Tibet in Western academic writing throughout history. He found that, before the New Age movement, the depiction of Tibet was often cynical and derogatory. The demeaning features that define Orientalism, characterized the portrayal of Tibet, before the emergence of New Age Orientalism.[1]

Self-aggrandizing of the Orient

In line with the logic of opposites, members of Western academia stressed their superiority (particularly regarding their academic abilities) and used this as a justification to patronize the Orient. With the modern period came Colonialism, when new knowledge of the Eastern world sparked western scholars to write about foreign histories, cultures, and traditions, despite having a sparse and incomplete understanding of them. The Western world, a majority of which was engaging in colonialism, considered The Eastern world to be incapable of representing itself due to its non-western mechanisms of knowledge. The colonial philosophy of manifest destiny led western scholars to believe that they had a more civilized and valuable way of expression, and so western academics took it upon themselves to document societies, such as Tibet, from their perspectives. Often described as 'backward' or 'incapable,' particularly in self-governance, such portrayals helped to fuel racist and white supremacist beliefs of Asian peoples across the west. Such western scholars considered both China and Tibet to be “Oriental Despotisms,” to which the politically organized and colonizing Western world was meant to civilize.

Gaining and justifying authority

Manifest destiny, along with larger ideologies of racism and white supremacy, were used as a method of justifying imperialism and colonialism.[1][5] When control of Tibet was taken by western forces for periods of time, western understandings of self-superiority helped to fuel the sense of entitlement, which explained such colonial violence.

However, western powers never fully succeeded in gaining imperial control of Tibet, despite Britain and Russia's considerable military efforts. According to a western-centric understanding, Tibet never modernized, refusing to adopt European-style education systems or norms. Throughout the course of the 19th and 20th century, Tibet remained inaccessible to Western powers, and was therefore predominantly portrayed as isolated, closed, and uncivilized.[1]

New Age Orientalism and Tibet

Embedded in the New Age movement, New Age Orientalism describes the positive Western perception of old Tibet (before the Chinese invasion 1950 and Tibetan diaspora 1959).[1] This portrayal of Tibet in the modern Western Societies, has been criticized for romanticizing old Tibetan reality and neglecting negative aspects of its society, such as, violence or the clerical, feudal structure.[6] It is, therefore, seen as a construct of Western fantasy, rather than a depiction of reality.[7][8]

New Age Orientalism, subsequently, describes the orientalist perception of Tibet, in which Tibet is no longer depreciated but, rather, romanticized. It is based on the tradition of continued Romantic Orientalism, “in which the ‘West’ perceives some lack within itself and fantasizes that the answer, through a process of projection, is to be found somewhere in the ‘East.'"[1] In this manner, the four characteristics of Orientalism persist with slight variation. The logic of opposites, now relates to the old Tibet and China. Tibet is no longer perceived as an antiquated, "oriental despotism," but as a Shangri-La -- positive, holy, pristine, and pure, which is perceived as incorrupt, since it was never dominated by the West. The Chinese constitute the opposite, as the evil, subhuman force invading the land of peaceful, devoted inhabitants. The old Tibetan culture seems removed from time and history.[1][5]

This allows the West to aggrandize themselves as rescuers of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism (see 'Free Tibet' movement), whereas, Tibetans are depicted as helpless and voiceless. Ultimately, the West again finds itself in a patronizing position, representing another culture.[5]

The romanticized picture of Tibet has, partly, been constructed and reflected by popular culture. Hollywood movies such as Seven years in Tibet, Kundun, and Little Buddha, were found to draw a romanticized image of Tibet, and hold up the Western rescue paradigm, in line with the play of opposites, between China and Tibet.[5] Furthermore, publications surrounding the 'Free Tibet' movement have been categorized as New Age Orientalism.[7] The constructed fantasies of a Shangri-La Tibet, are found to reflect back on the Western struggles, within their own national identity,[5] as well as, pitfalls of globalization.[7]

Expansion of New Age Orientialism

In academic literature, the concept of New Age Orientalism, originally relating to Tibet, has been expanded and applied to other cultures and religions, such as Hinduism.[8] The discourse and perception on Ayurveda, for instance, has been categorized as New Age Orientalism.[8]

Criticism of New Age Orientialism

Dr. Donald Lopez's concept of New Age Orientalism, has been criticized for placing too much weight on the impact and power of Orientalism, and viewing Tibet as a closed totality, removed from history. Alternatives to Orientalism are not considered.[9] Moreover, the concept has been criticized for neglecting the Tibetan struggle under the Chinese occupation, in addition to not covering negative Oriental pictures of Old Tibet as feudal and antiquated to their fullest extent.[10]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lopez Jr, Donald Sewell (1994). "New age orientalism: the case of Tibet". Tricycle: The Buddhist Journal. 3: 36–43.
  2. ↑ "Donald S. Lopez Jr. | U-M LSA Asian Languages and Cultures". lsa.umich.edu. Retrieved 2018-09-01.
  3. ↑ "Tibetology", Wikipedia, 2018-06-27, retrieved 2018-09-01
  4. ↑ "Tibet", Wikipedia, 2018-08-27, retrieved 2018-09-01
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Mullen, Eve (2016). "Orientalist commercializations: Tibetan Buddhism in American popular film". Journal of Religion & Film. 2.2.
  6. ↑ Goldner, Colin. "Colin Goldner: Hinter dem Lächeln des Dalai Lama (Vortrag Univ. Wien 18.05.2012)".
  7. 1 2 3 Bishop, Peter (1989). The myth of Shangri-La: Tibet, travel writing, and the western creatio of sacred landscape. Univ of California Press.
  8. 1 2 3 Anand, Dibyesh. "Strategic hypocrisy: The British imperial scripting of Tibet's geopolitical identity". The Journal of Asian Studies. 68(1): 227–252.
  9. ↑ Dreyfus, Georges (2005). "Are We Prisoners of Shangrila? Orientalism, Nationalism, and the Study of Tibet" (PDF). Journal of the international association of Tibetan studies. 1.1: 1–21 – via Researchgate.
  10. ↑ Thurman, Robert A. F. (2001). "Critical Reflections on Donald S. Lopez Jr.'s "Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West"". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 69.1: 191–201. JSTOR 1466076.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.