“They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented”
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
– Karl Marx 1852
The late Edward Said, a Palestinian American professor of Comparative Literature explained Orientalism as the conviction that:
“On the one hand there are Westerners, and on the other there are Arab-Orientals; the former are rational, peaceful, liberal, logical, capable of holding real values, without natural suspicion; the latter are none of these things.”
These attitudes towards the East, the Orient, the ‘native’ (a word I will use to encapsulate the various terms used to describe non-Westerners) Said argues, are inherited today, as they were in the past by Europeans, but they are not coincidental, naturally occurring or isolated. Instead, they form a larger institutionalised system of representing the Orient and the native through the lens of the West.
This representation, created by the former colonial master, narrates a story that contrasts with his own, and paints a picture of the native, as everything he (the narrator) himself is not. This representation, made up of stereotypes and reductionist and repetitive racism, can appear innocent and has been normalised in the post-modern, post-colonial, post-imperial era, where the European, or perhaps more appropriate in today’s context, Westerner, presents his narrative as a purely innocent one driven by curiosity, adventure and an urge to present the dark, mysterious and faraway ‘other’ to his own constituents- an approach entirely in line with the Orientalist traveller, writer, historian, policy maker or politician from the colonial era.
Though the native is now no longer under colonial rule, I will argue that the Westerner still sees the land of the native as a place that requires a story and narrative to be written. Likewise, the native still holds onto the same identity created for him by the colonial master. Though the narrative is continuously updated, it still lies within the same framework of Orientalism, now widespread and accepted by both parties.
There is an expectation that the native should welcome the Western traveller, the gap year student, the photographer and the aid worker – to be on his knees with palms open for charity, for knowledge, for technology and democracy – all hallmarks of the West that the Westerner has tried for centuries to bring selflessly to the East, but the ungrateful native sought instead self-determination and independence.
I will present here an analysis of the narrative and identity created for the native by the West, and argue that today, the travel photographer has assumed the role of narrator. I will examine the tropes used in creating the identity of the native that are apparent in the Orientalist narrative, and present a real-world analysis of modern travel photography to show how these tropes are still being used in today’s context.
Disclaimer
The views shared here are that of this author alone and the analysis, though heavily inspired by the work of the late Edward Said, is still an interpretation. Furthermore, a clarification is needed for the use of certain terms:
‘Western’ or ‘White’ is used to represent a mindset, a way of thinking rather than a wide net which categorises all persons with a ‘white’ skin tone into one group. It is somewhat irresponsible to generalise in this way but it must also be recognised that the balance leans heavily on the ‘Westerner’ being a perpetrator of Orientalism/ Western Gaze.
‘Native’ is used to represent a person or persons who inhabit the land (social and geographical) that is photographed and represented by the ‘Westerner’. The term is used purposely to invoke an irony, to operate within the discourse heavily defined by the wealth of Orientalist literature that discards any terms of description that could humanise a people dissimilar in appearance.
Finally, it is also recognised that both Westerners and natives can be equally guilty of producing Orientalist content (this will be discussed further), and likewise, not all content produced by Westerners falls under that category. There are no clear lines, and often the same content can be interpreted differently depending on context.
The West Continues to Narrate the Story of the Native
The departure of the Europeans from their former colonies in Africa, the Middle East and Asia left behind a hook in the skin of the native; the European – thinking himself a parent and the native a belligerent child, was never able to fully let go. The owning-of and the dependency-on was seen as inextricable and natural; Belgium, for example, was never able to completely remove itself militarily or politically from the foot of the Congolese (see “Congo Horrors”); the French believed and continue to believe they have an unquestionable ownership over the destiny of the Moroccan and Libyan (see 2011 bombing of Libya by France). The British, even today, hold onto lands, with force if needed, to safeguard their ‘special interests’ and regional influence in places thousands of miles away, (see The Falklands, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, etc) often where the native population has no British or European roots but has been stubbornly colonised, culturally.
Today, Europe and the West continue to draw the terms of trade, send armies and heavy military hardware or impose trade sanctions on nations it deems necessary – the majority of which are former colonies. With power comes influence and the ability to write and rewrite the narratives of the past and the future. It is simply untrue to argue that the end of colonial rule saw the self-determination of the colonised at all levels.
Defining the Native
If the European created an identity and narrative for the people he colonised, we must ask ourselves, why? Was his goal scientific in capturing the details of the native as one might study a habitat? Or was it to understand the native in order to own him? Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt saw armies of academics, historians and scientists arrive alongside the soldiers to document the land they conquered, for if you have knowledge of your subject, you have the power and right to ‘create’ him as you wish. In this case, the native was defined by the European as a contrast to himself (the European) – he is everything the native is not.
Napoleon’s study of Egypt was the first of its kind by a colonial power. It allowed the French to systematically document and analyse the history and behaviour of the native, to define and subsequently reduce him into a stupid and simple man. The English, Germans and Portuguese began similar studies of their native in their conquered lands, thus creating a methodical and systematic way to categorise and depict him in the way they saw appropriate.
The Travel Photographer as the Modern Orientalist
“The Orient and Islam have a kind of extra real, phenomenologically reduced status that puts them out of reach of everyone except the Western expert. From the beginning of Western speculation about the Orient, the one thing the Orient could not do was to represent itself. Evidence of the Orient was credible only after it had passed through and been made firm by the refining fire of the Orientalist’s work.
Arabs, for example, are thought of as camel-riding, terroristic, hook-nosed, venal lechers whose undeserved wealth is an affront to real civilization. Always there lurks the assumption that although the Western consumer belongs to a numerical minority, he is entitled either to own or to expend (or both) the majority of the world resources. Why? Because he, unlike the Oriental, is a true human being.” – Edward Said
The crux of what is taking place today lays in the representation of the native in modern media, not only by politicians or policy makers (though they take a sizeable chunk of responsibility), but by the common traveller and so called ‘professional photographer’, who has become painter, poet, writer and fortune teller all in one. The men and women who ‘brave’ the jungle, the malaria, the hot desert and the sacred river; the ‘daring’ photographer who ‘travels as a local’ and immerses himself in the dirt ridden streets of over-crowded cities and discovers ‘hidden’ spots to capture the native in his natural element; he waits patiently for the native to finally reveal his dark heart through a piercing stare straight at the camera, or to capture an overly jubilant disposition in the act that makes the native dance and yell unintelligible vocals, to pound his chest and reveal his barely covered genitals, all with his dark face and bright white teeth – a good native, the native that wins awards and is finally being himself, unable to contain himself any longer – unlike the city native who is plain, chameleon-like and dreams of Western lands with his narrow skillset that will only get him so far. No gun with a bayonet, no battalion or empire, but an editor and social media sponsor, a National Geographic award entry and possible future documentary- these are the things that drive the modern Orientalist, the photographer, to the land of the native.
Modern Orientalist Tropes
The modern orientalist employs the following tropes in his approach to the native:
Inability to see the native as an equal. The obsession with the native as an ‘object’ creates an unequal relationship, even more so, if you only view him through the lens of poverty and suffering, or even wonder, curiosity and mysticism, but see yourself as possessing none of these qualities. The desire to present the unknown or unfamiliar is more tempting than its opposite; it is different and must therefore be put on display, looked at, discussed. The ‘other’ is then an object that sits in our imagination simply by the way he is presented by the storyteller (the Orientalist author or photographer) or by our own imagination (that takes its input from what we have read or seen) but not from the native’s own reality, not by his real actions or the identity he has created for himself.
It must be noted, that there is space in the discourse for genuine curiosity, explorative efforts and reporting on the ‘other’, but the means and methods adopted need to carefully, with conscious effort, remove the tint of Orientalism that continues to envelop the work and effort of Western travellers.
The native is an observable entity. The native possesses little to no right to refuse being photographed – his poverty, culture and very existence is within the frame and lens of the Westerner who has travelled far, has certain expectations and must now be provided with a steady supply of visuals, sounds and experiences that demonstrate and represent the native in the way the Westerner has come to expect.
The native is not an individual. It is hard to distinguish one dark figure from another, as they are great in number and low in individuality. An indigenous Australian Aboriginal is no different to a native in Peru, or a native in Namibia.
The native is dark and strange. The over-representation of the native as being darker, poorer and either static or overly nomadic (one from poverty, the other from detachment from society) creates an exaggerated ‘other’, who is entirely outside of the Western spectrum and is waiting (for charity, aid, relief workers and then storytellers and photographers) to be noticed; then he will smile or should smile and embrace the attention and story that will be told by the generous Westerner to the outside world. This approach is problematic, not only because it is based on ‘othering’ the native but because it purposefully ignores the history and complexity of another people, and denies them agency. It increases their marginalisation and continues to enforce the reductionist and racist ideology that the native is poor, lacks depth, unable to possess a complex character (unlike the Westerner), all of which is immediately summed up by the surface of his skin (tribal tattoos, numerous piercings, worn and wrinkled skin) or by his inability to conceal his emotions.
The Hindu bathes in the dirty and unsanitary (albeit holy to the naïve native) Ganges – this is his identity; the Arab rides the camel and is always angry – that is his mode of operation; the African is another animal on the safari – that is his habitat; the Peruvian hides his simple and under-developed brain in the mist of the Amazon – only that is his abode, while the Westerner is a Viking warrior, Marco Polo explorer, Shakespeare poet, Pious catholic, Newton scientist and now a modern marvel of a traveller – belonging to a civilisation that has tasked itself to document, study and identify other species using methods the native could never himself employ to understand his own past.
The Westerner can invade, dominate, possess, punish and then re-civilise the native – all due to the goodness in his heart. It is the native who needs to be saved, it is the Westerner who will do the saving and it is the Westerner who will innovate and provide solutions; it is the native who will die of AIDS, famine and constant war; it is the Westerner who will raise his voice at the international community and seek peace – it is the native who is helpless and stuck in a cycle of his own material and immaterial poverty.
The native is damned. In the world of the native there is endless suffering, pain, trauma, injustice (perhaps ordained divinely) that no amount of effort or intervention could completely remove. Civil war, child soldiers and African Warlords; famines, earthquakes and floods – all a way of life for the damned native. Conversely, the Westerner too suffers, but he responds to his suffering with dignity, strength, logic and order, enabled by the richness of his civilisation, by the hard work and natural intelligence of his superior race – all qualities the native can only hope to imitate but never truly self-create. The cycle of suffering will repeat and permeate nothing –any hope that he foolishly has, will vanish if the aid caravans of the Westerner leave.
This perverted view of the condition of the native and his land, has created an unquestionable permanent state in the minds of all (native included) that the native must be saved, if not from nature or his dictator, then from himself.
Blind to the Richness of the Native
The Orientalist approach in modern photography tells us much about the framework the Westerner operates in. The Westerner who travels to the Middle East, Africa or Asia is presented with multiple realities, but he chooses to pursue the one that will satisfy his own creative ambitions. It takes a strong dose of denial and mental gymnastics to fly into large, urban cities in the Middle East, Africa or Asia and then travel hours to remote places to find the’ right’ native that will present himself photogenically and win the photographer an award or admiration for his adventure into the ‘wild’ unknown.
The humanity of the native, present in his smile and hospitality, is reduced to a verbal narrative that complements the visual. The photographer conjures up an experience, an interaction with the native and, without much effort, reduces even the intellectual existence of the native into a few words and emotions: the native ‘lives with 6 children in a small straw hut; they dream of education for their many children and better opportunity.’
The native thinks of nothing beyond his material existence; his poverty is the start and end of his existence, while the rituals and ancient traditions that paint his life are an entertainment for Western viewers who will learn nothing more of the native, other than his material hope- hope that is stubbornly present each time the camera captures his dark face. These photographs plaster walls, trains, billboards and television advertisements, routinely, calling us to demonstrate our generous humanity towards those lacking humanity when the next famine or flood arrives.
How Accurate is the Orientalist Worldview?
It must now be asked, how much of the narrative told by the Westerner can we trust? How tinted is the Orientalist lens? Has the world of the native really been this dark for this long or have we all been fooled? Is the native really this poor, really this ecstatic and religiously transcendent? Is the life of the native, as we see in travel photography really this simple and one dimensional?
How could it be that in the vast and rich history of our world, only the white Westerner prospered? That only he could pen master literature, only he could find himself leading all of humanity in human rights, the sciences and the arts? That only the Western mind gazed at the heavens and formulated thought that elevated humans to a higher place spiritually; that only he could cross mountains, lakes and seas to explore and discover the earth that we all inherited? The answer, obviously, is that the premise is false, but it remains the dominant one. Any achievements that can be attributed to the native are ancient; their descendants are unable to achieve anything in their current state. The native is lazy, unable or unwilling to think logically and beyond his immediate concerns: economic poverty and irrational religious oddity.
What took place in our world after the end of the classical period (500BC) and before the revival of Europe in the period of ‘Enlightenment’ (1600AD)? With over a thousand years to account for, are we really to believe that the world was in slumber waiting for Europe to wake up? This isn’t a historical quandary that needs to be resolved, but a simple question that should be addressed to disturb the ongoing Orientalist view of the modern world.
The narrative that plays on the world stage today, political, social and cultural, assumes a unique and dominant hegemony by the West and this directly encourages, supports and rewards the Western thinker, whether he be common man, intellectual, creative, professional or amateur. The native meanwhile, is placed falsely, in a role made up of reductionist stereotypes- but he has fallen for the false narrative and grieves over his inherent flaws, but with no one to hear his heavily accented voice.
How can the worldview of one voice and one people be taken as the only view? How can the narrative of the Westerner, who has inherited the post-colonial world and continues to view the world in his own image, possibly be trusted? He is the master, you the subject and species. He the civilised and you the goal of the “mission civilisatrice” a rationale once used to intervene and colonise, and though today the mission has evolved and expanded, the framework is static. The mission continues, the explorer encouraged and rewarded by those who cultivate and propagate the repetitive Orientalist ideology, but now under the guise of exploration, travel journalism and creative representation.
The Counter View: the Voice of the Native
Where then, is the counter view? The voice of the native, the dull notes from the mouth of the simple dark Orient? If the armies of imperialism have been dissembled and political freedom returned to the native, why then is the story still being told by the ‘well-intentioned’ Western writer or traveller? Is it fair to assume that the native has failed to employ, to any success, the same faculties of thought, knowledge and creativity as the Westerner? Is this exactly why the native needed the Westerner to build him roads and railways and create for him an identity and narrative.
The native has failed, firstly to untangle and cut the cord of being subject to another, and secondly to create for himself an identity in his own tongue, containing aspirations that belong to his people (who are equivocally diverse and as complex as the Westerner) and ensure that discourse is repeated (as often and loud as it needs to), plastered onto the walls of the global stage, fought for as the only legitimate and acceptable one internationally (in writings, popular media, legal and political discourse and all discussions of culture), relegating the previous illegitimate, racist and offensive one to the history books of the West.
The native continues, however, to play along either passively (without much thought), or with intention and purpose. He markets his ‘otherness’ to gain business (see: the native dressed in traditional garb in touristic areas with trained monkeys, snakes being charmed or ready to be photographed for a small fee); popularity (see: the cyclical ‘Indian Summer’ obsession marketing their music, film or food) or sympathy and acceptance. On occasion the native will compete with other natives to win the title of ‘best native’ or struggle to be seen and show himself as anything other than a native.
The Indian author can only convincingly write about his ‘Indianess’; the African must use his poverty as a backdrop, with stories and experiences limited to his ‘motherland’; and if a woman wants to enter the fold of authorship or art, her work should speak of her oppression, the sexist patriarchal society of which she is inevitably and undeniably victim- particularly if the woman is a Muslim; the finest accolades await her escaping and rejection of the barbaric faith to which she once was chained to by her society, father and husband.
And do not forget the ‘self-Orientalist’. The native, the orient, himself, is often guilty of perpetuating the same Orientalist reductionist and racist stereotypes as the Westerner. The benchmark for award winning travel photography has been set and the native, who can assimilate and penetrate his own community and society in ways a Westerner never could, has begun to photograph and narrate the same stereotypes and visuals that once were relegated to the outsider.
The native has not been given, or more importantly, taken, forcibly, the right to move beyond his identity and look at the wider world and contribute the way he once majestically did. Which Arab today can claim and be accepted in a position once held by the Arab Ibn Khaldun (father of modern historiography, sociology, economics and demography)? Which West African today can claim power, success and culture like the people and the kingdom of Mali? Timbuktu’s Sankore University, which once contained 700,000 manuscripts is no more, but it never was in the mind of the Westerner and neither in ours, for we have not seen or perhaps we have refused to accept that we, the once enslaved native, had identity, authority and a future before the Westerner turned us into a species of study and labelled us animals who needed to be civilised.
A Brief Study of the Orientalist Photographer
The following is a real world analysis of travel photography that I believe falls under the label of modern Orientalism.
Matjaz Krivic, the Guardian’s winner for best Travel Portfolio opens his website with the text “Bukina Faso is one of the poorest countries in the world.” Krivic is neither a journalist or author of any kind, nor is he connected to any charity. Krivic defines himself as a ‘Travel Photographer’ but chooses rather bizarrely to use Bukina Faso, one of the poorest nations in the world to identify himself and his work. He has no connection (none that is apparent) to this African nation but wants to be associated with it for his poverty photography work to be recognised. The Orientalist photographer needs to form for himself an identity by using the native as the differentiator; if it’s not the Indian or Afghan (already taken by Steve McCurry), can it then be the native from Bukina Faso that are open for association?
Krivic writes he is “the voice of the neglected”; he creates a photography story with paragraphs (of words) to highlight the desperate situation and the poverty of the native. No one asked, but Krivic has assumed a right to authorise himself as narrator. This is how Krivic describes himself on his website:
“He [Krivic]has portrayed poor parts of the world characterised by traditions, social unrest and religious devotion. His photographs sensitively reflect the images of the marginal word – the voices of the neglected. Because of the artist’s directness and respect for individuals, the people photographed are spontaneous, natural and open. Their «soul» is captured and the viewer is encouraged to observe and think.”
Compare this with Krivic’s portrayal of ‘non-natives’; his website contains a photo album titled ‘Tribe’. The following is used to describe what the ‘Tribe’ represents:
“As far as new age social utopias go, it’s doesn’t get any more spectacular than the Rainbow Gathering… It began with the counter-culture “dropout” movement in the USA and a disappointed generation searching to start society from scratch by moving to remote rural areas, far from the reach of their corrupt industrial civilization (or Babylon as the Rastafarian fraction likes to refer to it). Rainbow gatherings soon developed their own ethos, rituals and fashion – the “Sioux chief meets Himalayan sadhu” image being the most popular. Although outside observers tend to dismiss the attempted split from mainstream society as nothing more than a holiday camping trip for hippies, there certainly are lessons to be learned from the Rainbow warriors. For starters, it is admirable how thousands of people manage to cohabit together peacefully for extended periods of time in extremely difficult circumstances (no electricity, no running water, no shops) without leaders, policemen or even organizers”
Krivic depicts a strong, confident and organised people (who incidentally are all white) who despite abandoning modern western civilisation, are unable to divorce themselves from their natural tendencies, even if they tried; they are organised, operate within the law and develop a culture out of thin air – all without struggle or pain. The white western man, it appears, can choose poverty, create tribes (but he is the master of his own identity, label and stereotype) and prosper, whereas the native has struggled, for centuries, even with the aid, training and tools provided by the Westerner, to uplift himself from his damned destiny.
2016, National Geographic Second Place Winner, “People”
Yasmin Mund, an Australian Photographer was awarded second place by National Geographic for her photo titled “Rooftop Dreams”, shot in Varanasi, India (note: on the day of publishing this article the photographer appeared to have removed this image from her personal Instagram page after Sacred Footsteps tagged her in an Insta Story criticising the image. It can still be viewed on National Geographic’s website, and on the photographer’s own site where she sells prints of the photo).
The story behind the photo, as described by Mund is below:
“It was 5:30 a.m. and I had just arrived in Varanasi, India, off a sleeper train. I got to my guesthouse and instinctively climbed the seven flights of stairs to see the sunrise over the famous Ganges River. As I looked over the side of the rooftop terrace, my jaw dropped in disbelief. Below were mothers, fathers, children, cats, dogs, and monkeys all sleeping on their roofs. It was midsummer in Varanasi and sleeping without air-conditioning was pretty difficult. Can you spot the curry?”
Mund’s photo, now a multi-awarded spectacle, has been seen by millions, earning her applause for capturing a magical and wondrous scene depicting the native in his natural habitat.
The photo captures (to the best of my observation skills):
- 4 women
- 16 children (four girls, 8 boys and 4 infants – all appear to be under 18)
- 0 men (Mund claims to see ‘fathers’ but I could not spot any adult men)
- 0 cats (Mund claims to see cats but I could not spot any)
- 0 dogs (Mund claims to see dogs but I could not spot any)
- 2 monkeys
Mund did not think an accurate analysis was needed and describes what she thinks she saw or expected to see: people and animals cohabiting together – unroofed and unclothed – why should detail matter when she herself seems to be having a ‘Rooftop Dream’?
Concluding Remarks
The native can separate and tear himself apart to be rid of the Westerner, but his voice and right to forge an identity; his breath and mere existence, is still for the Westerner and the West to cultivate, define and narrate. Physical freedom and political independence rarely lead to the same mentally; the native can, and often does, look to the West to find his dark complexion staring back at him, menacingly, and then works continuously, but in vain, to rid himself of this false identity.
The lens through which travel photographers, even today, capture the native, continues to define impressions and expectations of the native in his faraway land. The West has benefited directly from colonialism and its rule has directly caused poverty, famine, conflict and even encouraged disease. This fact alone places the burden on, and demands that the Westerner, who chooses to write or photograph the native, present an accurate and truthful account of him. Lazy Orientalist narratives cannot be excused.
“A certain freedom of intercourse was always the Westerner’s privilege; because his was the stronger culture, he could penetrate, he could wrestle with, he could give shape and meaning to the great Asiatic mystery”
Further discussion: Orientalism & Modern Travel Photography: consent, identity & ‘othering’ in the age of Instagram
