Comparative study of O'Donnell and Millspaugh's writings in and about Iran

Résumé du document

This essay will compare the writings of two American authors who both lived in Iran at different times and for different reasons. The similarities and divergences that emerge from this comparative study will reveal a more comprehensive explanation of Edward Said's notion of Orientalism. In Orientalism published in 1978, Said defines it as « a subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arab-Islamic peoples and their culture ». Put in a different way, Western cultural representations of Oriental people contribute to a mythification of the non-western other and its land. The scholar research especially is accused of promoting European colonialism, and to maintain the idea that West and East are ontologically and epistemologically different.

Extraits

[...] Hobbies and acquaintances are primary concerns in O'Donnell's writing, although he gives a fair space to ethnographic observations and social evaluations. His encounter with his servant Mamdali or his bonding times with his Iranian friends highlight his naive but intrigued perspective of the other. The more he engages in trips, pilgrimages or nights out, the better he appreciates the delicate aspects of Iranian culture. To that extent, the Iranian aristocratic Prince he meets halfway through the book might be the only critical aspect in his work. [...]

[...] Comparative study of Terence O'Donnell and Arthur Millspaugh's writings in and about Iran This essay will compare the writings of two american authors who both lived in Iran at different times and for different reasons. The similarities and divergences that emerge from this comparative study will reveal a more comprehensive explanation of Edward Said's notion of Orientalism. In Orientalism published in 1978, Said defines it as « a subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arab-Islamic peoples and their culture ». [...]

[...] Through the western gaze of his function, Millspraugh maintains and reinforces the colonial and bourgeois ideology that placed him here in a first place. O'Donnell, far from any power relation of political consideration, has no interest but the one of studying the other, of learning the customs for its own end. There lies the philosophical difference between the two authors, Millspraugh expects results from his findings, he expects a transformation for the people he lives among; O'Donnell on the other hand expects nothing from Persian people, records observed behaviors and conversations, analyzes the symbols, the meanings and avoid causal explanations. [...]

[...] In 1946, Millspraugh is somehow more nuanced yet fatalist in regard to the Persian situation. In Americans in Persia, he dedicates a chapter to the minds, morals and misgovernments in Persia. The author here accepts right away how impossible is the task to describe people within a diverse country, and yet does it anyway. In a conceited way, he qualifies the persian as « not a man of reason » who « falls short of intellectual maturity ». Masses are seen as densely illiterate and ignorant, especially after the politics Reza Shah. [...]

[...] On the contrary, O'Donnell stands as an flâneur, an ethnographer that is never home but can feel home everywhere. He sees the world, lives in its center and remains hidden from it. His depiction of the nomadic culture eventually leads him to accept his own departure, no matter abrupt it may be. It is hard to say whether O'Donnell embraces this way of life, or if it fits his original perspective, but one can hardly qualifies his behavior or his perspective as orientalist. [...]