My small and mighty readership, I'm so sorry for dropping off the face of the earth for the past few months. My mental bandwidth and health was generally sacrificed by the existence of school, which has stressed me out beyond words in the past month. And honestly, commentary has jaded me lately -- with the 2024 election, I'm experiencing political fatigue in proportions you can't even understand, and feel like shouting into the void of already jaded and cynical thoughts just...doesn't seem worth it anymore, you know?
but that's no excuse, so to make up for it, here's a flurry of thoughts, inspired by Orientalism by Edward Said and the Egyptian myth Isis and Osiris!
The very nature of myths -- oral stories passed down across languages and generations -- is that they are open to repackaging. In "Isis and Osiris" from Tales of Ancient Egypt, author Roger Lancelyn Green recounts the tumultuous story of the titular famed ruling couple of Ancient Egypt, focusing particularly on Osiris's relationship with his evil brother Set. Ancient Egypt was a dynamic, advanced civilization, credited with inventing makeup, hieroglyphics, and even various technologies to harness the power of the Nile River. Yet, despite Egypt's rich history and impact on modern society, Green's interpretation of "Isis and Osiris" is colored by a colonialist worldview: the story depicts Isis and Osiris's people as primitive and barbaric, and thus reduces this advanced world to a 'backwards' land of cultural practices not compatible with the Eurocentric understanding of sophistication. Peeling back these misrepresentations in "Isis and Osiris", using Edward Said's Orientalism as a guide, allows for a more holistic, post-colonialist understanding of not just the story, but ultimately the all-important, still relevant Egyptian context it takes place in.
Properly contextualizing Green's translation of "Isis and Osiris" first requires an exploration of Europe's (and more specifically, England's) history of wielding colonization as a show of power. After all, Said argues in Orientalism that "all academic knowledge about [the East] is somehow tinged and impressed with" the legacies of empire-building (Said 11), and in fact, that Egypt has a particular role to play in this record. European invasion of the Egyptian world began with Napoleon's invasion in 1798, an event that all but decided the future East-West relationships throughout the subcontinent. This invasion, Said writes, became the "very model of a truly scientific appropriation of one culture by another, apparently stronger one," and with it, "processes were set in motion [...] that still dominate our contemporary cultural and political perspectives" (Said 33). In other words, the idea that one group could conquer, absorb, and subsequently restructure another group's very DNA was seemingly confirmed by Napoleon's successful attempt at infiltrating Egypt. And of the beliefs that emerged in European society after this first-contact, two are especially relevant to Green's "Isis and Osiris": Orientalism as an othering device, and inherent Western superiority. I will analyze each of these in turn.
First, Orientalism is more than just an amalgamation of traits and qualities associated with the East; rather, the Orient has been manipulated into a fun-house mirror reflection of Europe itself, nothing more than a yardstick of exotic Otherness by which to measure Western achievement. Said asserts that the Orient is "almost a European invention" (Said 11), one that exists as a "contrasting image" (Said 15) of the West, rather than a hemisphere in which billion of individuals live each day. In truth, the Orient is not a figment of European imagination -- it is the source of the world's civilizations, languages, riches, and power. Yet, because the West cannot be great without a backdrop to be great against, the Orient becomes "one of [the West's] deepest and most recurring images of the Other" (Said 18). This rhetoric of an obvious and inherent distinction between the status of the East and West allowed English and European forces to feel justified in the exploitation of their colonies, because when two groups exist, it is almost a natural conclusion that one must dominate the other. This definition of Orientalism -- as a "way of coming to terms with the Orient [based solely on] the Orient's special place in the European Western experience" (Said 12) -- is a trademark feature in Green's "Isis and Osiris". And worse, this centuries long pattern of reinforcing a fundamentally false dividing line between the two cultures makes Orientalism not simply a practice, but an underlying dogma of modern-day society.
Secondly, Said exposes the fallacious "white man's burden" argument often used by Orientalists to uphold stereotypes of Western superiority. The West, he argues, often employs cyclical logic: that "England knows that Egypt cannot have self-government; England confirms that by occupying Egypt". Then, Egypt becomes "what England has occupied and now governs; foreign occupation therefore becomes the 'very basis' of contemporary Egyptian civilization; Egypt requires, indeed, insists upon, British occupation" (Said 34). In other words, the British prove that Eastern nations need colonizing through colonization. Never mind the fact that Egypt has existed for millennia prior to English invasion; to the British, the relevant parts of modern Egyptian history begin when they enter the narrative. That is: "British knowledge of Egypt is Egypt", and this understanding of Egypt that the English possess is somehow unknowable to the Egyptians themselves. This flawed reasoning then supports the argument that the West is inherently wiser and better suited for rule than their Eastern counterparts. Indeed, this language is littered throughout history: Alfred Balfour, an English statesman with considerable power in the twentieth century, once said "We are [in Egypt] for their sake" (Said 34). And even when left unspoken, the underlying current is felt: to the West, the East's 'great moments' are long gone; "[the East] is useful in the modern world only because the powerful and up-to-date empires have effectively brought them out of [...] their decline and turned them into [...] productive colonies" (Said 35). This argument -- of undeniable Western superiority -- then begets a post-colonial attitude of contempt towards Eastern cultural practices, and "Isis and Osiris" is no exception to this truth.
In his short story, Lancelyn Green wastes no time in characterizing the Egyptians as exotic and inferior. "When Osiris came to the throne," he writes, "the Egyptians were cannibals, and lived more like wild animals than human beings" (Green 29). This scorn and distaste for the ancient lifestyle of Egyptians is reminiscent of Balfour's speech, or the European conqueror's depiction of Native Americans in the New World. Rather than appreciating their skills and culture, Roger Lancelyn Green views their rituals and lack of bureaucracy as barbaric. Furthermore, he establishes that "all this [Osiris] and Isis altered very soon, teaching mankind how to sow and reap [...], how to make laws and live in peace under them" (Green 29). This reveals that, to Green, the opposite of wild savagery is European farming methods of harvesting grains, and decidedly European institutions of democracy and a centralized government. Due to Green's readership's implicit, collective understanding that Western civilization is morally superior, Green is able to use the parallelization of Osiris and Western practices as praise of his leadership, a testament of his skill and acumen. In reality, this comparison is slightly anachronistic; Isis and Osiris existed long before the idea of a nation-state with centralized government was even conceptualized in the Western world, so their adoption of such a system is a complete impossibility. But here, homogenizing stereotypes of Otherness take precedence over accuracy: to Green's primarily European audience, the polar opposite of brutish and uncouth is the West, characterized by pristine ribbon farming and a ruling class. This metaphor of a pseudo-Europe as the "after" picture in Egypt's transformation reinforces the harmful idea that prior to Anglicization, Egypt was irredeemably deplorable.
Furthermore, as a British author writing in the mid-twentieth century, Green approaches "Isis and Osiris" from a Western and Christian perspective, emphasizing themes of resurrection and divine retribution that are sure to resonate most with his European audiences. The similarities between Osiris and Jesus are uncanny: both are betrayed by a close, inner circle member, then subsequently resurrected by the devotion of their loved ones. Both are seen as symbols of sacrifice in the face of godly conflict. While there are likely real similarities between these stories -- after all, John Gardner famously once said that there are really only two plots to any story -- framing Osiris's narrative in a way that aligns with Christian beliefs characterizes this tale as a precursor to Christian notions of redemption and eternal life. Furthermore, in contrast to Greek or many Asian mythologies, where the Gods are morally gray and motivationally complex, Green takes care to view the conflict between Osiris and Set through a moral "good versus evil" lens, echoing the dualistic worldview prevalent predominantly in Christianity. Green describes Set as "enraged" and "crazed", driven to the madness of tearing his perfect, venerated brother into thirteen pieces with his bare hands, while Osiris remains calm and accepting of his fate as "God of the Dead" even while facing such vitriolic hatred (Green 34). Extending beyond religion, this moral polarization is reflective of Victorian-era morality, a uniquely European framework of thought. Even Isis leans on Victorian concepts of femininity and purity; her pure, unfettered devotion and loyalty towards her husband empowers her to bring him back from the dead, ultimately transforming him from man to God (Green 43). And when she's not the picturesque image of purity, Isis is a witch-like figure with the ability to withdraw venom from dying Gods' bodies and turn them into birds at will. This notion, too, of subtly feminine magic is one rooted in Christian and Victorian ideologies, tracing back to the Edwardian era notions of propriety and femininity that ultimately led to the European witch hunts. Green's interpretation of a non-Christian story through the moral and thematic lenses of Christianity further reaffirms the idea that his retelling of "Isis and Osiris" is Eurocentric and Westernized.
Ultimately, the cultural and religious bias that colors Green's perspective of this Ancient Egyptian myth makes his retelling of "Isis and Osiris" decidedly Orientalist. Rather than placing the characters within the culturally appropriate context (their own), a Western version of them is presented, with parallels drawn to ideas of Victorian era purity that Green's English audience would easily understand. This calls into question the integrity and authenticity of this story, but more importantly, of academia as a whole. It begs the question: why is such transmutation necessary at all? Why can Green's European readers not be trusted to understand and accept the cultural nuance of a purely Egyptian story without deliberate efforts to ground it in something they are familiar with? The influence of the Eastern world on the West cannot be understated -- cultural diffusion across centuries has created blended languages and cuisines throughout the world, and Egypt, as one of the longest standing ancient regimes, is in many ways a keystone piece in understanding the origination and evolution of this monoculture. Thus, this work of unpacking the biases that color our current understanding of Egyptian myth is all-important: it may just reveal that the very fabric of academia -- ie. the principal lens through which we understand and interpret the world -- is tainted with orientalist perceptions that are fundamentally baseless.
Comments
Post a Comment