Orientalism and the Global Economy: Structural Disenfranchisement

I devoted a blog post for last module to the idea of “orientalism” and how the West has created structures and policies (particularly regarding nuclear weapons) to disenfranchise third world states.   In reviewing the Inayatullah piece, titled “Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi-States as Social Construct”, this theme resurfaced yet again.  This blog post will be used to explore the relationship between the aforementioned orientalism and the economic structures that have been implemented to further disadvantage non-Western powers.

Inayatullah describes sovereignty as “a political entity’s externally recognized right to exercise final authority over its own affairs” (p.51).   Structurally, third world ‘quasi-states’, are seen to be ‘sovereign’.  They have their own borders and appear to have the ability to manage the affairs within those borders however their governments see fit.  Inayatullah contends that these states do not truly possess sovereignty, as they do not have the ability to control affairs within their borders due to structural disadvantages present within the system dating back to colonialism.   “States were required to graft their sovereignty on to a productive structure historically constructed to deprive their economies of autonomy, diversity, and wholeness,” Inayatullah argues (p. 62). 

Harkening back to last module, Guterson used Edward Said’s definition of orientalism, which casts “the world in terms of a series of binary oppositions that produce the Orient as the mirror image of the West: where ‘we’ are rational and disciplined, ‘they’ are impulsive and emotional”  (Guterson, p. 114).  While it is true that Western powers continue to leverage third world states to their own advantage for resources and strategic posturing, it also seems possible that the West has continued to disenfranchise them because of orientalist tendencies.  As Weber stated in his piece we read for Module 2, non-Western states are not seen as “rational”, and therefore, are less capable of managing their own economies and their own affairs.

Inayatullah also argues that states have a “right to wealth”, which many states in the third world are severely lacking (p. 64).  The West today enjoys a significant amount of wealth often on the backs of third-world laborers who provide much-needed raw materials or manpower to Western industry.

I find this relationship between orientalist perceptions about sovereignty and economic growth to be particularly potent.  Much like how the West has created structures to limit the third world’s acquisition of certain military technologies, so too it seems the West may be doing the same to counter its acquisition of wealth.  Inayatullah describes the current structure as being “specialized, dependent, and colonial” (p. 62).

While I don’t necessarily agree with Inayatullah’s perspective, it certainly makes for an interesting discussion, which I look forward to having in this week’s live session.

Gusterson, Hugh. “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination,” Cultural Anthropology 14:1 (1999).

Inayatullah, Naeem,“Beyond the Sovereignty Dilemma: Quasi- States as Social Construct,” in State Sovereignty as Social Construct, ed. Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber (Cambridge, 1996).