{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028820375335120642, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.118852459016393, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Russian Orientalism: A Response to Adeeb Khalid

Adeeb Khalid and I agree on many things. Although he does not find the argument in my recent article on Russian Orientalism compelling, our positions on some key issues are quite close. Khalid is dissatisfied with my interrogation of Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism as it applies to the Russian empire. But my critique of Said was not nearly as unequivocal as Khalid suggests: to say that we should regard Said’s model with caution is not a “blanket dismissal.” Nor do I advocate ignoring the rich and stimulating literature on European imperialism that has flourished in the time since Said’s work first appeared. In fact, my criticisms of Said have much in common with the arguments of a number of authors who, while sympathetic to many of Said’s objectives, find fault with his theoretical inconsistencies, ahistorical formulations, essentializing tendencies and deterministic view of the individual. Khalid is well aware of these criticisms. He alludes to the “conceptual dilemmas” arising out of Said’s use of Foucault, as well as to his “tendency to essentialize Orientalist discourse (and ‘the West’), and to over-determine the relationship between Orientalism and colonialism.” Subsequent scholars, Khalid notes, have worked hard to refine Said’s ideas, thereby imparting “greater flexibility and sensitivity to historical change.” I believe I can safely conclude that Khalid and I agree on at least one essential point: Said’s