The ways in which the West perceives and represents the Middle East and other non-Western regions have long influenced political decisions, cultural attitudes, and international relations. These representations often go beyond simple misunderstandings or stereotypes; they form complex, deeply rooted narratives that shape policies and justify actions on the global stage. Understanding these narratives, and how they have evolved, is essential to unpacking the persistent power dynamics between the West and the so-called “Orient.”
What is Orientalism and Neo-Orientalism
Orientalism refers to the historically entrenched framework through which the West has constructed an image of the East as exotic, backward, and fundamentally different, often to justify colonial domination. Neo-Orientalism is a contemporary evolution of this discourse, adapting traditional stereotypes to modern geopolitical contexts, particularly through media, politics, and diaspora voices, to sustain influence and legitimize intervention in the region.
Orientalism and Neo-Orientalism: From Colonial Gaze to Contemporary Narratives
The intertwined concepts of Orientalism and Neo-Orientalism are not just academic abstractions; they are frameworks that have shaped how the West sees, talks about, and interacts with the Middle East, North Africa, and broader “Eastern” societies for centuries.
Middle East and other non-Western regions of the world.
Orientalism, a 1978 book written by the renowned Palestinian-American political activist and literary critic Edward Said, fundamentally changed the conversation about cultural representation. He argued that the West’s depictions of the “Orient” were never neutral, but part of a system of domination in which knowledge production served political and military power.
In Orientalism, Said said that “the Orient was almost a European invention, and had been since antiquity a place of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories and landscapes, remarkable experiences. The Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience.” This “invention,” according to Said, was not just a matter of stereotypes; it was a form of political technology. By defining the East as mysterious, decadent, irrational, or dangerous, the West justified colonization, intervention, and control, according to Said.
Orientalism: The Original Framework
The European fascination with “the Orient” stretches back centuries, with early expressions found in medieval Crusader chronicles, travelogues, and Renaissance trade accounts. However, it was during the 18th and 19th centuries, the height of European imperial expansion, that Orientalism evolved into a fully institutionalized framework. This transformation occurred across multiple arenas: academia produced scholarly studies and translations that framed Eastern cultures as objects of knowledge, museums collected and displayed artifacts that emphasized the exotic and timeless nature of the East, literature romanticized and mystified Eastern peoples and places, and political discourse used these portrayals to legitimize colonial and imperial ambitions.
At the heart of Orientalism was a set of enduring characteristics that shaped Western perceptions of Eastern societies in reductive and essentialist ways. One such trait was timelessness—the notion that Eastern societies were frozen in a static past, resistant to change or modernization. Unlike the West, which was cast as dynamic and progressive, the Orient was portrayed as trapped in antiquity, as if centuries of social, political, and economic development had passed it by. This assumption erased the complexity and evolution of these societies, rendering them objects to be dominated rather than partners in global exchange.
Closely related was exoticism, the fascination with culturally specific markers such as harems, minarets, bazaars, and ornate decorative arts. These images served a dual purpose: they evoked beauty and mystery that captivated Western audiences, yet simultaneously suggested irrationality, sensuality, and otherness. This framing rendered Eastern peoples as fundamentally different, alien, and sometimes dangerous, fueling fantasies and fears alike.
Another cornerstone was despotism. Orientalist discourse frequently reduced political life in Eastern societies to the absolute rule of tyrannical leaders over passive, submissive populations. This simplification erased the presence of complex governance systems, resistance movements, intellectual debates, and vibrant civil societies that existed historically and contemporaneously. By portraying Eastern polities as inherently despotic, Orientalism justified Western intervention as a civilizing mission necessary to bring order and progress.
Finally, Orientalism constructed a clear moral hierarchy in which the West occupied the position of modernity, rationality, and democracy, while the East was depicted as pre-modern, emotional, and authoritarian. This hierarchy not only naturalized Western superiority but also delegitimized Eastern knowledge, values, and political systems. It created a dichotomy that made Western domination appear benevolent and inevitable, reinforcing the structures of colonial power.
Together, these characteristics created a pervasive worldview that shaped cultural attitudes, scholarship, and policy for generations. They provided the ideological underpinnings for colonial rule and continue to influence how the West perceives the Middle East and other non-Western regions to this day.
Neo-Orientalism: Updating the Script for the 21st Century
In the decades after formal colonialism’s decline, Western powers found new ways to sustain influence in the Middle East. Neo-Orientalism is not simply “modern Orientalism,” it is a recalibration for the era of
counterterrorism, globalization, and human rights discourse.
The core shifts from Orientalism to Neo-Orientalism include moving from colonies to client states that the West no longer rules directly, but maintains influence through military bases, arms sales, aid packages, sanctions, and covert operations. The focus also shifted from exotic to pathological. For example, 19th-century Orientalism romanticized the East’s “sensuality,” while Neo-Orientalism focuses on dysfunction in the region, such as terrorism, civil war, and religious extremism. Additionally, Neo-Orientalism is shaped not only by Western scholars but also by journalists, think-tank analysts, and members of Middle Eastern diasporas who speak to Western audiences in ways that can align with state priorities.
The Role of Middle Eastern Diaspora Groups In Neo-Orientalist Discourse
Diaspora politics also plays a significant role in Neo-Orientalist discourse. Many exiled activists fight for democracy, human rights, and dignity in their homelands. But their positioning in Western societies, especially those closely tied to US foreign policy, means their advocacy is often co-opted into Neo-Orientalist narratives.
Among Iranian diaspora groups, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) advocates diplomacy over war between the US and Iran, pushing back against the reduction of Iran to a monolithic “rogue state.” Its founder, Trita Parsi, has warned against “the dangerous simplicity of a caricatured Iran” in US media. However, NIAC is often targeted by more hardline factions in the Iranian diaspora who lobby for maximum pressure policies, sanctions, and even military action, positions that frequently rely on Neo-Orientalist portrayals of Iran as a theocratic government incapable of reform without forced regime change. Some Iranian exile figures, particularly in satellite TV outlets like Iran International, adopt highly simplified narratives that present the Iranian state as an irredeemable regime and dismiss all nuance around the humanitarian impact of Western sanctions. While they often speak from personal grievance, their language sometimes echoes the pathologizing tone of Western security discourse.
Palestinian diaspora organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights also have challenged dominant Neo-Orientalist framings by centering Palestinian voices, history, and agency. They reject depictions of Palestinians solely as either terrorists or helpless victims. The Palestinian Youth Movement, an explicitly grassroots, transnational organization, situates the Palestinian struggle in the context of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements worldwide, directly contesting the Neo-Orientalist idea that the conflict is driven by “ancient religious hatred.”
The Role of Media in Perpetuating Neo-Orientalist Ideas
Media coverage of recent Middle East conflicts reveals how Neo-Orientalist narratives continue to shape perceptions and public discourse, often simplifying complex political realities into cultural stereotypes that serve strategic interests.
Western media often framed the 2020s escalation in the Israel–Gaza conflict as a humanitarian crisis caused largely by Hamas’ intransigence, with Israel portrayed as a reluctant actor forced into action. The decades-long siege of Gaza, asymmetry of firepower, and structural conditions imposed by occupation were minimized or omitted. The Orientalist roots are clear: Palestinians were depicted either as irrational aggressors or as passive dependents on Western aid, but rarely as political agents with their own strategies and visions for liberation.
In the 12-Day Iran–Israel conflict, US and European outlets frequently described Iran’s actions as the product of religious extremism and ideological hatred. Israeli military strikes, by contrast, were framed as “surgical” and “defensive.” The impact of the war on Iranian civilians received limited coverage compared to narratives about “crippling” Iran’s military infrastructure. This selective moral framing echoes the old Orientalist assumption that Eastern actors are driven by passion and zealotry, while Western allies act with reason and restraint.
In both cases, the pattern is clear: political disputes are reframed as cultural deficiencies, and local voices that challenge this framing are marginalized.
Neo-Orientalist Narratives and Western Policy
Over the past two decades, Neo-Orientalist frameworks have deeply influenced policymaking and public justification for interventions in Iran, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These narratives, repeated in government statements, congressional hearings, and official reports, have helped legitimize military actions, economic sanctions, and political isolation.
Regarding Iran, US President George W. Bush famously labeled Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil” in 2002, framing it as a rogue state bent on nuclear weapons development and sponsoring terrorism. This rhetoric echoed Neo-Orientalist tropes of Iran as an irrational, fanatical theocracy. This framing justified the 2006–2015 sanctions regime, covert cyber operations such as Stuxnet, and continued military posturing in the Persian Gulf. The European Union largely followed the lead of the US, incorporating similar language in parliamentary debates and European Union policy papers that emphasized Iran’s “destabilizing” role and “repressive” government. Such discourse ignored Iran’s legitimate security concerns, its role in regional diplomacy, and domestic reformist movements. The Neo-Orientalist caricature made dialogue appear naïve and dangerous.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, post-9/11, the US and the UK framed Afghanistan as a lawless, Taliban-controlled “tribal” backwater harboring terrorists. Iraq was portrayed as a dictatorship hiding weapons of mass destruction and oppressing its people with brutal tribal and sectarian divisions. These portrayals drew directly on Orientalist ideas of stagnant, irrational Eastern societies.
Regarding Palestine, the US and the European Union have frequently framed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a security lens that centers Israeli perspectives, portraying Palestinian resistance primarily as terrorism rather than legitimate political struggle. Such framing delegitimizes Palestinian political aspirations and underplays the effects of occupation and settlement expansion. This perspective also aligns with Neo-Orientalist depictions of Palestinians as irrationally violent, while Israeli policies are often portrayed as defensive. European Union foreign policy statements have echoed these concerns but often emphasize a “two-state solution” without critically addressing power imbalances or structural violence.
This policy-oriented Neo-Orientalism has tangible consequences. Prolonged conflicts result from simplified narratives that justify repeated military interventions and sanctions that exacerbate instability. Diplomatic deadlocks emerge by essentializing adversaries, reducing incentives for genuine negotiation. Humanitarian crises deepen when entire populations are framed as threats, dehumanizing civilians and hindering effective aid.
Scholars and activists argue that disrupting Neo-Orientalist narratives is critical for reshaping policy toward genuine engagement, respect for sovereignty, and recognition of local agency.
Orientalism and its neo-form are not simply about representation; they influence war, diplomacy, immigration policy, and public empathy. A public conditioned to see Iran as a theocracy incapable of reform or Gaza as a chaotic warzone will be more likely to support sanctions, arms sales, or military interventions.
Recognizing the mechanics of these narratives allows us to ask deeper questions: who gets to speak for a country or a people? Which voices are amplified, and which are ignored? How does “expertise” get constructed in ways that serve existing power structures?
The persistence of Orientalism, whether in the romanticized paintings made in 19th Century Europe or in contemporary op-eds calling to “save” Muslim women from their culture, shows that the gaze has evolved, not disappeared. The challenge is to disrupt this gaze, to insist on seeing the East not as a mirror for Western self-image, but as a collection of diverse societies with their own histories, agency, and futures.
