Near East/Middle East and the Orient - a conceptual dilemma

Near East/Middle East and the Orient - a conceptual dilemma


Dr. Ishrak Kamaluldin


The terms ‘Near East/Middle East’ and ‘Orient’ are part of an average English vocabulary. They are in the spoken language just as obviously as used in the texts of the mass media. Many branches of science use these terms without having a critical provision of intentioned purpose. A simple look at recent encyclopaedic conversation shows that these two terms are lacking clarity. Quite different criteria are used, separately or jointly, to determine which areas of the globe we are talking about.
A geographical definition of the term Near East/Middle East alone is complicated by the fact that three continents collide in that area. Without a doubt surrounds the Near East/Middle East, African and Asian regions. But where is its geographic border to Europe? Is Asia Minor and with Turkey a natural part of the Middle East or this land mass build a bridge to Europe, in which also Europe has a share? Appears even more difficult, there are geographical limits to the depth of the continents to find.
The Middle East could end in a westerly direction in the Libyan desert. Or it reaches up to the atlas, perhaps even up to the Atlantic. In the East the Arabian Gulf can form a border of the Middle East. But further north, the picture remains unclear, especially in the Zagros Mountains and in the highlands of Iran. Geographic contours of the Middle East seem only to have been clear on the Mediterranean Sea. The Coastal Bend of Alexandria (Egypt) to Latakia (Syria) seem a clear edge in the Middle East to the northwest.. But even the appropriation of Cyprus is problematic.
These outlined geographical problems also pertain to the term 'Orient'. Added to this, there was no clear boundary of the Orient direction East. Depending on the needs described. Persia, the Indian subcontinent and sometimes even the islands of the Indian Ocean, and even China and Japan as oriental.
Political criteria for determining the Middle East and the Orient go back mostly to the colonial time. The Near East, or in the English language the Middle East, means especially the territories, which since the 19th Century were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. As of 20th century the term ‘Middle East’ has acquired a character of a political crisis. With the complicated frictions in the area, and with the British League of Nations mandate over Palestine, several so-called Middle East wars erupted.
Simplified we can say that a political definition of the term Middle East concentrated on today's Israel and its Arab neighbours. But also on demand was/is involved the countries in the North African, the Gulf states, Iraq and even Iran in the issues. Often an economic argument in the political determination plays a role into this issue: The Middle East is still the most important oil-producing area of the earth. However, the deposits are not evenly distributed, so that not every Middle East country also has oil. Iran has one of its oil wells on the Arabian Gulf to such an economically defined Near East respectively Middle East. In contrast to the political significance of the term 'Middle East' has the word 'Orient `almost no political relevance.

The implied political criteria have evolved over the last two centuries, always with linguistic and ethnic aspects. The modern linguistics has in the 19th Century, the Semitic languages as a contiguous language family recognized. The Arab Semitic can be seen as the main language is identified. If the dissemination of Arabic at a criterion in the definition of the Middle East, then include the North African states to intentioned area in question and also areas such as Sudan or the Mediterranean island of Malta. The Turkey would not belong to the Middle East.
For the Humanities and Cultural Studies , the solution seem to be in a religio-cultural criterion: The terms' Near East/Middle East 'and' Orient `may refer to the Islamic religion and the associated culture. This definition has initially the historical development for themselves. There is a long continuous connection to religion, philosophy, science, literature, architecture and music, until the present ranges. The problem remains even in a religio-cultural provision limiting to the east, where in Persia and the Indian subcontinent on the scope of Islam and an associated specific culture overlaps with a variety of other religious-cultural currents formed. For the present is a provision of the Middle East after religio-cultural criteria therefore also questionable, because the Middle East included some areas, which have reacted quite differently to pressure of the modernization of the West. For example, the modern Turkish state which has the separation between religion and state, the Arabic language and Arabic writing massively in their importance pruned and European cultural influences opened.
In summary, it is clear that individual geographic, political, economic, linguistic, ethnic or religious-cultural criteria, no clear determination of the regions allow the 'Middle East' or ‘Orient’ meant to be. For the Middle East characterized namely a key area from which the modern states of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Arab Gulf states is formed. But the precise borders in the west, south and east change, depending on what criteria one more considers important. The inclusion of the so-called Maghreb, Turkey and Israel is questionable.

The term 'Orient' enclose usually the North African territories but loses any clarity when it comes to its coverage east of the Persian cultural area. The definition described difficulties arose not least the fact that the terms' Near East/Middle East 'and' Orient `European culture originate. Until now, it is the view from the west, the European and American view, which give these terms significance aspects of their meaning. It will be already clear, if the opposite concepts incorporate into consideration. opposite terms or complementary terms: Occident, West,(Christian) Europe, European civilization, antique - Christian culture or European Mediterranean. Looking at these self-descriptions in connection with the heteronomy precise, we will find two contexts. The words of both groups can signalize nearness and / or antagonism. The easiest way to do so, perhaps the term Near East itself. ‘East’ is the opposite concept to the West. The contraposition of the directions of the sky symbolizes first principle divorced. Two worlds are as Western and Eastern culture or civilization, when two types of world perception and interpretation over the world. But this antagonism is through the attribute 'Near' contradicted in a strange way. The others, the principle should also be differentiated and separate are close at the same time. That means that East is not too difficult to reach, it can perhaps even from on its own, the West come too closely.
Similarly clear is the ambivalence of intimacy and creating distance contrast in the words 'Middle East', and `Asia Minor. The tension that expresses itself here, has historically seen good reasons. The Mediterranean was more than two millennia, while confrontation and integration of cultures and space powers. The coexistence and conflict of the participating nations, states, cultures always showed new alliances and front lines. That concept which is now mostly unconscious self-evident modern Western culture called, is in a long process, especially in this geographical area has been prepared and shaped. Even today the political self-determination and delimitation tests on the so-called Balkans and the region around the Black Sea, that the geographic definition of 'Europe' is not yet complete.
It seems to me that in these historical and current contexts the relative fuzziness of the words' Middle East 'and' Orient `not only a disadvantage, but the wavering and contradictions the term used for closer examination shows that the so-called Middle East until today for the self-understanding of Europe is of importance. The ambivalence in the name of others is directly linked to the contradictions of self-designation.