Said’s Iranian Follies

George Orwell once remarked of an idea or statement that it was so stupid, only an intellectual could have come up with it. If somewhat reductive itself, this observation gets at what makes deep thinkers so silly half the time — they try to force reality into the procrustean bed of their own theory. It'd have been all well and good for the thesis of Orientalism if the Western media had been hopelessly condescending and naive about the Iranian Revolution. However, taking Ayatollah Khomenei at his word (and how condescending and naive is that?) was only ever unfathomable to Edward Said and les clercs. David Zarnett explains:

Said's analysis marginalized Khomeini in two ways. First, when defending Khomeini, Said showed no understanding of the major themes that were at the centre of many of the Ayatollah's writings and lectures. In effect Said ignored Khomeini's ideas. Second, when Khomeini could no longer be defended, Said resorted to simply bracketing his existence and preeminent role in the new Iranian state. In 1982, Said, alongside Richard Falk, personally endorsed a public statement by the 'The Emergency Committee for the Defense of Democracy and Human Rights in Iran' which, while lambasting the Iranian regime for its human rights abuses and anti-democratic practices, curiously makes no mention of Khomeini.[32] And it was in a 1984 eulogy of the French post-modernist Michel Foucault, who had a great influence on Said, in which he dedicated only a few sentences to the philosopher's very public endorsement of Khomeini and his revolutionary politics that was by no means marginal to his intellectual career, as Said himself admits.