Discursive Resistance to Orientalism: A Critical Approach to an Ideological Justification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to investigate the use of language to justify an ideological stance. It uses a qualitative and an interpretive research paradigm. It aims to foreground the ideological role of discursive strategies, explore the dichotomous construction of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in a socio-political context, and determine the ideological positioning of the author. It further seeks to foreground the importance of critical reasoning to challenging discursive hegemony and preserving identity in the contemporary world. Said’s Orientalist Theory (1978) and Wodak’s Discourse Historical Approach (2001) are used as the theoretical perspectives. DHA provides distinct discursive strategies of nomination, predication, argumentation, perspectivization, intensification, and mitigation for the analysis of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ construction. These strategies are used as methods for data collection. Muhammad Asad’s book ‘Islam at the Crossroads’ is selected as the sample for the current study. The study supported foregrounding the ways in which ideological stance is justified and subjective positioning is neutralized through the strategic use of language. The results also revealed the importance of critical reasoning to understanding religious thought in the contemporary world. It further supported highlighting a counter-narrative to the Orientalist perspective about Islam and raising consciousness about the Islamic identity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".