Decolonisation Through Words: What is the “Middle East?”
by Afaf Lone
“Middle East– Middle what? Middle to whom? You have to ask yourself.”
In a famous interview on the De Baile program in the Netherlands, renowned Egyptian feminist Nawal El-Saadawi expressed her dislike of the neologism “Middle East,” calling it a “colonial language.” To illustrate its absurdity, she jokingly addressed the UK and the US as the “Middle West” and the “Far West.” Whilst those terms garnered laughs from the audience, she remarked that the reaction to “Middle East” would have been far more neutral, due to its globalised use.
Although discussed more colloquially, this interview raises an important question. Why do we continue to rely on a post-colonial, Eurocentric definition for the West Asian and North African region, and what is the impact of the use of such language?
“Middle East” was a neologism coined in late 19th-century Europe, a name needed for the region between the “Near East” based on Turkey, and the “Far East” based on China. These labels reflect a view where dominant powers — whether economically, politically or even morally — are shown to be European. This concept is termed “Orientalism”, “Oriental” referring to the regions to the East of Europe. In his book, “Orientalism”, Edward Said describes it as an essentialist ideology, a set of structures influenced by classical European scholarship, which itself is defined by secularised substitutes of Christian supernaturalism. By its nature, Orientalism allows the Westerner to view the East as “backward, not comparable to the rational, Western mindset” and as “a hero” rescuing colonies from their absurdity. Said argues that this was the driving force that led to colonialism and Western Imperialism, not existing merely as a post-colonialist rationalisation. By the usage of this label, the world is propagating a colonial understanding of a civilisation, rather than using an alternative that centres the civilisation itself.
The use of “Middle East” has been associated with largely negative connotations, as a result of Western Imperialism and its media. For instance, the 9/11 attacks were globally displayed as a symbol of catastrophic tragedy, which consequently triggered Bush’s “War on Terror.” The attacks tormented Muslims in the West for years; being labelled as “Middle Eastern” was seen as an existential threat to Western democracy. Many reported a significant increase in racial/islamophobic attacks and FBI-backed deportations, often with insufficient evidence to connect them to terrorist acts. The identity of an Arab, a North African, Persian or even South Asian, was constantly demonised and scapegoated by the media.
Get Yplabloginterns’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Historians Bernard Lewis and PM Holt have remarked that this term has won “worldwide acceptance” and “most remarkable of all, in the Middle East itself.” Many nations in West Asia refer to themselves as “Middle Eastern” in an English-speaking context. The identity of the “Middle Eastern”, however, is incredibly nuanced and has affected the balance of the region. As we have established, the term is a colonial creation that seeks to impose a European lens on
West Asia and North Africa. There are many who seek to fight against this outdated terminology and oppose the Imperialist West, namely those who oppose the epitome of Imperialism — the settler-colonial, genocidal apartheid state of Israel and the US. However, because of the dehumanising damage the word has done, the media does not care to report the sufferings of those in West Asia and North Africa, but instead minimise their devastation into “collateral damage,” “a threat to humanitarian values (against Israel)” — or rather, a consequence of a conflict they brought upon themselves. As such, those in the GCC have sought to reclaim and repair the reputation of the “Middle East” by promoting normalisation of ties between themselves and the Imperialist West. But will reclaiming this word and Westernising the West Asian identity, and causing division in the region, lead to structural decolonisation?
Language around decolonisation is of utmost importance, as it has the ability to change discourse around stereotypes, cultures, and people. The continued use of “Middle East” has led the global community to have certain presumptions about the region, such as barbarism, deplorable human rights violations, etc. The connotations of the word overlook the rich cultural history behind the region, and instead group different ethnic groups, religions and cultures into a singular villainous identity — the “ruthless, Muslim Arab.”
It is important that we, as a progressive generation, realise that words can carry a lot of weight in the continued fight against new-age colonialism. The first step to decolonisation is unlearning the words passed on to us from a European-dominated world.
Bibliography
- El-Saadawi, Nawal “Performance Monique Samuel with Nawal El-Saadawi”, YouTube, De Baile, 23rd March 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfqTwBffKqg
- Koppes, Clayton R. “Captain Mahan, General Gordon, and the Origins of the Term ‘Middle East.’” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 1976, pp. 95–98. JSTOR,
- http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282584. Accessed 24 Aug. 2026. Said, Edward W. “Orientalism” Vintage Books, 1979
- Beukeboom, Camiel J. “Linguistic stereotyping in natural language: How and when we generalize in communication about people.” Atlantic journal of communication vol. 33,5 750–765. 17 Jul. 2025, doi:10.1080/15456870.2025.2525799
