Introduction 13
largely replaces Yogi. In his proper South Asian context, the guru is a teacher in a
lineage of (often highly ritualized) practice. Thus, not every Yogi is necessarily a
guru insofar as there is no obligation for the Yogi to initiate or educate others in
the wisdom of his superhuman ways. I generally avoid using the term outside of
cases where it represents a formal relationship between master and disciple— as
in, Sri Yukteswar is the guru of Yogananda— because it rarely if ever appears in
the historical sources of this earlier period, which overwhelmingly prefer “Yogi,”
“Swami,” or occasionally “fakir.”^20
The Context of Orientalism and the “West”
A similarly amalgamating critical move has recently been made by Jane Iwamura
in her study of a phenomenon she identifies as “Virtual Orientalism,” which she
sees manifested in the figure of the Oriental Monk onto whom we project our
assumptions, fears, and hopes. She argues:
Although the Oriental Monk has appeared to us through the various
media vehicles of American pop culture, we recognize him as the represen-
tative of an otherworldly (though perhaps not entirely alien) spirituality
that draws from the ancient wellsprings of “Eastern” civilization and cul-
ture. ... The term Oriental Monk is used as a critical concept and is meant
to cover a wide range of religious figures (gurus, bhikkus, swamis, sifus,
healers, masters) from a variety of ethnic backgrounds ( Japanese, Chinese,
Indian, Tibetan). Although the range of individual figures points to a het-
erogeneous field of encounter, all of them are subjected to a homogenous
representational effect as they are absorbed by popular consciousness
through mediated culture. Racialization (more correctly, “orientaliza-
tion”) serves to blunt the distinctiveness of particular persons and figures.
Indeed, the recognition of any Eastern spiritual guide, real or fictional,
is predicated on his conformity to general features that are paradigmati-
cally encapsulated in the icon of the Oriental Monk: his spiritual commit-
ment, his calm demeanor, his Asian face, his manner of dress, and— most
obviously— his peculiar gendered character.^21Orientalism has, of course, been popularized as a critical category by Edward
Said’s famous 1978 work of the same name, in which he defines it as “the cor-
porate institution for dealing with the Orient— dealing with it by making
statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, set-
tling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating,
restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.”^22 Whereas Said’s exempla