In this article, we are going to examine the historical origins, geopolitical consequences, and cultural impacts of the phrase "Middle East" in order to clarify its criticism. By questioning the underlying assumptions and biases firmly established in this name, we aim to shed a spotlight on the details of the region and challenge the oversimplified classifications that often follow its categorization. Through an evaluation of its adoption and implications, we hope to build greater awareness of the region and inspire debate on the language used to discuss it.
Flexibility of Definitions Unlike geographical terms rooted in objective criteria, the "Middle East" lacks a fixed and universally agreed-upon definition. Instead, its contours shift according to the whims of imperial powers and the ever-evolving geopolitical landscape, meaning of it changes according to the user and the period which is used. Boundaries of the region are determined with very different forms because of different interests, criteria, and scientific disciplines (Ozalp, 2011, p. 5-8). Between the terms Near East (eastern Mediterranean countries, Balkans close to Europe) and the Far East(China, Korea, Japan, and other East Asian countries) which are slightly closer to a definition, “Middle East” preserved its uncertainty from the beginning. At the time, it was classified as the area between the Arabian Peninsula, Mesopotamia, and the Persian and Central Asian territories. The phrase "Near East" has fallen out of popularity, however, it is often used interchangeably with the new expression. The "Middle East" has expanded westward, enveloping the Eastern Mediterranean and even North Africa, often at the expense of its Eastern ends in Central Asia (Scharnweber, 2016, p. 2). Furthermore, many scholars have various definitions and opinions about the region. Hudson divides the region into three distinct areas: the Arab East (Mashreq), North Africa (Maghreb), and the Gulf Region (Khaalej) (Hudson, 1976). Bassam Tibi, another prominent expert on the region, classifies it according to three sub-categories, however, he considers the countries in this sub-system as the core and edge countries (Tibi, 1989). Steinbach in their work in 1979 Politiches Lexion Nahost defines the region from Morocco to Pakistan (Steinbach, 1979). National Geographic's political map of the Middle East, which appears to follow the original British use of the word, excludes North Africa and only depicts a sliver of Egypt, but extends to the East to cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Central Asian Republics. On the other hand, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, and the Council on Foreign Relations exclude Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan from their definitions of the Middle East, but include the Arab countries of North Africa in their programs (Scharnweber, 2016 p. 2-5). The diverse range of terminology and definitions shows that no one version is better than the others, rather it presents the fluidity of the term. The flexibility and uncertainty can be seen by its various definitions and applications in different settings. From these examples, whether specific countries are included or excluded from the region is determined by the point of view and intention of the institution that defines it; therefore continuing usage of this expression will always be a potential harm for the countries considered to be in the area.
Finally, based on the research and discussions, we may conclude with the outcome that Orientalism is a foundation and justification for those who want to pursue their control over the vague region, it is an excuse to show in the international arena that there is a reason for a ‘conflict’ and the label for it is so-called “Middle East”. Investigating the definition of the phrase and what it means reveals that it is a colonial construct founded on Western hegemony and Orientalist ideologies. “The West used knowledge and power tropes to create the Orient as the ultimate ‘other’ of the Occident” (Burney, 2012, p. 24). Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient, dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, teaching it settling it, and ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for dominating restructuring, and having authority over the Orient (Said, 1978, p. 3). Since past events, external forces have used this expression as a means of power to dominate and reconstruct the region. From its creation in the late 19th century to its contemporary function, the "Middle East" has been defined, redefined, and manipulated to serve the geopolitical interests of those in power. The presence of the West in the region from the early 20th century helped to establish a power hierarchy in the region, supported by Orientalist attitudes, presenting the West to be superior. This idea of Western superiority and the power hierarchy it has created in international politics is what allows Western states to intervene in the region today (Syed, 2021, p. 3-4).