Skip to main contentSkip to solution

For two years, I tracked down dozens of Chinese in Upper Egypt who were selling lingerie. In a deeply conservative region, where Egyptian families rarely allow women to work or own businesses, the Chinese flourished because of their status as outsiders. They didn't gossip, and they kept their opinions to themselves. In a New Yorker article entitled "Learning to Speak Lingerie," I described the Chinese use of Arabic as another non-threatening characteristic. I wrote, "Unlike Mandarin, Arabic is inflected for gender, and Chinese dealers, who learn the language strictly by ear, often pick up speech patterns from female customers. I've come to think of it as the lingerie dialect, and there's something disarming about these Chinese men speaking in the feminine voice."

When I wrote about the Chinese in the New Yorker, most readers seemed to appreciate the unusual perspective. But as I often find with topics that involve the Middle East, some people had trouble getting past the black-and-white quality of a byline. "This piece is so orientalist I don't know what to do," Aisha Gani, a reporter who worked at The Guardian, tweeted. Another colleague at the British paper, Iman Amrani, agreed: "I wouldn't have minded an article on the subject written by an Egyptian woman-probably would have had better insight."

As an MOL (man of language), I also take issue with this kind of essentialism. Empathy and understanding are not inherited traits, and they are not strictly tied to gender and race. An individual who wrestles with a difficult language can learn to be more sympathetic to outsiders and open to different experiences of the world. This learning process-the embarrassments, the frustrations, the gradual sense of understanding and connection-is invariably transformative. In Upper Egypt, the Chinese experience of struggling to learn Arabic and local culture had made them much more thoughtful. In the same way, I was interested in their lives not because of some kind of voyeurism, but because I had also experienced Egypt and Arabic as an outsider. And both the Chinese and the Egyptians welcomed me because I spoke their languages. My identity as a white male was far less important than my ability to communicate.

And that easily lobbed word-"Orientalist"-hardly captures the complexity of our interactions. What exactly is the dynamic when a man from Missouri observes a Zhejiang native selling lingerie to an Upper Egyptian woman? If all of us now stand beside the same river, speaking in ways we all understand, who's looking east and who's looking west? Which way is Oriental?

For all of our current interest in identity politics, there's no corresponding sense of identity linguistics. You are what you speak the words that run throughout your mind are at least as fundamental to your selfhood as is your ethnicity or your gender. And sometimes it's healthy to consider human characteristics that are not inborn, rigid, and outwardly defined. After all, you can always learn another language and change who you are.

The author’s critics would argue that:

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 1

We need to find what the author's critics would argue against his main points. Let us trace through the passage to understand the debate.

From passage: "This piece is so orientalist I don't know what to do" and "I wouldn't have minded an article on the subject written by an Egyptian woman-probably would have had better insight."

The critics are saying -> his outsider identity matters more than his language skills -> they believe cultural barriers can't be crossed just by speaking the language.

The author defends himself by arguing -> language creates connection -> his ability to communicate was more important than being a white male -> language can bridge cultural gaps.

So the core disagreement is: Can language alone bridge cultural barriers?

Author says: YES, language creates empathy and connection

Critics say: NO, your identity/background still matters more


🟢 Option 1 -> correct -> directly opposes author's main thesis that language bridges cultural barriers

🔴 Option 2 -> irrelevant -> critics aren't focused on "erasing" linguistic politics, they're focused on identity mattering more than language skills

🔴 Option 3 -> author's view, not critics' -> this is exactly what the author argues ("Empathy and understanding are not inherited traits"), critics would argue the opposite

🔴 Option 4 -> too narrow/confusing -> critics aren't making this specific claim about Egyptians and orientalism, they're making a broader point about outsider perspective


The key insight: Critics believe the author's outsider status (white male American) prevents him from truly understanding the culture, regardless of his Arabic skills. They're essentially arguing that language alone isn't enough to bridge deep cultural divides.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question