The central argument of Wang Nings Orientalism vs. Occidentalism is that constructions of the two concepts of Orientalism and Occidentalism have heretofore been limited by the personal biases of Edward Said, in that he does not give much account to the Orient that lies beyond the Near and Middle East and thus limits his critique not just in a geographical sense, but in ideological and cultural senses as well. Ning argues that the future of Occidentalist strategies lies in recognizing that East-West cultural relations should not only be extended beyond the boundaries set by Said, but that they should never be reduced to absolutes, and therefore Occidental and Oriental conceptions in the modern age must be predicated on cultural relativism. Simply put, Nings primary contention is that for the seeds of Saids critical approach to cultural studies to retain relevance, it is necessary to problematize it.

The primary weaknesses of Wang Nings piece is that its argument is that its validity rests on the assumption that political and cultural ideological relations between the East and the West can easily be conflated down to historical relationships  colonial or not. Unfortunately, this means that Ning does not take into consideration that ideological attitudes may exist beyond the parameters of these macro-histories. For example, Occidentalist attitudes may emerge in Islamic individuals outside of an opposition to Western hegemony or emerge in Orients outside of the parameters of colonialism. Simply put, Ning makes the mistake of abstracting Occidentalism as experienced by the individual from the general collective (that being the ethnic, cultural and national identity of said individual).

This is a disappointment, as Nings attention to the personal background of Said (as Occidental-trained scholar with an Orient ethnicity) suggests an ability to recognize how these qualities can color the discursive and ideological biases of the individual. Yet, Ning fails to acknowledge how the plurality that the individuals relativistic and personal relationship with East-West history brings to the picture of defining political and cultural relationships. Also, while Ning makes a noteworthy indictment of the use of Occidentalism to combat Western hegemony  arguing that it is not only illusive and problematic, but that it does not suffice as a binary counterpart to Orientalism  there is much neglect with regards to the criteria by which one measures any potential response to Orientalism.

Still, an alternative argument is within reach of Nings approach to the matter What is needed is a reconfiguration of the conception of Orientalism, a destabilization of the idea if you will, that allows room for a proper Occidental response. Simply put, the entire spectrum of Western-developed Orientalisms must be defined according to relativistic and individual terms such that the correct Occidental counterpart can account for the relativistic and individual engagement which Orientals have with East-West cultural relations.