31 Eurocentrism

Gitanjali Joshua and Sujata Patel

1. Introduction 

The term ‘Eurocentrism’ refers to a European-centred or Western-centred way of viewing the world. It is thus a bias which permeates and distorts our bodies of knowledge.

Eurocentrism is a much used term in contemporary post-colonial scholarship. It is often used in Philosophy, Sociology of knowledge and History. Prominent scholars from around the world who have engaged with this category include Enrique Dussel, Anibal Quijano, Samir Amin and Immanuel Wallerstein.

In this module we engage most with Samir Amin’s historical reading of the concept. He uses ‘Eurosentrism’ to refer to a set of cultural assumptions that permeate modern scholarship and thought which had previously been referred to as ‘Europe-centric’ or ‘Europocentrism’. Samir Amin develops on the term through his writings on global capitalism which highlight the discrepancy between core and periphery in the capitalist system. He understands Eurocentrism as a culturalist distortion which helps hide the contradictory aspects of capitalism. Eurocentrism, according to him is a ‘culturalist phenomena’ which is anti-universalist because it assumes “irreducably different cultural invariants that shape the historical paths of different people” (Amin, S., 2008), but presents itself as universalist by suggesting that the ultimate destiny for people of the world is the imitation of Europeans. We also touch on Emmanuel Wallerstein’s work on Eurocentrism at the level of epistemology.

2. Who are Samir Amin and Immanuel Wallerstein? 

Samir Amin is an Egyptian social theorist. He did his PhD in Political Economy at the Lycée Français in Paris. His work draws heavily on Marxism. He was a well-known Professor in France since 1966 and thereafter took up the position of director of the UN African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (in Dakar) for ten years (1970-80). Since 1980 he has been the director of the African Office of the Third World Forum. Currently, he is the President of the World Forum for Alternatives.  (Image source: http://www.rosa-blindada.info/?p=2351)

Immanuel Wallerstein is an American historical sociologist, known for his work on world-systems theory. He received his PhD from Columbia University, and taught as a professor of Sociology at McGill University and later at Binghamton University. He worked as head of the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems and Civilizations until 2005. Wallerstein was President of the International Sociological Association from 1994 to 1998, and served as chair of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. (Image Source: http://www.iwallerstein.com/)

3. What is Eurocentrism? 

‘Eurocentrism’ is a systematic distortion embedded in much of social theory, today. It is an episteme – a body of ideas that determine the knowledge that is intellectually certain at any particular time – which underlies all our knowledge today.

It is deeply significant for us because it goes far beyond a simple and easily dismissable European ethnocentrism. Instead, as Samir Amin elucidates, it functions as a paradigm which shapes the contours of our knowledge production across the world so as to legitimate global capitalism and hide its inherent contradictions. (Amin, S., 2008: vii)

As the term suggests, Eurocentrism involves a worldview centered around what we today refer to as the ‘West’. Though the geographic region we refer to when we speak of centering in this sense includes North America, Australia and Japan, most theorists are content to use the term ‘Eurocentrism’ because the cultural assumptions it invokes are tied to a particular version of history centered around Europe. A very obvious example to illustrate this could be that the way Columbus’ reaching America in 1492 is often referred to, both in popular and official discourse, as his ‘discovery’ of America, completely ignoring the fact that the  continent was already inhabited.

What distinguishes Eurocentrism from commonplace ethnocentrism is its purported universalism that has coloured most of our existing knowledge systems. A Eurocentric paradigm, though universal, is not an obstacle to recognising the cultural specificity of ‘other’ cultures. It merely works with the assumption that modernity as it appears in the ‘West’ today is the achievable goal of all these ‘other’ cultures. Eurocentrism works with a linear understanding of progress and assumes that the particularism of other cultures must be overcome by them in order for them to realise their potential in the true universal paradigm. While it is sensitive to the idea of particularism, Eurocentrism does not recognise it’s own culturally specific and particular assumptions. (Amin, S., 2008) This idea is familiar to all of us, and can be seen reflected in public discourses about ‘progress’ and ‘development’. These terms evoke images of a consumer paradise, free from the fetters of ‘tradition’.

4. How does Eurocentrism help legitimate global capitalism? 

As suggested before, Eurocentrism serves to justify global capitalism and does not allow the inherent contradictions of capitalism to become obvious to the public. Its rhetoric of ‘development’ serves to hide the exploitation essential to sustaining a capitalist system. (Amin, S., 2008)

Samir Amin describes this mechanism in great detail. According to him pre-capitalist social systems are assumed to have been more transparent, as production and exchange took place on a much smaller scale. These systems are often called tributary systems as the ruling classes recieved tribute either in the form of some sort of service or labour or as a fee of some kind. Capitalism operates on a much larger scale and is not as easily comprehendable. Thus the specialist knowledge system of economics becomes necessary. (Amin, ., 2008: 2)

The key driving force of capitalism, the accumulation of capital, cannot proceed without creating and sustaining inequalities both between and within regions of the world. These inequalities can be seen as cores and peripheries, with each core exploiting and benefitting from it’s periphery. (Amin, S., 2008 : 8) At the global level the core can be Europe and America. Latin America and Africa form important regions of their periphery. At the local level, any urban centre can be seen as the core and the surrounding rural areas the periphery.

As mentioned before, Eurocentrism allows and encourages the recognition of cultural factors. These can then be furnished as reasons for the incompatibility of a particular ‘culture’, usually corresponding to a geo- political region which has ‘failed’ to develop, with global modernity. This understanding places the blame for a region’s lack of ‘development’ in the inherent characteristics of it’s culture, rather than allowing the exploitation of the region to be seen as a consequence of it’s peripheral status in the global capitalist economy. (Amin, S., 2008: vii & 6)

Capitalism also inverts the pre-capitalist relationship between the economy and politics or ideology. Economics becomes the driving force and politics becomes secondary to it as well as serving to advance and legitimate it. Eurocentrism is an important part of the ideology that furthers capitalism. (Amin, S., 2008: 2)

A simplistic outline of a Eurocentric paradigm would involve the indisputable facts of material prosperity and technological advancement in the West combining with a celebration of rationality, pragmatism and the scientific spirit to create a sense of the superiority of the western way of life, or modernity. Even the superior military apparatus of the west is seen as part of this advanced package. Further ethical considerations that have emerged in the west, such as democracy, human-rights and equality are part of this milieu. The perception of these elements as quintessentially western in origin, implies that other societies must strive to progress to this level of development. This is based on an assumption that these socities have not and cannot surpass these achievements of the west if they follow their own trajectories. (Amin, S., 2008)

As a result of this paradigm no other future for the world can be envisaged, except development and progress. This serves to justify the conquest of the world by Europe as instrumental in the eventual march towards a better future. It also implies that if other societies do not follow the superior example of the west, they apparently must inevitably decline and perish. (Amin, S., 2008: 9)

This worldview assumes the ultimate superiority of capitalism and sets about to impose it across the world through the mechanisms of the free market, democracy and secularism. It also suggests that the west has nothing to learn from the non-west. And the tumultous unrest across the world are seen merely as products of the cultures from which they arise and not as a result of the world system of capital accumulation.

It is based on an assumption that developed capitalism as seen in the west can be achieved by every society across the globe. If this is so, one would have to see the growth of inequalities which paralleled the growth of global capitalism as nothing more than unfortunate accidents caused by cultural specificities of non-western cultures. This exposes another assumption, namely that there are internal factors essential to every culture which are responsible for the evolution of that culture. These underlying assumptions help mask the face of global capitalism. They ignore practical limits of consumption and suggest that if non-western societies follow the western example, they can eventually achieve the same level of material well-being. Further they mask the creation of a global transnational capitalist class, whose interests are served only by furthering global capitalism. (Amin, S., 2008)

Naturally, a paradigm like Eurocentrism greatly distorts our systems of knowledge. It also serves to promote and justify the world economic system from which it arose.

5.  Facets of Eurocentrism 

As Eurocentrism is so deeply embedded in our structures of knowledge, it is a difficult task to delineate exactly what constitutes it. Manifestations of Eurocentrism are easier to recognise, though not all of them emerge into explicitly racist formulations. Often the paradigm is more powerful and pervasive, because of this.

However, based off Immanuel Wallerstein’s analysis in ‘Eurocentrism and its Avatars: The Dilemmas of Social Science” (1997), we can identify certain key elements of a Eurocentric paradigm:

5.1 Universalism 

Eurocentrism operates with an assumption that there exist truths valid across all time and all cultures, and that it is based on these universal truths.  As Immanuel Wallerstein points out there have been three forms of universalism in the shaping of the world system of power as it exists today. All of them are Eurocentric both in their premises and in the exercise of power that they justified and enabled. (Wallerstein, I., 1997)

The first form is, not surprisingly, associated with colonialism. This form legitimates the use of power by the colonizers against the colonized on the basis that the colonized were uncivilized and barabarous and that as a result they needed to be punished for their actions. Further, the colonizers were obliged by their superior moral status to intervene on the behalf of those members of the colonized society who were being oppressed by the majority. And finally the colonizers wre committed to evangelise as a result of their allegiance to the Christian God in order to save the souls of the colonized. Wallerstein also delineates the counter arguments, which though discarded by the dominant powers, are in evidence in the discourse surrounding colonialism. These take the form of a rough moral equvalence in pointing out that monstrous or barbarous behaviour exists in every soiety to a limited degree and cannot be extrapolated to an entire society and that the colonized could not be held to the standards of Christian morality as, not being Christian, they were under the jurisdiction of Christian morality. There is also an argument against intervening on behalf of persecuted minorities in a questioning of the concept of collateral damage. Surely, more harm would befall the ultimate aim of evangelism if the colonized were forced into conversion. (Wallerstein, I., 2006: 6)

While these arguments may sound relatively simplistic, it is interesting to note that they are still played out today in far more sophisticated guises. Instead of characterising a culture or a nation as barbaric, human rights violations are focussed on and serve as legitimators for the interferance of powerful nations of the core in the affairs of peripheral nations. Safeguarding the human rights of minorities within states is often the basis of military interventions. Instead of the spread of Christianity, we encounter the doctrine of the spread of democracy. While this does not reduce the value of human rights or systems like democracy, it seems self evident that such changes must necessarily take place from within, rather than be imposed. It is also clear  that other economic interests must be at stake here, as with the colonizers of the past. Just as they sought raw materials and open markets, today’s defenders of human rights often have interests in opening up markets for fossil fuel or other such resources. Arguments that point out the dangers and extent of collateral damage or the historical facts that many of the oppressive regimes in the regions of the periphery only came to power due to the military and political support of the countries of the core are ignored, much as similar arguments were ignored during the colonial period.

Alongside colonialism another form of universalism developed through the study of the ‘oriental’ civilisations who had been colonized. This form of universalism is called ‘Orientalism’, and was explored in detail in a book of the same name, by Edward Said (1978). Orientalism began as a form of respect for the civilisations that the Europeans developed trade relations with. At least until the Europeans were in a position of military power when compared to them. Originally, orientalism attracted Christian monks who tried to understand the theology of other religions in order to better be able to spread Christianity. Nevertheless, they accorded the teachings and texts of other religious traditions with a certain respect. Being an Orientalist was a position of honour and involved rigorous study in an exotic language and an immersion in the texts of the culture. This was a reflection of the understanding that such a scholar had to have a sense of how these people percieved themselves and the world. Orientalism was gradually secularised, but it retained a sense of European superiority over the non-western people it studied. It reified a binary view of the world into Oriental and Occidental. It was only post 1945, that Orientalism came into serious criticism, with the world-wide assertions of independance of colonies. Orientalism, it was pointed out developed an essentialist conception of the ‘orient’ which was itself a construct of the Orientalists. Further, it was a powerful construct, able to shape the orient politically, sociologically and militarily. (Said, E., 1978) Orientalism operates through binaries. In place of the earlier binary of Christians versus pagans, it began to see the world in terms of western and non-western categories, which coincided largely with the similar binary of modern and non-modern. These binaries allowed the world to be seen through a certain lens which legitimated modernity based on its attendant material prosperity and made the non-western or non-modern world appear less ‘developed’. Orientalism was thus a universal in the sense that it asserted the binary of the Occident and the Orient and made essential the particularism of the Orient while generalising the achievements of the Occident as universal and ultimately achievable. The political consequences of Orientalism include a legitimation of the west’s dominant position of power in the global system of capitalism. This allows the mechanics of global capitalism and the lingering effects of colonialism to remain unscrutinized. (Wallerstein, I., 1997: 100)

The third universal which Wallerstein speaks of is scientific universalism. Scientific universalism arose with the challenge of humanistic universalism and established itself by means of the visible technological results of empirical science. This form of universalism asserted the possibility of arriving at a truth that was verifiable and based on empirical research. However, Wallerstein demonstrated the dependancy of the university system, the locus of the generation of knowledge in the 19th and 20th centuries, on the capitalist world system. He suggests that scientific universalism sustains itself by maintaining the split between the two cultures of knowledge – humanistic universalism and scientific empericism. The demonstrable success of empericism helped the culture of scientific knowledge assert its superiority over humanistic knowledge. Empericism also created the idea of verifiable truth and the value-neutral researcher. This allowed the growth of objectivity and the assertion of a Eurocentric paradigm, through purporting Eurocentric views as objective. Wallerstein also traced the challenge to scientific universalism to it’s presently crumbling foundations based on the twin imperatives of complexity theory and cultural studies. Incidentally, this crumbling of foundations coincided with the crisis in global capitalism. (Wallerstein, I., 2006: 51)

All three forms of universalism, have been demonstrations of the superioriy of the powerful, intimately related to the spread of global capitalism. All three have been deeply questioned in today’s world. As Wallerstein suggests, all these forms of universalism are deeply Eurocentric. Both Wallerstein and Amin do not completely dismiss the possibilities of universalism itself. They are hopeful of the eventual creation of a universal universalism, once the dangerous distortions of Eurocentrism are identified and discarded.

5.2 A Theory of History and Society 

Eurocentrism involves a theory of history which traces an unbroken lineage from Hellenistic Greece and Ancient Rome, through medevial feudal Christian Europe and up to today’s modernity. There is inherent in this theory of history and society, a sense of European superiority. (Amin, S., 2008)

As we saw before, there is an implicit assumption in our bodies of knowledge that if Europe was able to achieve the kind of material, intellectual and social apparatus that it has, there is something laudable in this achievement. What a Eurocentric theory of history and society attempts to address is the question of what allowed Europeans to reach this higher standard of living, command this military power and success and develop and harness the highly advanced technology that it does.

In his book, ‘Eurocentrism’ (2008), Samir Amin traces a very different history from the one we are familiar with, showing the continuities between Hellenistic Greece and the Orient. In his view, the Age of Antiquity is better characterized in the plural, as Ages of Antiquity. This era refers to the beginning of tributary civilisations across the world, which shared a few common traits. These include the existence of empirical scientific practice, evident in practices like animal husbandry, architecture and agriculture, but a lack of scientific thought. Tributary civilizations also posessed elaborate mythologies which did not claim universality or coherent synthesis between mythology and empirical practice. Social thought in these societies, merely served to justify the social order and did not claim scientific status. (Amin, S., 2008: 17)

The shift from these Ages of Antiquity occured due to significant breakthroughs which occured in different parts of the world. The first of these was the Egyptian concept of eternal life and moral justice. Greek mathematics and Mesopotamian astrology were other important breakthroughs, as well. The Egyptian concept of eternal life and moral justice were key to the development of modern social thought, as they opened the way for humanist universalism. Other contemporary societies had rather vague theories about what happened after death and what we now call the soul. This Egyptian concept of ‘immanent justice’ is compatible with all forms of religious belief be they monotheistic or pantheistic, and is therefore Egypt’s  great contribution of that age to social and moral thought the world over. (Amin, S., 2008: 17) Many other breakthroughs occurred in philosophy, astronomy and mathematics, which can be attributed to other societies such as the Greeks, the Arabs, the Mesopotamians and the Indians. These however do not shape modern thought to the extent that the Egyptian concept of eternal life and moral justice does.

The coming together of empire through conquest under Alexander, brought together the orient, from Greece and Egypt, to Persia. Under the conditions of the flow of knowledge that was made possible between these tributary civilizations, metaphysics developed, with it’s emphasis on deductive reasoning and it’s devaluing of inductive reasoning. The creation of a cosmogony (theory of origin of the cosmos) was not far behind. (Amin, S., 2008: 25)

Thus medevial metaphysics developed, both the advanced Arab-Islamic version and the peripheral European version. Amin traces in detail the development of both and shows the complexity of Oriental thought as opposed to European. He also asserts that it is the poverty of western scholasticism which created a greater sense of dissatisfaction among the Europeans and lead them to further develop their thought in a way beneficial to the formation of capitalism and the ideology of modernity. (Amin, S., 2008: 40)

Amin asserts, through his re-interpretation of history, that the break between the Age of Antiquity and the medevial era is not where it is often situated by western scholarship, at the end of the western Roman era, but much earlier, in the time of Alexander’s unification of the Orient. This break does not signal, contrary to popular scholastic opinion a great change in the dominant mode of production, but in the history of ideas and ideological formations. (Amin, S., 2008: 58)

This reading of history challenges the dominant historical paradigm which creates a unified Europe and extrapolates it into the past. Such a Eurocentric view of history traces a glorious intellectual history within Europe, ignoring advances in other parts of the world and their influence on the intellectual history of Europe. It also annexes Greece to Europe, though there is historically a much closer connection between Greece and the Orient and indeed, the meditteranean region was once seen as part of the Orient. (Amin, S., 2008: 90)

Western Europe in Samir Amin’s reading of history was simply a peripheral region of the European subcontinent. It’s historical role and cultural achievements were far below par as compared to other civilizations of the time. It is only post the Renaissance that western Europe rose to prominence and invented a continuous theory of history to bolster its sense of superiority. (Amin, S., 2008: 91)

Amin’s view of history shakes the foundations of the Eurocentric paradigm as it shows how many of the breakthroughs in thought which the west had hitherto taken exclusive pride in, took place in other parts of the world. It also demonstrates that the idea of Europe as a region is a construct which did not exist as such until post World War II.

This challenges the sense of superiority that attached to Europe as a region, from the assumption that Europe’s present state of prosperity is related to their ancestor’s achievments and abilities or some inherent superiority in European culture. The history Amin recounts, shows both that many of the advancements in thought attributed to Eurpoe, did not in fact occur there as well as suggesting that the advancements that took place there, were the result not of Europe’s intellectual superiority, but of it’s inferiority in comparison to other cultures, and that the dissatisfaction provoked by this state is what fuelled the advancements that are celebrated today.  This rocks the foundations of Eurocentrism.

5.3 The concept of Civilization 

The idea of civilization has been posited in contrast to barbarism, and has often been assumed by one group of people in contrast to another. This basic ethnocentrism which can be found in several cultures, is compounded in the Eurocentric paradigm by the assumption that while other cultures may be civilized in a certain sense, there is something superior and generalisable about the conditions of modernity today. Modernity is further seen as the objective idea of civilization to which all cultures must aspire. Modernity, characterised in this way is also seen to have its roots in European culture. This idea of civilization has certain key characteristics including individual autonomy, increase in production, consumption and standard of living and a reduction of the scope of legitimate violence. (Wallerstein, I., 1997: 97)

This idea of civilization was historically used to justify the colonization of non-western parts of the world and later to assert the right to interfere in the matters of other nations on grounds of human rights violations, as we have seen earlier.

The set of values attaching to this idea of civilization permeate social science. They dictate the problems that social scientists consider worth investigating, and even the concepts that are used to understand and evaluate observed phenomena. This is despite the attempt of social theory to remain free of values. While social science is not ignorant of the idea of a multiplicity of civilizations and values, it often takes as objective and value-free assumptions that arise from a European context. (Wallerstein, I., 1997: 98)

There have been several objections to referring to western civilization even in the way it defines civilization itself, as well as to locating the origins of civilization in Europe. These objections stem both from a historical perspective as well as predominantly from political locations outside the modern west, though criticism of these assumptions is far from absent within the west. They expose the Eurocentric bias in the idea of civilization as it is used, today.

This Eurocentrism is being challenged both in the political climate of the world today and within the university systems and structures of knowledge as the needs of multi-culturalism and an awareness of diverse other points of view come to the surface.

5.4 Progress 

The idea of progress was a key theme of the European enlightenment. Bolstered by the parallel logic of Darwin’s evolution and the survival of the fittest from biology and the natural sciences, it acquired an added flavour of inevitability. If a society did not progress, it would die out. The idea of progress permeates much of social theory today. It is the underlying explanatory thread for much of human history and forms the basis of theories of development and modernity. (Wallerstein, I., 1997: 100)

Progress even became in some cases, the motivating factor behind the development of positivist social theory as we know from Auguste Comte’s work. Guiding human society along the path of progress was seen as the purpose of social theory. An understanding of society was sought so as to better accelerate progress, remove impediments in its path and guide progress wisely.

Social theory was closely linked with government policy decisions and progress and development were it’s star concepts. Progress was actively pursued in this scheme. It was a less offensive concept than the previously explored idea of civilization, but served much the same ends and carried forward many of the same assumptions. (Wallerstein, I., 2006)

While the idea of progress itself may or may not be problemmatic in and of itself, the kind of change which the word has been used to designate can be considered deeply Eurocentric. The package that ideas of development and progress bring together is one that is rife with cultural assumptions rooted in Europe and the West, but ignores its own specificity.

6. Combating Eurocentrism 

Many of the facets of Eurocentrism described here overlap and appear to be different ways of viewing the same thing. Further, the description provided here, while laying bare the fallacies of these facets of Eurocentrism, may appear to criticise certain ideas like universalism. This is not necessarily the case. While aspects of universalism like it’s theory of history may need to be discarded and a revised history sought, ideas like universalism and progress require more subtle treatment. We must evaluate these concepts carefully to see whether they themselves are problemmatic or whether the Eurocentric expression of them is what causes the problem.

Criticisms of Eurocentrism take several forms. Immanuel Wallerstein speaks of three possible routes by which to criticize Eurocentrism (1997: 101). One way of combating Eurocentrism is to suggest that developments in Europe were not as unique as the appeared. Other societies made similar advancements and their own trajectories were interrupted by Europe’s use of military force against them and the imposition of the European manifestation of these developments. In this scheme other societies or civilizations are seen as following their own paths to their own versions of capitalism and modernity until the interruption of those paths by Europe. This form of argument draws from the marxist theory of stages of development. It leaves room both for uniqueness and particularism of the cultures in question as well as for a general univeral perspective. While this formulation is certainly attractive, it does still leave room for the possibility of attributing Europe’s ultimate success to some inherent superiority within it’s culture. And this leads us back to our original problem with Eurocentrism.

A second way of combating Eurocentrism is to suggest that developments in Europe were nothing more than developments that were occuring across the globe. Europe merely happened to come to the forefront through the exercise of it’s military and political power. In this line of argument, which illustrates the lack of intellectual and cultural advancement in Europe in the Middle Ages, the later developments in Europe are seen as less significant than those posited by a Eurocentric theory of history. Further, alongside discrediting Europe’s role in the road to global capitalism, we also run in to the assumption that capitalism has existed as a world system through much of human history. This argument is dangerous because it ignores the historical specificity of various cultures. It also sees capitalism as inevitable and therefore ignores the critiques of capitalism. (Wallerstein, I., 1997: 102)

A third way suggests that Europe’s history and trajectory of development has been subject to incorrect analyses and extrapolations have been made from this that are detrimental to both social science and the political world. (Wallerstein, I., 1997: 102) One form of this argument is to situate Eurocentrism within the framework of global capitalism and see it as part of the ideology which obscures the contradictions of capitalism. (This in fact, is the approach that we have taken in this module.) This mode of criticism involves an interrogation of what are often considered the achievements of capitalism. A recognition of the flaws and the assumptions and extrapolation which have allowed the masking of the flaws. One articulation of this kind of analysis can be found in Samir Amin’s work.

As Samir Amin suggests, the strength of Marxist analysis, which he uses in his understanding of Eurocentrism, lies in its method of historical materialism. This method, he argues, enables us to reinterpret world history so as to eventually transcend capitalism. While he accepts the limits of Marxism, as an unfinished construct which arose from the Enlightenment, though it was sensitive to the limitations of the Enlightenment, Samir  Amin argues that Marxism makes central the understanding of universal social dynamics whil proposing a holistic understanding which links diverse elements of social reality. Amin suggests that prevailing interpretations of Marxism are Eurocentric and that despite this, it is possible to break out of this Eurocentrism. Contrary to Marx’s prediction that global expansion of capitalism would attempt to homogenise the planet, Amin demonstrates that actually existing capitalism is nothing like Marx’s model. It functions as we have seen through the polarization of core and periphery. It forces non-modern peripheral societies to answer the ever growing demands of the core. Further, it causes growing polarization within the societies of the periphery through the creation of a global capitalist class necessary for the continued integration of these societies in the network of global capitalism. The different political systems which emerge in the nations of the core and the periphery are also a product of this polarization. Democracy is rendered impossible in the nations of the periphery, as a result of this global system of capitalism. Amin suggests that the fact that these insights of his are not widely accepted is a result of Eurocentrism, for their acceptance will require an acceptance of the fact that development and progress of the kind put forward by modernity is impossible for the countries of the periphery, trapped as they are in the web of international capitalism. It will require a re-evaluation of both our economic system and our systems of knowledge along with a delinking from the global network.  (Amin, S., 2008: 118)

Amin does not propose a new paradigm to replace Eurocentrism, but he does suggest the direction such a paradigm must take. Amin asserts that capitalism has created a truly objective need for universalism thr ough the interconnections it has created. A new truly universal culture, he suggests must be based off capitalism as it actually exists, and must not ignore the discrepancies between core and periphery and the system of unequal accumulation which creates the core and periphery. Amin also suggests a reappraisal of the tendency of homogenization that exists within capitalism. This tendency towards homogenisation at the core is what makes a similar homogenisation impossible at the periphery.  Amin argues that it is important to transcend this impasse for the eventual creation of a new universal paradigm. The difficulty in this, lies in disengaging from the world system, and this is particularly hard for the powerful nations at the core. He calls for a more circumspect and less naive revolution against capitalism than the socialist revolutions of the past. Amin argues that religious fundamentalist critiques of capitalism put forward arguments which are in fact symmetrical with the arguments of Eurocentrism as they insist on a particularism and extol the superiority of their own culture. He further argues that the all the three components for the progress of the periphery, socialist, capitalist and statist lead to various blockades as we have seen through history. He suggests that if the West aided progressive social transformation (socialist) in the periphery rather than blocking it, it could reduce the element of nationalism in the delinking and thereby do away with one set of blockades. In this way, he suggests that Europe can aid in the emergence of true universalism in a polycentric world respectful of varied and diverse paths to and expressions of development. It is also likely that such an approach will yield new paths to Europe as well, beyond those so far available through competition alone. (Amin, S., 2008)

The direction of Samir Amin’s new paradigm transcending Eurocentrism seems by far the most promising attempt to combat Eurocentrism.

7.  Summary

Eurocentrism is a systematic bias that distorts our bodies of knowledge. It is an episteme that underlies all our knowledge today. It also serves as part of the ideology of global capitalism and masks the exploitation and inequalities that are necessarily part of capitalism. It is a paradigm that goes beyond simple ethnocentrism, because it recognises different cultures but ignores its own culturally specific roots and claims to be universal.

In this module we have explored the ideas of Samir Amin and Immanuel Wallerstein who are contemporary theorists who work on Eurocentrism.

According to Samir Amin, in pre-capitalist social systems, production and exchange took place on a small scale and was therefore transparent. Today capitalism operates on a much larger scale, and in order to understand its working specialist knowledge is often required. Accumulation of capital, the driving force of capitalism necessarily creates inequalities between cores and peripheries which is masked because of the complexity of the global system.

Eurocentrism encourages recognition of cultural factors to explain global inequalities, and thus conceals the flaws in the capitalist system which perpetuates them. Attributes of the ‘West’ like superior quality of life, rationality, democracy and secularism are glorified as the goals of progress. No other future can be envisaged for the countries of the non-West. Eurocentrism suggests that every society can achieve developed capitalism and makes us ignore the practical limits of consumption. Eurocentrism privileges a rhetoric of development and progress, projecting an idea of the modern ‘West’ as the ultimate goal. This hides the exploitative contradictions of capitalism and diverts attention from the core-periphery relationship.

Facets of Eurocentrism include it’s universalism based on binaries of civilisation and barbarism, orientalism- the construction of the orient and the occident and scientific universalism based on the split between humanistic universalism and scientific empiricism.

A second facet is it’s theory of history and society imbued with a sense of European superiority. This theory deals with the question of what allowed Europeans to reach their superior standard of living, military power and develop the highly advanced technology that they do. Samir Amin’s alternative reading of history challenges the dominant historical paradigm which creates a unified Europe and extrapolates it into the past. This shows how many of the breakthroughs in thought which the west had hitherto taken exclusive pride in, took place in other parts of the world. It also demonstrates that the idea of Europe as a region is a construct which did not exist as such until post World War II.

A third facet deals with the idea of civilization as opposed to barbarism. This was historically used to justify the colonization of non-western parts of the world and today a modified version of it is used to assert the right to interfere in the matters of other nations on grounds of human rights violations. Though sensitive to a multiplicity of values Social Science is often based off assumptions that arise from a European context that are taken as objective and value-free.

The fourth facet is the idea of progress which is a key theme of the European Enlightenment. This idea permeates much of social science today and is used to explain human history. However, the kind of change that this idea of progress speaks of is rife with cultural assumptions rooted in Europe and the West while ignoring its own specificity.

Immanuel Wallerstein speaks of three ways to combat Eurocentrism, of which the third is to argue that what Europe did has been wrongly understood and has dangerous implications for knowledge and power across the world. This route is the one we have used in this module. Samir Amin does this by situating  Eurocentrism in the framework of global capitalism and seeing it as part of the ideology of capitalism. It also involves interrogating what have often been considered the achievements of capitalism.

References:

1. Amin, Samir. (2008), ‘Eurocentrism’, Aakar Books, New Delhi. (Translated by Russell Moore). Wallerstein, Immanuel. (2006), ‘European Universalism – The Rhetoric of Power’, The New Press.
2. Wallerstein, Immanuel. (1996) ‘Eurocentrism and it’s Avatars: The Dilemmas of Social Science’, Keynote address at ISA East Asian Regional Colloquium, The Future of Sociology in East Asia

Web Links

1. Samir Amin’s profile from a biography of dissenting economists: http://www.forumtiersmonde.net/fren/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115%3Asamir- amin-a-dissenting-economist&Itemid=114
2. Samir Amin’s writings in Monthly Review: http://monthlyreview.org/author/samiramin Immanuel Wallerstein: http://www.iwallerstein.com/

Further reading

1. Read ‘Eurocentrism’ by Samir Amin. (Translated by Russell Moore, Aakar Publishers, 2008)
2. Read Immanuel Wallerstein’s paper on ‘Eurocentrism and its avatars’ : http://www.iwallerstein.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/NLREURAV.PDF
3. Read Enrique Dussel on ‘Eurocentrism and Modernity’ : http://www.iwallerstein.com/wp- content/uploads/docs/NLREURAV.PDF
4. Read Anibal Quijano on ‘Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism and Latin America’ : http://www.unc.edu/~aescobar/wan/wanquijano.pdf