Eurocentrism: a many-layered thing. | Halil Berktay | TEDxIbnHaldunUniversity

Summary

This lecture delves into the concept of Eurocentrism, defined as the European perspective on non-European spaces. It critiques the historical and intellectual dominance of Europe over global narratives, highlighting the challenges in deconstructing this complex edifice. The speaker discusses the origins of Eurocentric biases in social sciences, the development of binary oppositions like individualism versus collectivism, and the difficulty of escaping these ingrained paradigms without falling into superficial traps. The talk emphasizes the need for profound knowledge to critique and potentially replace these entrenched perspectives.

Takeaways

• 🌐 Eurocentrism is defined as the European perspective on non-European spaces and societies, including a self-assessment and a view of 'the other'.
• 🏛 It has evolved over centuries as a complex conglomerate of attitudes and has become deeply entrenched in European intellectual history.
• 🛠 The challenge lies in constructing a new, universally accepted framework of knowledge that can replace Eurocentric narratives.
• 📚 Eurocentrism is evident in the social sciences, where disciplines like economics, history, and sociology were built with limited knowledge of non-European societies.
• 🌟 The development of social sciences was influenced by a sense of European superiority and the marginalization of non-European knowledge.
• 🔝 A hierarchy of power relationships emerged, leading to the belief that Europe's superiority was inherent and non-European inferiority was a given.
• 🔄 Eurocentrism created a series of binary oppositions, such as individualism vs. collectivism, private property vs. state property, and dynamic vs. passive societies.
• 📉 The idea of 'normal' and 'abnormal' was established, with European development seen as the norm and other societies as deviations from this norm.
• 🧩 The construction of categories in social sciences like 'feudalism' and 'serfdom' were Eurocentric, without considering parallels in other societies.
• 🔄 The 'Asiatic mode of production' was a Eurocentric construct, positing a stagnant East in contrast to a dynamic Europe, which was a trap for non-Western scholars.
• 🔍 Overcoming Eurocentrism requires deep, critical knowledge of one's own discipline and the ability to challenge and reconstruct established knowledge structures.

Q & A

What is the definition of Eurocentrism as discussed in the script?

Eurocentrism is defined as the European gaze turned towards non-European space, both towards itself and towards others. It encapsulates a complex summary of European attitudes towards the rest of the world and has evolved over the last five centuries as Europe rose to dominance.

Why is it challenging to change the intellectual edifice of Eurocentrism?

Changing Eurocentrism is challenging because it has become deeply ingrained and solidified over centuries, forming a complex and comprehensive summary of knowledge and attitudes that have been universally accepted and credible.

What are some manifestations of Eurocentrism in the social sciences?

Eurocentrism in social sciences is manifested through the marginalization of non-European knowledge, the development of categories and concepts based solely on European experiences, and the postulation of a sense of European superiority and non-European inferiority.

How did the historical development of the social sciences contribute to Eurocentrism?

The social sciences were constructed during a time when European elites knew very little about the rest of the world. As a result, disciplines like economics, history, and sociology were built around European knowledge, leading to a tendency to marginalize other cultures and societies.

What is the concept of 'normal' and 'abnormal' in the context of Eurocentrism?

In Eurocentrism, the 'normal' is associated with the European historical trajectory, such as the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The 'abnormal' refers to societies that did not follow this trajectory, which were perceived as being held back by inherent factors.

What are binary oppositions in Eurocentrism, and why are they significant?

Binary oppositions in Eurocentrism are pairs of contrasting concepts that define the essential differences between Western civilization and others, such as individualism versus collectivism, private enterprise versus state property, and dynamic versus passive. They are significant because they reinforce the idea of European superiority and non-European inferiority.

How does the script discuss the impact of Eurocentrism on the construction of knowledge in economics?

The script discusses the impact by pointing out that fundamental economic concepts, such as Homo economicus, were created without reference to non-capitalist or non-market economies, thus embedding a Eurocentric bias in the foundational theories of economics.

What is the issue with the historical categorization of 'feudalism' in the context of Eurocentrism?

The issue is that 'feudalism' was created as a category specific to European history without considering or comparing similar systems in non-European societies, leading to a Eurocentric bias in historical understanding.

Why is it a trap to classify non-European societies as part of the 'Asiatic mode of production'?

Classifying non-European societies as part of the 'Asiatic mode of production' is a trap because it reinforces the binary opposition of European progress versus Eastern stagnation, which is a construct of Eurocentrism and Orientalism.

What is the challenge in escaping Eurocentrism in academic disciplines?

The challenge lies in the deeply embedded structure of knowledge that has been formed over time. To escape Eurocentrism, one must have a profound understanding of both the Eurocentric constructs and the non-European realities, as well as the ability to create new, inclusive categories and theories.

How does the script suggest overcoming the deeply rooted Eurocentrism in academic disciplines?

The script suggests that overcoming Eurocentrism requires hard work, profound knowledge of one's own field, and the creation of new categories and theories that do not rely on the binary oppositions and essentialist views inherent in Eurocentric thought.

Outlines

00:00

🌟 Eurocentrism: Definition and Complexity

The first paragraph introduces the concept of Eurocentrism, which is defined as the European perspective on non-European spaces and peoples. It is characterized as a multi-layered and complex set of attitudes that have evolved over centuries alongside Europe's rise to global dominance. The speaker emphasizes the difficulty in changing this entrenched intellectual structure, which requires a new syntax or grammar of knowledge to achieve universal acceptance and credibility. The paragraph also touches on the manifestations of Eurocentrism in the humanities and social sciences, noting the limited knowledge European elites had of the world outside Europe when these disciplines were being established.

05:03

🏰 The Emergence of Eurocentric Superiority and Hierarchical Worldviews

This paragraph delves into the historical development of Eurocentrism, highlighting Europe's military, political, economic, and commercial ascendancy over the rest of the world. It discusses how this rise led to a sense of European superiority and non-European inferiority, which was then rationalized as an essentialistic view of human nature. The speaker mentions the creation of binary oppositions such as individualism versus collectivism, private enterprise versus state property, and dynamic progress versus stagnation and repetition. These oppositions have persisted to the present day, shaping Western perceptions of the 'Orient' and reinforcing Eurocentric worldviews.

10:05

📚 The Construction of Eurocentric Knowledge Structures

The third paragraph examines the construction of knowledge during the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly in the fields of economics, philosophy, and history. It points out that foundational concepts in these disciplines were developed with little to no reference to non-European societies, leading to a Eurocentric bias in the social sciences. The speaker criticizes the creation of categories like 'feudalism' and 'serfdom' without considering parallels in other civilizations and the subsequent development of binary oppositions like 'Asiatic mode of production' versus European feudalism, which further entrenched Eurocentrism.

15:07

🔄 Critiquing and Overcoming Eurocentric Paradigms

In the final paragraph, the speaker discusses the challenges of critiquing and moving beyond Eurocentric paradigms. They highlight the difficulty of escaping these deeply embedded structures of knowledge without falling into other traps, such as the false dichotomy between 'feudalism' and 'Asiatic mode of production'. The speaker calls for a profound understanding of one's own discipline and a critical examination of its foundations to overcome Eurocentrism and Orientalism, emphasizing the importance of hard work and deep knowledge in this endeavor.

Keywords

💡Eurocentrism

Eurocentrism is the perspective that places Europe at the center of historical and cultural analysis, often overlooking or marginalizing non-European cultures and histories. In the video, it is defined as the 'European gaze turned towards non-European space,' encapsulating a complex set of attitudes and knowledge that have been built over centuries. The concept is central to the video's theme, as it critiques the dominance of this perspective and its impact on the social sciences and humanities.

💡Superior and Inferior

The terms 'superior' and 'inferior' are used in the script to describe the perceived hierarchy of cultures and societies as a result of Eurocentric thinking. The video discusses how European elites postulated a sense of inherent superiority over non-European peoples, which led to the creation of a hierarchical world view. This concept is crucial in understanding the video's message about the biases inherent in Eurocentric perspectives.

💡Binary Oppositions

Binary oppositions refer to the pairing of two contrasting concepts, often used to categorize and differentiate between 'us' and 'them.' In the context of the video, binary oppositions such as individualism versus collectivism, private enterprise versus state property, and dynamic versus passive are used to illustrate the essentialist differences posited between Western and non-Western civilizations. These oppositions are highlighted as a key manifestation of Eurocentric thinking.

💡Humanities and Social Sciences

The humanities and social sciences are academic disciplines that study human culture, history, and society. The video points out that these disciplines were constructed during a time when European elites had limited knowledge of the rest of the world, leading to a Eurocentric bias in their foundational theories and concepts. This keyword is central to the video's critique of the academic structures that perpetuate Eurocentric perspectives.

💡Homo Economicus

Homo economicus is a term from economics that refers to a rational individual who makes economic decisions based on complete information and personal utility maximization. The video explains that this concept was created without reference to non-capitalist or non-market economies, illustrating the Eurocentric bias in economic theory. It serves as an example of how Eurocentrism shapes the fundamental assumptions of social science disciplines.

💡Orientalism

Orientalism, as discussed in the video, is the academic study of the 'Orient' (non-Western societies) that has historically been characterized by a Western bias. It is closely related to Eurocentrism and is used to critique the way Western scholars have historically categorized and understood non-Western societies, often in opposition to their own.

💡Essentialism

Essentialism is the belief that certain characteristics are inherent to certain groups of people or entities. In the video, it is used to describe the Eurocentric view that attributes inherent superiority to European culture and inherent inferiority to non-European cultures. This concept is key to understanding the video's argument about the deep-rooted biases in Western thought.

💡Progress

The concept of 'progress' in the video refers to the idea of historical development and advancement, particularly in terms of economic and social structures. The video discusses how European thinkers viewed their own historical trajectory, leading to capitalism, as the normative path of progress, and considered deviations from this path as signs of stagnation or abnormality in other societies.

💡Feudalism

Feudalism is a historical social, economic, and political system that was prevalent in medieval Europe. In the video, it is used as an example of a category created by European historians without considering comparable systems in non-European societies. This keyword highlights the video's critique of the ethnocentric categorization in historical studies.

💡Asiatic Mode of Production

The 'Asiatic mode of production' is a term coined by Karl Marx to describe a supposed economic system prevalent in Asian societies, characterized by stagnation and lack of development towards capitalism. The video uses this term to illustrate the Eurocentric bias in theoretical constructs, which posited this mode as the opposite of the 'normal' European feudalism that naturally progressed to capitalism.

💡Edward Said

Edward Said is a Palestinian-American scholar known for his work on Orientalism and the critique of Western representations of the East. Although not directly mentioned in the script, the reference to 'Edward Site' at the end is likely a mispronunciation or misspelling of his name. His work is foundational to the themes discussed in the video, particularly the critique of Eurocentric perspectives in academia.

Highlights

Eurocentrism defined as the European perspective on non-European spaces and itself, encapsulating a complex summary of European attitudes towards the rest of the world.

The difficulty in replacing the entrenched intellectual edifice of Eurocentrism with a new, universally accepted knowledge structure.

Eurocentrism's manifestation in the social sciences during their 18th and 19th-century construction, with limited knowledge of non-European societies.

The marginalization of non-European economic, historical, and social knowledge in the foundation of Western social sciences.

The development of a sense of European superiority and non-European inferiority as a result of Europe's military, political, and economic ascendancy.

The essentialist perspective that Europe was inherently superior and non-European peoples inherently inferior from the outset.

The creation of binary oppositions such as individualism vs. collectivism, private enterprise vs. state property, and democracy vs. autocracy, to differentiate Western civilization from others.

The perception of the European historical trajectory as the singular pathway of progress, with deviations indicating deficiencies in non-European societies.

The challenge of escaping Eurocentric constructs without falling into other traps, such as shallow or superficial critiques.

The concept of Homo economicus as a purely rational individual, a construct without reference to non-capitalist or non-market economies.

The exclusion of non-Western philosophical traditions from the history of philosophy, reflecting a Eurocentric bias.

The creation of European-centric categories like feudalism and serfdom without consideration of similar systems in non-European societies.

The binary opposition of 'feudalism' in Europe and 'Asiatic mode of production' in the East, both constructs of Eurocentrism.

The debate over the nature of the Ottoman Empire in the context of Eurocentrism and Orientalism, highlighting the trap of self-classification.

The necessity for profound knowledge within one's own discipline to critique and potentially substitute for Eurocentric structures.

The complexity of embedded Eurocentric and Orientalist layers within the social sciences, requiring diligent and insightful examination.

Transcripts

[Music]

in my generation long long ago when I

was young there was this song love is a

many-splendored thing that's where I got

my title from Eurocentrism a

many-layered thing this talk cuts two

ways on the one hand it's it proposes to

be to offer a comprehensive summary and

critique of Eurocentrism and it is at

the same time a word of warning against

a facile rejection and also is a kind of

superficial dismissiveness what is

Eurocentrism

but could be a useful succinct

definition it is the European gaze

turned towards non-european space or I

should say turned both towards itself

the self and also turned towards

external space that is to say the others

or others in other words as it has

evolved over the last five centuries of

Europe's rise and ascendancy over the

rest of the world it is a summary but a

layer upon layer kind of very complex

summary and encapsulation a conglomerate

of European attitudes towards the rest

of the world towards the rest of

humanity it is easy to say this but it

is not so easy to fathom just how

complex and how is very strong and solid

edifis it has become over the last few

hundreds of years how to change it how

to substitute for this intellectual

edifice a new and comprehensively

satisfactory syntax of knowledge a new

and different grammar of knowledge that

might achieve something like a

comparable degree of universal

acceptance and credibility is the most

difficult question of all what are the

various manifestations of Eurocentrism

it is a virtually inexhaustible subject

I'll just try to touch upon a few when

we come to the humanities and the Social

Sciences for example it is important to

remember to realize that as the Social

Sciences were being constructed in the

18th and the early 19th centuries

European elites really did know very

little about the rest of the world so

when the new science of economics was

emerging there was little knowledge if

any of what the Chinese economy was like

or what the Indian economy was like or

what the Ottoman economy was like when

history which had existed for a very

long time since the days of Herodotus

and Thucydides was being redefined Andry

systematized as an academic discipline

again there was very little in it in

terms of knowledge of the histories of

non European societies basically what

European elites knew was the history of

only Europe and with regard to sociology

it was the same European thinkers the

founders of the modern discipline of

sociology

she knew very little about the inner

structures and human behavior patterns

of Chinese society or Indian society or

various African societies or various

Islamic societies spread all over the

Middle East and so on and so forth so

what they did was they took what they

themselves knew and they built it in

true in your social science of economics

in your social science of sociology

philosophy political science and so on

and so forth so from the beginning there

was a tendency for the rest of the world

to be marginalized in terms of knowledge

new categories of social and

intellectual thinking were built around

were based on not a comprehensive and

therefore also comparative knowledge of

all these other cultures and societies

but just what was peculiar to Europe a

further level was of course a developing

sense of superiority versus inferiority

in actual real terms Europe or what

would come to be called the West Was in

military and political terms and then

also in economic and commercial terms

rising above the rest of the world and a

horizontal world was increasingly

becoming a hierarchical world of unequal

power relationships and the emerging

reality of these power relationships led

leading European thinkers maybe not all

of them but a significant number of them

to postulate that this relationship of

superiority and inferiority

had been there from the outset that is

to say it was an essential istic matter

Europe was from the beginning somehow in

terms of the human essence that it

represented it had been superior to the

rest of the world and the non-european

peoples had been inferior from the start

in again in terms of the human essence

that they represented and that is why

this unequal power relationship had

arisen not the other way around yet a

step further gradually there was created

a postulate of the normal and abnormal

you could say right or wrong or what was

the norm and what were deviations from

the north Western elites came to

perceive their own historical trajectory

with eventually capitalism coming out of

capitalist modernity coming out of the

European Middle Ages and going through a

phase of commercial capitalism in the

early modern era and then industrial

capitalism in the modern era they came

to see that trajectory as the single

possible pathway of progress and if

other continents or other peoples or

other societies had not been traveling

down that path that meant that there

must be something wrong with them

something wrong preventing them from

transitioning for example from a

traditional to a modern economy or from

a feudal type of agrarian society to a

modern industrial society they must have

been held back by various factors that

were wrong with them from the beginning

this lecture

this has led to a 1-0 series of binary

oppositions that's still prevail to this

day we in the West the story goes we had

individualism versus what prevailed in

the east or the Orient

that is to say collectivism we had

private enterprise and private property

they had state property

we had a state of law Limited monarchy

whereas they had absolute autocracy or

despotism we had the beginnings of

democracy even in the Middle Ages in

urban spaces whereas there no such

immunities or relatively free spaces

existence eventually we were able to

develop history as progress whereas all

these other societies they have had a

past but they have not had history they

have had a past that does not consist of

progress but only of stagnation and

repetition Western Humanity is active

the Orient is passive the West is

dynamic the Orient is lazy slothful the

West is invasive in a good sense and the

Orient has always been passive and

receptive masculine versus feminine

having a Protestant kind of work ethic

versus the absence of any kind of work

ethic virile versus effeminate all these

binary 1:0 opposition's were postulated

as constituting the essential difference

between Western civilization and all

others but beyond all this there is

much deeper much more profound kind of

problem because of what I said earlier

about the 18th and 19th century

construction of the humanities and the

social sciences what has happened is at

that crucial birth or formation moments

there arose a certain structure of

knowledge a certain edifice of knowledge

which has proved extremely difficult to

change you try to escape it and if your

efforts are shallow or superficial you

fall in other traps let me give you an

example for example in economics the

idea of the Homo economicus the purely

rational individual who makes choices

about consumption and production which

is the fundamental starting point of

modern microeconomics is as I said a

human construct created without any

reference to what was at the time non

capitalist world the non capitalist

world or non market economies on other

continents philosophy there is a

continuous tradition of Western

philosophy but it seems that at some

point the various Islamic or Indian or

Chinese or other traditions of

philosophy are cut off and they are not

made a part of the history of philosophy

I can speak relatively more securely

about my own discipline history

somewhere along the line in the 19th

century European historians

create their version of and their own

categories about the history of Europe

for example they create something called

feudalism and something called serfdom

to describe basic institutions of the

Middle Ages the Middle Ages in Europe as

they are creating these categories of

feudalism or serfdom they do not take

into consideration they do not even pose

the question of whether there might be

anything similar in the Seljuk in Empire

or the Ottoman Empire or in Byzantium or

Japan or China they are not aware for

example that while there is a fief

system in Europe there is a roughly

comparable tomorr system in the Ottoman

Empire in the European Middle Ages

peasants called chefs are doing the

basic production while in the Ottoman

Empire or China or India these being

also agrarian peasant societies there

are perhaps comparable categories that

should also be taken into account

none of this there is created a category

of feudalism and in opposition to it

there are created other categories

remember all those 1 0 binary

oppositions that I spoke about there are

created other classifications for non

Europe for non-western space concepts

like oriental despotisms or what Marx

called the Asiatic mode of production

it seems that and this is a binary this

becomes the most important binary

opposition of all here in Europe there

is feudalism and it creates capitalism

from within its womb and there in the

East there is the Asiatic mode of

production it does not give rise to

dynamic progress it does not give rise

to capitalism but instead it gives rise

to stagnation

and repetition or blockage it is crucial

to understand that these two categories

are both constructs of Euro centuries

not just one but also the other they are

they're mirror images so to speak if you

are not in this you must be in that and

this brings me to a fundamental

confusion in Turkish debates about this

question about the nature of the Ottoman

empires that took place in the 1960s and

70s there arose a sub school of

historical thinking in Turkey which

argued that to say that the Ottoman

Empire is feudal is Eurocentric because

you are fitting the Ottoman Empire into

a category established for European

history therefore in order to evade

Eurocentrism is must we must be able to

argue that it belonged with the Asiatic

mode of production it was a totally

false illusion because as I've tried to

say this was the ultimate trap this was

like important and internalized

Eurocentrism to end up classifying

yourself as the stagnant and repetitive

other of dynamic european development

what i'm trying to say is this there are

these layers and layers of Eurocentrism

and Orientalism that have been embedded

in the inner structure of the various

social sciences over time and in order

to be able to copy them in order to be

able to critique them and in order to be

able to substitute something else for

them you must work very hard and you

must have a profound inside outside

knowledge of your own field and your own

discipline it is not easy to be an

Edward Site

thank you

[Applause]

[Music]