Eurocentrism: a many-layered thing. | Halil Berktay | TEDxIbnHaldunUniversity
Summary
TLDRThis 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
- đ Eurocentrism is defined as the European perspective on non-European spaces and societies, including a self-assessment and a view of 'the other'.
- đ It has evolved over centuries as a complex conglomerate of attitudes and has become deeply entrenched in European intellectual history.
- đ The challenge lies in constructing a new, universally accepted framework of knowledge that can replace Eurocentric narratives.
- đ Eurocentrism is evident in the social sciences, where disciplines like economics, history, and sociology were built with limited knowledge of non-European societies.
- đ The development of social sciences was influenced by a sense of European superiority and the marginalization of non-European knowledge.
- đ A hierarchy of power relationships emerged, leading to the belief that Europe's superiority was inherent and non-European inferiority was a given.
- đ Eurocentrism created a series of binary oppositions, such as individualism vs. collectivism, private property vs. state property, and dynamic vs. passive societies.
- đ The idea of 'normal' and 'abnormal' was established, with European development seen as the norm and other societies as deviations from this norm.
- 𧩠The construction of categories in social sciences like 'feudalism' and 'serfdom' were Eurocentric, without considering parallels in other societies.
- đ 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.
- đ 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
đ 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.
đ° 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.
đ 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.
đ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄEurocentrism
đĄSuperior and Inferior
đĄBinary Oppositions
đĄHumanities and Social Sciences
đĄHomo Economicus
đĄOrientalism
đĄEssentialism
đĄProgress
đĄFeudalism
đĄAsiatic Mode of Production
đĄEdward Said
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]
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)