article

Eurocentrism is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing emphasis on European (and, generally, Western) concerns, culture and values at the expense of those of other cultures. It is not to be confused with Europatriotism. Eurocentrism is an instance of ethnocentrism, perhaps especially relevant because of its alignment with current and past real power structures in the world. Eurocentrism often involved claiming cultures that were not white or European as being such, or denying their existence at all.

The source of a cultural tradition can be seen in the balance of emphasis given to various thinkers and ideas in discussing a subject. In the 1960s a reaction against the priority given to a canon of "Dead White European Males" provided a slogan which neatly sums up the charge of eurocentrism (alongside other important -centrisms).

In Britain, eurocentric or eurocentrist may occasionally be used in political discourse to mean europhile.

Examples of Purported Eurocentrism

  • The European miracle theory of Europe's rise to its current economic and political position has often been criticised for Eurocentrism, though the scientific and cultural changes in Europe in the post-Renaissance era are undeniably central to the creation of the modern world.

Cartesian maps have been designed throughout known history to center the northwestern part of Europe (most notably Great Britain) in the map. This is reinforced by the definition of the prime meridian, placed in Greenwich, London. The Greenwich Meridian has today been universally recognised as the longitudinal line representing zero degrees east and west. In a purely geographic sense, mainly in cartography, all places in the world not on this meridian are said to be either 'east' or 'west', and hence in either the eastern hemisphere or western hemisphere. Arranging two-dimensional maps in broadly this arragement does, however, have the advantage that it ensures that all land regions can be concentrated in the center without continents (except Antarctica) being significantly split between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. In such maps the Bering strait is used to split the globe, with the Americas at the left and East Asia at the right. Such maps in fact typically place Africa, not Europe, in the exact center of the world.

  • The regional names around the world are named in honor of European travelers and are in orientation of a Eurocentric worldview. Middle East describes an area slightly east of Europe. The Orient or Far East is east of Europe, whereas the West is Western Europe. Although many of these terms are not intentionally designed to relegate other groups to a subordinate role vis-à-vis the people of Europe, the effects of Eurocentricism create a self-sustaining belief, that Europe and Europeans are central and most important to all meaningful aspects of the world's social values, and cultural heritage. One might defend the current system by saying that to the English, The Americas are to the west. China is also farther east than Iraq, so, at least in English, such names seem justified.

  • World History taught in European schools frequently teaches only the history of Europe and the United States in detail, with only brief mention of events in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Americas, Africa and Australasia are usually not mentioned in the timeline until they are colonised by Europeans, with no reference to the pre-conquest culture, civilisation or technology.

  • The history of science and technology is often taught having begun with the Greeks, then moving on with the Romans, then stopping during the Dark Ages, before continuing with the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. Slight mention is made of the many achievements of Asian, Moorish, Ancient Egyptian, or Muslim scientists.

  • In an overview of 17th century history, say, it would be eurocentric to list numerous dates, events and political figures from the many states of Europe, but only brief mentions for the Manchu conquest of China or the Mughals in India, or the Aksum Christian period in Ethiopia. Then, as now (and for most of human history), well over half of the human population has lived in Asia.

Origins

Assumptions of European superiority arose during the period of European imperialism, which started slowly in the 16th century, accelerated in the 17th and 18th centuries and reached its zenith in the 19th century. The progressive character of European culture was contrasted with traditional hunting, farming and herding societies in many of the areas of the world being newly explored by Europeans, such as the Americas, most of Africa, and later the Pacific and Australasia. Even the complex civilizations of the Islamic world, India, China and Japan were considered to be underdeveloped relative to Europe, and were often characterised as static. For many European writers of this time the history of Europe became paradigmatic for the rest of the world. Other cultures were identified as having reached a stage through which Europe itself had already passed – primitive hunter-gatherer; farming; early civilization; feudalism; modern liberal-capitalism. Only Europe had achieved the last stage. It was thus thought to be uniquely responsible for the scientific, technological and cultural achievements that constitute the modern world. Furthermore, scientific models for understanding the world were deemed to have replaced religious or speculative accounts. The extent to which science itself can be considered to be specifically "European" is still debated.

For some writers, such as Karl Marx, the centrality of Europe to an understanding of world history did not imply any innate European superiority, but he nevertheless assumed that Europe provided a model for the world as a whole. Others looked forward to the expansion of modernity throughout the world through trade or imperialism (or both). By the late 19th Century the theory that European achievements arose from innate racial superiority became widespread: justifying slavery and other forms of political and economic exploitation, even being used to validate genocide.

The colonising period involved the widespread settlement of parts of the Americas and Australasia with European people, and also the establishment of outposts and colonial administrations in parts of Asia and Africa. As a result, the majority populations of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand typically trace their ancestry to Europe. For this reason a Europe-centered history may be taught in such countries, even though their populations are now far removed from Europe itself, but have nevertheless been brought up into what may be regarded as mainly European cultural traditions.

Challenging Eurocentric models

During the same period that European writers were claiming paradigmatic status for their own history, European scholars were also beginning to develop a knowledge of the histories and cultures of other peoples. In some cases the locally established histories were accepted, in other cases new models were developed, such as the Aryan invasion theory of the origin of Vedic culture in India, which has been criticised for having at one time been modelled in such a way as to support claims for European superiority. At the same time the intellectual traditions of Eastern cultures were becoming more widely known in the West, mediated by figures such as Rabindranath Tagore. By the early 20th century some historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee were attempting to construct multi-focal models of world civilizations. Toynbee also drew attention in Europe to non-European historians such as the medieval Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun. He also established links with Asian thinkers, for example through his dialogues with Daisaku Ikeda of Soka Gakkai International.

At the same time, non-European historians were involved in complex engagements with European models of history as contrasted with their own traditions. Historical models centering on China, Japan, India and other nations existed within those cultures, which to varying degrees maintained their own cultural traditions, though countries that were directly controlled by European powers were more affected by eurocentric models than were others. Thus Japan absorbed Western ideas while maintaining its own cultural identity, while India under British rule was subjected to a highly Anglocentric model of history and culture.

Even in the nineteenth century anti-colonial movements had developed claims about national traditions and values that were set against those of Europe. In some cases, as with China, local cultural values and traditions were so powerful that Westernisation did not overwhelm long-established Chinese attitudes to its own cultural centrality. In contrast, countries such as Australia defined their nationhood entirely in terms of an overseas extension of European history. It was, until recently, thought to have had no history or serious culture before colonization. The history of the native inhabitants was subsumed by the Western disciplines of ethnology and archaeology. In central and South America a merger of immigrant and native histories was constructed. Nationalist movements appropriated the history of native civilizations such as the Mayans and Incas to construct models of cultural identity that claimed a fusion between immigrant and native identity.

See also

External links

Sociology | Ethnocentrism | Prejudices | Political neologisms | Eurocentrism

Евроцентризъм | Eurozentrismus | Eurocentrismo | Eurocentrisme | Eurocentrizmas | Eurocentrisme | Europocentryzm | Eurocentrismo | Eurocentrism

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Eurocentrism".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world