Eurocentrism

There are innumerable European or Western observers who can be categorized as Eurocentric or otherwise. Between extreme Eurocentrism and its antithesis is a whole spectrum of attitudes toward non-European cultures and peoples, some thinkers being quite Eurocentric in general, but still showing remarkable sympathy toward non-Europeans in some respects, and vice versa. To some extent, the history of Western Asian and African studies shows a spectrum from extreme Eurocentrism to opposition to Eurocentrism, though in most periods the mean tends toward the Eurocentric end. A few examples of major Western thinkers or ideas on Asian and/or African peoples and cultures are selected as illustrations.

Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) regarded Africa and Asia as monolithic and influenced by their hot climates, contrasting with temperate or cold Europe. He saw their governments as despotic and peoples as servile and lacking in spirit. On the other hand, he regarded Asians as intelligent and was impressed with Egypt because leisure among the priestly caste had allowed them to found the mathematical arts.

Medieval Europe's main impression of North Africa and Asia was distrust, then fear of, and hostility to, Islam. And in 1242, the Mongols came very close to Vienna and could have captured it but for news reaching them of their khan's death. Yet the thirteenth century also produced Marco Polo, who traveled through much of Asia and left a detailed account of life in China, which is remarkably positive and even romanticized.

The missionaries of the Catholic Society of Jesus (Jesuits) worked in many parts of Asia and Africa. In that they preached a religion that was strongest in their own (European) countries, they were Eurocentric. However, their policy was to try to understand the people they were converting and to adapt to local conditions, practices, and rites as far as they could. Moreover, they were pioneers in scholarship about several Asian countries, especially China. Jesuit missionaries sent back to Europe a flood of information from various parts of Asia, including, from 1703 to 1776, the "Lettres édifiantes et curieuses" (Edifying and curious letters), about one-third of which dealt with China.

Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment philosophers also discussed Asia and Africa. Although most of their ideas were Eurocentric, some were remarkably inclusive thinkers. Non-European civilizations became part of major philosophical debates in Europe about government, economy, and religion.

Among his three kinds of government, republic, monarchy, and despotism, Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755) puts Asian societies unequivocally in the last. Being of the view that climate and topography influence government system, Montesquieu saw despotism in Asia, especially in China and India, as the result of vastness and heat. Although he does see some merits in Asia, such as lenient laws in India, the general picture he presents of Asia is grim and Eurocentric. To be fair, his Lettres persanes (1721; Persian letters) is in a style new to his time and explicitly non-Eurocentric in showing Persian visitors to Europe criticizing what they found.

Montesquieu's most vigorous opponent was François Quesnay (1694–1774), the leader of the philosophical school called the Physiocrats. His primary interest was in the economy, and specifically agriculture, and the model he chose was China. His main work, Le despotisme de la Chine (1767; Despotism in China), shows that he regarded that country as an example of despotism. However, it was an enlightened despotism, with the emperor governing according to natural laws both he and all his subjects must obey.

The most famous of the Enlightenment thinkers was Voltaire (1694–1778). His great Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations et sur les principaux faits de l'histoire depuis Charlemagne jusqu'à Louis XIII (1756; Essay on the customs and spirit of the nations and the principal facts of history from Charlemagne to Louis XIII) is a world or "universal" history, and the first ever written to treat the growth of civilization as a whole. It has two chapters on China, two on India, one on Persia, and two on the Arabs. In that sense it is the very antithesis of Eurocentrism, even though it does give much more space to European than to other cultures.

Voltaire's picture of China and India was very positive, especially China, which drew his praise for its secular government. However, he regarded both civilizations as having made their greatest contributions many centuries before, at a time when Europe was still at the stage of barbarism, and having since become static.

Marx.

Karl Marx (1818–1883) belongs in the tradition of Eurocentric thinkers. He developed the idea of "oriental despotism" into his theory of the "Asiatic mode of production," the most important plank of which was an absence of private property in land—the commune, state, or monarch being the owner of all land. Marx's main exemplars for his theory were India and China, but also included Egypt and the countries of the Sahara, as well as Arabia and Persia. Ironically he exempted Japan from the "Asiatic mode of production," being thus one of a number of Western thinkers for whom Japan was in many respects more like a Western than an Asian society.

The basis of "Asiatic mode" societies was villages and communities, which Marx regarded as backward, miserable, and lacking in historical spirit. He believed the government of such societies was despotic, because communal agriculture necessitates large-scale hydraulic works and irrigation, itself requiring large-scale bureaucracy. Marx was thus in a long line of environmental determinists.

Because of Marx's environmental determinism, he castigated "Asiatic mode" societies as unchanging. It required outside force to impose change and, while that may have been painful, it was necessary. In an article entitled "The British Rule in India," published in the New-York Daily Tribune on 25 June 1853, he condemns British activity in India, but still believes that British colonialism there was historically progressive.

The chief follower of Marx's environmental determinism in the twentieth century was Karl A. Wittfogel (1896–1988), whose main work concerned China. Wittfogel was initially an activist in the German Communist Party but migrated to the United States and became naturalized in 1939, turning strongly against communism. He continued his work on Asia there, especially in Oriental Despotism (1957), where he argues strongly that the need for large-scale waterworks spawns despotic bureaucracies that impact on the whole nature of societies.

Weber.

Max Weber (1864–1920) is most famous for attributing the growth of the capitalist spirit to the Puritan Protestant work ethic, especially John Calvin's (1509–1564) belief in predestination. Yet he also deserves a mention here for his attempts to develop a comparative methodology of sociology through his studies of the religious cultures of Asia, notably India and China.

In order to determine why Asian societies had failed to develop the "spirit of capitalism," Weber examined in great detail the impact on society and "personality" of great religions such as Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and, though to a slighter extent, Islam. His conclusion: that none of the Asian religions engaged with the world in such a way as to seek salvation through exertion in a calling and through profitable work in the way that ascetic Protestantism did. Confucianism he characterized as the ethic of officials, which adapted to the world, while Buddhism divorced itself from the world and Islam sought to rule it. Weber believed that the religions of Asia all accepted the world just as it was, the implication of this being that there was no incentive to transform it. He also saw the family systems in societies such as China and India as major inhibitors of modernization.

Weber's views, including those on Asia, remain controversial. In the late twentieth century many argued that Confucianism, including the Confucian emphasis on family, was responsible not for economic backwardness, but for capitalist progress. Despite his attempts to compare cultures dispassionately, Weber's basic conclusions point to commendation for the accomplishments of peoples following ascetic Protestantism, and criticism for other cultures, including Asian and African.