In reply to Khoo Khay Jin: We are getting a little rarified here, if not
in some do loop. To argue that anti-eurocentricism is but eurocentricism
is putting way to fine a point on this, as it is to argue that
anti-orientalism is but another form of orientalism. It isn't all that
complex. To repeat: the heart of social science theory has been about
the unique difference of the west that led to its rise--whether class
relations or cultural relations, that is, whether Marx or Weber. This now
seems increasingly doubtful given a fuller understanding of Asian economic
activity. The differences are disappearing. Thats all. The implication,
though, is profound: Marx and Weber may have gotten it wrong, since their
schemes are built on such differences. Therefore, either one drops back
down to the difference position or think of a new position that has both
east and west as components in a larger world economy. Theorizing that
larger socio-economic frame, is, if we want to get beyond the east/west
dichotomy, what we need to do. And that, would be a paradigm shift.
As to your specific proposals, while we need facts, getting the record
right, etc. I cannot see at this moment how a call for more "micro"
analysis will get us to transcend the east/west divide. Nor do I feel
that the "values", ideology, culture, etc. is as much of a key as the
actual material workings of the historical world economy. Finally,
looking for a larger frame is not meant to reduce anyone to an
europerspective. It is to find a frame that will include both east and
west.
If such a theoretic frame involves a loss of Orientalist difference that
you prefer, then, well, we are at something of a standstill. My feeling is
that we cannot have it both ways: we cannot want a good orientalism that
recognizes Difference, the Other, and so on, and yet also want a theory of
the world economy that makes both east and west but component parts. At
least not in the extreme. Differences will and do exist. There is no
argument here. The real issue has always been are they determinate of the
differences between east and west. The growing sentiment is that they are
not. If not, then what is, for there are differences. The feeling is
that difference-production lies with the logic/workings of the larger
AFroeurasian world historical economic system, which included both east
and west. Again: the rise of the west is increasingly seen as an
hegemonic shift within the Afroeurasian world economy, not the rise of an
European based modern world-system. Similarly, the "rise" of asian
economies at the end of the 20th century is not new, but a shift of
centerness back to where it had been for centuries prior to the Euro-North
American interlude from roughly 1750-2050.
Albert Bergesen
Department of Sociology
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Phone: 520-621-3303
Fax: 520-621-9875
email: albert@u.arizona.edu