id <01BBEAD4.CFD798C0@amsterdam13.pop.tip.nl>; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:10:42 +-100
From: barendse <rene.barendse@tip.nl>
To: "'wsn@csf.colorado.edu'" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Eurocentric Eurodominance
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:10:31 +-100
Nice to see the interesting discussion on Eurocentrism/European =
dominance has resurfaced again.=20
If I may humbly be permitted a few remarks:
1.) I think D.Fosse' is quite right asking the basic question `why =
should the Chinese have been immune to capitalism'. Indeed - and why =
should the `Arabs' (whatever we mean by that) have been and why should =
the Indians, or the Persians, or indeed the Russians? The Arabs are a =
good case, since, indeed, as Abu Lughod rightly surmises from the =
literatuire many of the normal practices of account-keeping and settling =
of accounts are not so much derived from the Arabs as derived from a =
common Mediterrenean pool of tcommercial practices, which was used in =
the southern (`Islamic' whatever that means) and `northern" (or =
`Christian' whatevrt that means) Mediterrenean. If you like one could =
also draw the ancestry of capitalism back to say the Byzantine empire - =
or for that matter the Jews and Syrian Christians. T
he thing is -and I think this was the revolutionary aqrgument of the =
Mediterrenean by Braudel th-at `Islamic' `Greek Orthodox' and `Catholic' =
civilisation shared one common Mediterrenean environment until at least =
the sixteenth century. It was not so much a question of one =
`civilisation' dominating the other -say `Europe' dominating `Islam'- =
rather one class dominating the other. Thus, for example, the ruling =
class of the Ottoman empire was not `European' and not `Islamic' since =
it included many Greek Orthodox landowners or to mention an example =
which I find striking - when the Portuguese arrived in India the =
Venetian seniora sent representatives to Cairo in order for the Mamluks =
to construct a fleet to throw their `European' competitors out of India. =
Who is dominating whom here ?=20
Now, this could be put in a wider context: in the sixteenth to =
eighteenth century the issue in the Indian Ocean or the South China seas =
is not really `Europe' dominating `Asia' ; it is one group of landlords =
and traders seeking to oust competitors and/or impose its dominance upon =
the peasantry and/or nomads.
This group might include Europeans or it might nott. Thus, for example, =
even in the case of the High Mighty Dutch East India Company it is often =
overlooked that IN ASIA its operations were almost completely financed =
by Indian and Chinese moneylenders - this is not merely a question of =
collaboration: `Asians' collaborating with `Europeans'. Without the =
pre-existing credit network the Dutch East India Company could simply =
not have operated. Did the Chinese or Indian bankers exploit the Dutch =
East India Company therefore ?=20
I think the question is simply not relevant - in the case of Java for =
example (and yes I would argue that the `Dutch' did not `dominate' Java =
until 1750 - lthe Dutch in Batavia were not exploiting the nearby =
pasisir - area, Chinese planters were exploiting the peasants and =
selling the sugar for a guaranteed price to the Dutch East India Company =
which mostly sold it to the Persian court. I would say the Chinese are =
using the Dutch to exploit the peasantry - to whose profit ;actually =
,was Java a periphery of Persia with the Dutch East India Company =
serving as a vehicle ? I think the terms `Europe' and `Asia' and a =
fortiori `Europeans' and `Asians' are not relevant.
2.) While I will not quarrel on points of detail with A.G.Frank the =
point of whether Asia was more advanced than Europe or not is, I think, =
not relevant either - if /one was to make a rough guesstimate of GNP per =
capita in the mid eighteenth century -measured according to such =
measures as purchasing power or calorie intake- I think New England =
would have been top of the bill immediately followed by the Dutch =
Republic, England and -here I am diverting from what is usual- Persia =
and maybe Siam , Japan and Atjeh, Bengal, however, would have been very =
low on the list andd so would have been much of rural China. How do you =
measure advanced ? It is not just a question of how much is produced but =
also how it is distributed - furthermore, as Mark Elvin argued some time =
ago, even if you start from something like `rtrechnological advancement' =
technology tends to adapt to the society in which it is based until the =
nineteenth century- thus, for example, Indian technology was highely =
advanced in the seventeenth century in achieving high output by maximum =
division of tasks rather than by input of fixed capital. than =
European technology but was less advanced in the use of machinery =
And that was perfectly rational since India was very short of steel for =
example and machines need a lot of steel. The argument whether Europe =
was more advanced than Asiaia should therefore rather be: in which =
context and to whose benefit ?. Practices which may not seem very =
advanced from our perspective might be very advanced from a different =
perspective which
3.) somewhat amounts to adressing the issue raised by I.Wallerstein =
whether social science itself is euriocentric - although one could =
advance the obvious answer that Kautilya, Nizam ul Mulk or Ibn Khaldun =
were social scientist avant la lettre this would be too easy. Basically =
one might argue that social argument in Islam and Hinduism is closely =
linked to the study of the law - that a seperate social science =
developed in Europe may then be linked to the rise of Roman law - and =
the courtly bureaucracy while on the contrary independent investigation =
in social science was stiffled after the `islamic renaissance of the =
fifteenth century' by the rise of states like the Ottoman and the =
Safavid empire with their link to single schools of law and their single =
mode of investigation of social reality - basically in Europe the law =
solidified into a solid, immutable system which had no direct relations =
with social reality so that a separate branch of scholarship arose to =
investigate social reality while in the Islamic countries -and in =
Islamic India- such issues were investigated as legal issues. The point =
with this is the following: Islamic legal investigation is as exactingly =
rational as `western' social science in its most exacting form (say =
econometrics); they are two forms of social science starting from =
different points of departure but obeying to precisely the same =
standards of rational inquiry. There is no contrast between a `rational' =
west and an `irrational' east as some of the postings seem to imply. =
Normal rules of science e.g. precise presenting of evidence, =
`falsification', acknowledgement of authority, logical presentation of =
arguments and the like apply as much to western social science as to =
Islamic law (or to `Hindu' gramatic investigation or dharmashastra). =
`Western' mathematics is partly an Arab invention as in many ways is =
expirimental natural science. Mathematics and natural science (and =
linguistics and astronomy and biology etc. etc.) are human - of course, =
what kind of things one does with the knowledge may differ from society =
to society.
4.) Pace Khoo Khay Jin most of this is well known and has actually been =
revealed by assidious studies by Orientalists (pace Said) not since they =
wanted to dominate but because they were curious just as one studies the =
Andromeda nebula or star-clusters not to rule the universe but because =
one is curious. Although more detailed studies are always welcome some =
parts of the non-western world are meanwhile as well studied as the =
western world (I think more US academicians are working on Korea or =
Vietnam than on Poland or modern Greece) it is not lack of material =
which is the problem, the problem is that classical orientalistics is =
secluded in an opaque language of its own and questions of its own. The =
importance of the single world system argument (with or without hyphen) =
is that it may open a gate to a wider conceptualisation of problems and =
in that way to new issues for micro-investigations.
5.) Finally I am a bit puzzled by W.Wagar's posting: - it may not be =
very humble but it reminds me a bit of Hegel's famous dictum that `the =
owl of Minerva only flies in the evening' meaning that any period =
interprets its history differently; the problem, humility aside, is that =
some of our zilion interpretations may be better -meaning applicable to =
more facts than others- and perhaps even more true than others. Try =
applying it to the holocaust (6 milion Jews were not killed or the =
Jews are themselves to blaime for the hololocaust) and the problem with =
the statement `any world picture' is as good as any other is clear. =
Anyhow- why spend the evening writing dull pieces if this `world =
picture' is as good as any other - why not write poems, play games, or =
just watch TV ?
Cheers
R.J.Barendse
Leiden University=20