Greek mythology says that Europa was a Phoenician princess who was kidnapped by Zeus and taken to Crete. Even in myth, we observe the link that has always existed between Europe and Asia; a link that goes further, since, geographically speaking, Europe is not a continent, but a part of Asia.
It is clear, then, that the differentiation of Europe as a continent is due more to cultural than geographical elements. However, even this differentiation contains its weaknesses, since, throughout history, diverse cultural realities have coexisted and influenced each other. Why consider Europe as the central axis of the entire historical process?
In this article we are going to analyze the concept of Eurocentrism: We will specify its meaning and give a brief overview of its origins.
“Eurocentrism” can be defined as the position that places the European continent and its culture as the center of human civilization This Eurocentric perspective occurs both historically and economically or socially; In all cases, Europe is established as the central axis from which the rest of the world revolves.
Eurocentrism is a form of ethnocentrism And what is ethnocentrism? It is the vision of an ethnic group, culture or society that places itself as the center from which to interpret and judge the rest of cultures, ethnic groups and societies. This perspective generally entails an attitude of superiority towards others.
It is important to note that, although all cultures are, to a greater or lesser degree, ethnocentric, European ethnocentrism has been the only one that, historically, has identified itself as a universality, that is, as a guideline to continue for the rest of the world. In all of this, as we will see, the creation and establishment of capitalism has had a lot to do with it. But let’s go in parts.
Eurocentrism and the “universal development model”
Eurocentrism is, therefore, a way of universalization. As Samir Amin states in his book Eurocentrism. Criticism of an ideology, this ethnocentric vision of Europe “proposes to everyone the imitation of the Western model as the only solution to the challenges of the time.” In other words, according to the Eurocentric concept, Only through the European model can the rest of the world’s societies adapt and advance In this way, the myth of a “redemptive”, paternalistic Europe is constructed, whose only intention is to “save” the rest of the cultures from their “barbarism”.
Samir Amin, in the book already cited, emphasizes that the roots of this European universalist concept are found in the Renaissance of the 15th century. Later, during the 19th century, the concept was massively disseminated. Both historical moments coincide with European colonialist expansions, whether European colonialism towards America in the 15th century or European colonialism in Africa, which occupied the entire 19th century and part of the 20th.
These colonialisms They exported the idea of “higher culture”, and they tried to assimilate native cultural realities with European ones. Thus, according to Amin, the birth of Eurocentrism coincides with the birth of the modern capitalist world, which the author places in the 15th century. On the other hand, its rise coincides with the explosion of capitalism in the world, in the midst of the colonial era.
This theory involves several errors. To begin with, it is inaccurate to call 15th century European society capitalist, since, at best, we can refer to it as a mercantilist society. In no way can the 15th century be identified with capitalism or, at least, it is not the same capitalism as that which prevailed from the 18th century onwards and which effectively coincides with the European colonialism of the 19th century. However, it is true that, prior to the 15th century, we did not find a solidly constructed Eurocentric discourse.
Eurocentrism affirms its supposed superiority based on several aspects. First, the claim that capitalism is the evolutionary apex of societies and which is, according to this theory, the best way to build a society. And the second, the presumption of historical continuity that, according to Samir Amin, is non-existent.
The Enlightenment and the “invention” of European history
Indeed, Eurocentrism draws an evolutionary line that goes from Greek and Roman antiquity to the present day. And, as Samir Amin, Enrique Dussel and other authors point out, this line is completely artificial and imposed. Let’s see it below.
For a start, The Europe of antiquity does not correspond to the Europe of today What was later established as the “only Europe” was, in Greek and Roman times, a barbaric and “uncivilized” territory. The cultures that shone in ancient times were Egyptian and Near Eastern cultures, such as Persian or Babylonian. The Greeks admired these eastern cultures, and did not consider them “barbarian” cultures, as they did call the cultures of the rest of Europe. Therefore, first point: what after the 18th century was called Europe and was considered a model of civilization, was initially considered the periphery of the ancient cultural center.
What do we mean by this? Simply, the construction of Europe as a civilizing axis is a myth that was born in the Enlightenment. This axis did not exist as such in ancient times. The cultural center of antiquity passed through Egypt and the Middle East, not through what we consider Europe today. However, European historical discourse has traditionally introduced these cultures in its evolutionary line, thus establishing a Mesopotamia-Egypt-Greece-Rome-Europe axis that is absolutely artificial with the sole intention of including these civilizations as part of European history.
Furthermore, prior to this European universalist discourse, there was no “universal history.” Each region, each geographical reality had its own history and evolution. We thus found a multiplicity of cultural realities that simply coexisted with each other and, yes, influenced each other. But in no case can we speak of a common history.
Therefore, we can conclude that it was the European need to construct a history that facilitated the emergence of this “universal history”, which has monopolized textbooks for centuries A “universal history” that, in reality, has very little that is universal.
The aforementioned Enrique Dussel, in his work Europe, modernity and Eurocentrism, defends with arguments this idea of the invention of the linear history of Europe. Dussel demonstrates that what has traditionally been seen as the “opposite” of Europe (that is, everything that was not Greco-Roman culture and Christianity) is, in reality, a complement, not an opposition. Let’s analyze it in more detail.
Traditionally, European culture has been seen as a fusion between Greco-Roman culture and Christianity Based on this definition, everything that does not fit these characteristics has tended to be “removed” from European reality.
Dussel gives clear examples of the Muslim world and the Byzantine East. The latter, despite being based, obviously, on classical culture and Christianity, has been separating itself from what has traditionally been called Europe.
However, the reality is very different. The Muslim Arab world, for example, drank from classical philosophy In fact, the work of many Greek thinkers, such as Aristotle, reached Europe thanks to the Muslim conquests. On the other hand, and as we have already commented, the Byzantine world was heir to the Roman world; in fact, they called themselves “Romans,” not Byzantines.
What does all this mean? That European cultural uniformity, limited to the geographical area that we currently know and that would coincide, more or less, with the European Union, is an idea that does not entirely correspond to reality. Therefore, and following Dussel again, it is only from the 18th century onwards, with the Enlightenment (and, above all, with German Romanticism) that Hellenistic culture is “abducted” and labeled as exclusively European We have already seen how this is not the case, since worlds far from what we call Europe today, such as the Arab world and the Byzantine world, also drank from Greek culture.
Eurocentrism and historical “stageism”
We have already said that every culture is, to a certain extent, ethnocentric, which means placing its own cultural reality as a place from which to analyze, interpret and, often, judge other cultures. This is what is called “peripheral cultures”, that is, the realities that are beyond culture itself, which is situated as the central axis.
We have also commented that, In the case of Europe, this ethnocentrism is the only one that is identified with universality We have, then, European culture (self) considered as the model to follow, an idea driven by the rise of colonialism and capitalism. It is this supposed European cultural “superiority” that believes it justifies this colonialism, relying on a fictitious paternalism that considers other peoples as underdeveloped, primitive realities and, therefore, in need of protection. In other words: the justification for colonialism and the atrocities that are related to it is a “civilizing” intention, a desire to show the “correct” path for other peoples.
From this idea of Europe as a model of civilization, the concept called “stageism” appears, which conceives the historical process as a succession of stages Karl Marx picks it up in his Prologue to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1858), where he states that: “Broadly speaking, we can designate as so many epochs of progress, in the economic formation of society, the Asian, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois mode of production.” Thus, based on this Marxist concept, the progress of history is linear, and culminates in socialism, which would come after capitalism (which he calls the “bourgeois mode of production”). This concept is nothing more than another Eurocentric vision of history, since it establishes the evolution of societies based on this “invented history” that takes Europe as its central axis. What happens, then, with the economic and cultural realities of other geographical points? Where is imperial China, or pre-Columbian America, in all this process?
Conclusions
Thus, in conclusion we can affirm that: first, the so-called “universal history” in reality is not, since it has only the European reality as its central axis, around which the so-called peripheral cultures “revolve.” We immediately verify this if we analyze the nomenclature of the different historical periods, which take, without exception, European reality as a reference.
For example, can we talk about the Middle Ages in China, or in India? Strictly speaking, of course not, since the beginning of the Middle Ages has been established (also quite arbitrarily) with the fall of the Roman Empire, and both China and India have little or nothing to do with this historical event.
Second, that what has been considered European history, does not exactly coincide with reality either since, as we have seen, since the Enlightenment a linear history is “forced” that encompasses cultures that are not specifically European, such as Egyptian or Mesopotamian.
Third, that the cultural realities that have traditionally been considered “non-European” (namely, the Muslim Arab world or the Byzantine world) also draw on classical culture, which makes us ask the following question: where does it begin and where? ends Europe?
Finally, Eurocentrism is based, above all, on an economic element, since it is from Eurocentrism that Europe has justified its dominance of other cultural realities and has expanded the capitalist system. At this point, we see that phenomena such as globalization, which seems so natural to us today, also arise from this Eurocentric (and economic) perspective of the world.
Fortunately, little by little in academic fields this linear progression that emerges from Eurocentrism is being overcome. During recent years, a significant change has been observed in subjects such as history or art, and works are appearing (not without difficulty) that present history and artistic creation from the points of view of those that, in the past, were considered the “peripheral cultures” of Europe.
