Eurocentrism is a conscious or unconscious perspective that whatever coming from the Europe is right and true. This word had been prevalent in the last century, especially during the European colonialist era, and was used critically. So why I got interested in it, and what are the interesting things about it?
I got interested in this word because of some reasons. Recently, I heard one of my friends quoting from a speech he listened to: "...whatever coming from the West (from the Indian point of view, the West means the European and American) is regarded as science and whatever coming from the east (Asia or India) is considered as ___ (the person could not remember the word; it must be pseudoscience, metaphysics, religious, spiritual, or even nonsense)...". Whoever the speaker be, I felt this was incorrect. Science has a set of fundamental rules to accept something true. They include objectivity, repeatability, etc. For example, the basic laws of motions, discovered by Newton applies all over the world. The same must be true for anything that can be called science. And if somebody claims something is science, which is not repeatable or objectively verifiable, I will look at him with suspicion. For example, in the same talk, the speaker claimed that "it was scientifically proved that water has memory". I don't know the truth about this, but I feel suspicious! On the other hand, I have a question: do we accept everything coming from the West as true? For example, the movie Jurassic Park comes from the West (though from the United States). But do we consider it true? It's just a fantasy, according to all of us, isn't it? There are numerous science fiction coming from the West; do we consider them true?
Now a days, we have so much of exposure to what is going on around the world. I followed Prof. Richard Dawkins in Youtube. I found him talking to many religious people, taking part in debates and just talking science to us. One of these videos [1] I would like to mention here is the one where he talks with the Indian holistic healer Mr. Deepak Chopra about the relation between quantum mechanics and his so called quantum-healing process. But Mr. Chopra soon realizes that he can't argue with an eminent scientist like Prof. Hawkins, who is also a man of an extremely rational mind. Then Mr. Chopra says that he never claimed any relationship with the quantum mechanics, he used the word "quantum" only as a metaphor, and in fact, it was quantum mechanics that had hijacked the word "quantum". In a later video [2], Chopra says Dawkins point of view is "mechanistic, Newtonian, outmoded and obsolete". Here, I am confused! Who is outmoded? Dawkins or Chopra? But our point is different: is Dawkins Eurocentric just because he argues rationally, or just because he comes from the United Kingdom? I don't need to explain this point. You catch on Dawkins on Youtube and Google videos, and you will be able to judge.
A third reason why I was tempted to know more about Eurocentrism is the following. One of my friends sent me a speech titled as For America to Live, Europe Must Die [3] by the Native American activist Russell Means (according to him, he is not the Native American, which is a misnomer, but he is the real "Indian"!). He claims that all the European concepts like modern science, modern physics, modern philosophy, Marxism, capitalism, etc. have a hidden agenda of European cultural expansionism, and the proponents of the above fields were trying to expand Christanity in disguise: a version of the "secularized" Christianity. He views Karl Marx, Issac Newton, John Locke, Adam Smith, Decartes, and every other European intellectuals as travellers on the same boat: expand the European culture! Of course, expand against the Native American, Indian (my India:-)) or other cultures. He says, for example, that "European culture itself is responsible [for the sufferings of the Native Americans]. Marxism is just the latest continuation of this tradition, not a solution to it. To ally with Marxism is to ally with the very same forces that declare us an acceptable cost." I understand that this is a cultural argument. He says "After all, Europeans consider themselves godlike in their rationalism and science. God is the Supreme Being; all else must be inferior." This is a religious argument. So, I think this third point which prompted me to think about Eurocentrism is the matters concerned with identity, religion and culture. I have come across the same opposition against the "European thought" such as science, mathematics etc. among some people with Nationalist sentiments in my India, too. The Islamic problem of identity and religion, and their struggle against "the West" in the Middle-East also can be looked at from the same perspective. However, isn't it ridiculous to look at every thing European, including modern science, sharing a common ground and cling obstinately to culture and identity?
In my short search to find out what was Eurocentrism, I came across another interesting fact: Eurocentrist attitude towards Indian mathematics. Forget the nonsense of the Vedic Mathematics, which is a system "consisting of a few isolated tips, totally lacking in coherence and conceptual utility" [4] or "is only an assortment of tricks, based on simple algebraic principles" [5], and whose vedic credentials are disputed. We are talking about the "real" Indian mathematics. An overview of the Indian and Kerala mathematics of ancient times, and how the European historians had neglected and rejected to recognize the Indian contribution to mathematics, is given in Indian Mathematics: Readdressing the Balance [6] by Ian G. Pearce. This, I think, a very good and acceptable example of Eurocentrism.
I would like to end this post by discussing what the Slovenian leftist intellectual Prof. Slavoj Zizek [7] given to the online magazine Bad Subjects. He admits the existence of Eurocentrism and the Christian influence on it (even otherwise, there is no dispute on its existence or the Christian influence; but on what grounds can we attack it is the question). But he says that, as modern humans, we can't help accepting the concept of "universalism", which is clearly a European proposal, influenced by Christianity. Universalism is an attempt to show the world that there is something applicable to every human being, in any culture, religion and ideology. For example, the concept of human well-being or ethics, is universal. If you define separate ethics for Europeans, Indians, Native Indians, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and the Buddhists, then we end up in chaos (the modern world is in such a chaos now!); we'll not be able to define it! I remember Erich Fromm proposing the same idea of universalism in his book Man for Himself.
I think the only answer to the human problem is by accepting the axiom of universalism. More than belief, identity and culture, we have to accept universalism, when defining at least the concept of human well-being. Similarly, we must accept the European(?) notion of objectivity, at least in science, so that its pursuit is satisfied. However, when these concepts are applied to human society, I think we must be careful. There, humanity, not objectivity or materialistic view, is important. Differing from Russell Means I would say that Marxism is not materialistic. It is, on the contrary, to look at the humans as humans, not as workers, and to free them from the exploitations of the forced labour and the powerful class. Marxism dreams [8] of a world, where every human being is a poet! We can argue its Utopian edge, whether China or Soviet Union could materialize this vision, etc. sometime else.
At the same time, we must not eradicate the culture and identity of some race or ethnic group, and any attempt to do so will meet adverse and dangerous results. Moreover, concepts of universality is not only European or Christian; every other culture or religion contains it, in some way or the other. We must assimilate the good points from the individual cultures, after scrutiny, and dream of the rise of a modern, intellectual (more modern and intellectual than us) race of humanity.
References:
[4] S. G. Dani, "'Vedic Maths' : facts and myths", One India One People, Vol 4/6, January 2001, pp. 20-21, available online http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/ .
[5] S. G. Dani, "Vedic Mathematics" : a dubious pursuit, published in Newsletter of the Ramanujan Mathematical Society, available online http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/ .
[8] Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, 1961.
