Re: eurocentrism

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Yoshie,
>
>can you tell me how Brenner and Woods' work provides the grounds for
>a critique of eurocentrism? most people think they are eurocentric.
>perhaps I missed earlier debates on this question.
>
>George

While the term "Eurocentrism" can be defined variously by different
intellectuals, here I use Jim Blaut's definition:

*****   By my reckoning four kinds of Eurocentric theory have been
advanced to explain the fact that Europe (or the West) grew richer
and more powerful than all other societies.  The four are:

1.  _Religion_: Europeans (Christians) worship the True God and He
guides them forward through history.
2.  _Race_: White people have an inherited superiority over the
people of other races.
3.  _Environment_: The natural environment of Europe is superior to all others.
4.  _Culture_: Europeans, long ago, invented a culture that is
uniquely progressive and innovative.

(Jim Blaut, _Eight Eurocentric Historians_, NY: The Guilford Press,
2000, p. 1)   *****

While 1 & 2 went out of favor, 3 & 4 are still in vogue, Jim says, and I agree.

In my opinion, Robert Brenner & Ellen Wood allow us to attack 4
especially effectively, because they focus on class struggles;
contingency in history (rejections of stagism, of a liberal notion of
linear Progress, & of the Hegelian explanation of history); &
comparative analysis of England with other "European" powers.

Through the focus on class struggles, we counter the Weberian
explanation of the origin of capitalism.  Through the emphasis on
contingency (contingent because the motor force of history is class
struggles, outcomes of which are not preordained), we debunk the
notion that capitalism was _destined_ to emerge & develop in "Europe"
or anywhere else for that matter.  Through comparative analysis of
England with other "European" powers, we establish that not only did
"Europeans" not possess a "uniquely progressive and innovative"
culture but different nations in the area that came to be known as
"Europe" had no unified "culture" either.

While many "European" powers sought & gained colonial possessions as
well as profited from the slave trade & chattel slavery directly or
indirectly, this fact alone did not make a crucial difference in
giving rise to capitalist social relations with the logic of M-C-M' &
market discipline.  Compare the fate of Spain with Britain.  What
made a difference?  Contingent outcomes of class struggles at home,
not "cultural" differences between Spain and England.

I posted the following on PEN-l a while ago in response to the list's
resident Weberian:

*****   Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:22:09 -0500
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [PEN-L:4912] Samir Amin

Ricardo Duchesne says boldly:

>  > Wallerstein & the world systems theory have been refuted already by
>>  Robert Brenner.
>
>Brenner hardly refuted W, except for clarifying that the pressure to
>accumulate through innovations is present only when capitalist
>relations have been established, but B is no student of the third
>world.

Neither are you.  In any case, I have already argued for the need to
supplement Robert Brenner with Samir Amin, Eric Williams, etc.

One crucial virtue of Robert Brenner, however, is that he is not
"Eurocentric."  For him, what was crucial in the origin of capitalism
was class struggles & class relations, not "Europeans" & "European
culture."  (The idea of "European culture" would have meant _nothing_
to _peasants_ in mortal struggles against lords in England, Ireland,
France, Poland, etc. in the periods that Brenner discusses in his
articles in _Past & Present_.)  New cultures & cultural identities
(e.g., the ideas of "Europe" & "Europeans" & "European culture") are
not the motor force of historical change; on the contrary, they are
products of protracted class struggles & changes in social relations
(e.g., primitive accumulation, conquest of the so-called New World,
chattel slavery, creation of "nation states," etc.) on local & world
stages of history, & it took _centuries_ after the inception of such
ideas before they became "common sense" of not just men of letters
with "independent means" & the master class but also of commoners who
engage in wage labor such as yourself (in Canada!).
<snip>
*****

Also, see my argument below:

*****   Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:59:27 -0500
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [PEN-L:4901] Re: Adorno & Tradition (was Re: Hegel's redemption)

Rob:

>Geez, you seem to be getting awfully angry at awfully little, mate!

The path toward freedom from nicotine is a tortured one.

>  >Theodor Adorno -- who could easily out-elitist Ricardo Duchesne any
>>day -- wrote: "One must have tradition in oneself, to hate it
>>properly" (_Minima Moralia_, p. 52).  Judging by Ricardo's compulsive
>>appeal to the illusory glories of phantasmatic "Europe," one is
>>tempted to conclude that he is not quite secure enough in the
>>possession of "tradition" to hate it, much less hate it properly.
>
>I think Ricardo has Marx's view of world history right.  Capitalism does
>constitute an improvement insofar as it's a system which allows the
>development of the forces of production to the point where humanity becomes
>capable of making its own history.

The problem is that Ricardo anachronistically sees "Europeans" when &
where he should be seeing capitalism.  To attribute the origin of
freedom to "Europeans" & "European culture" is akin to attributing
the origin of racism to "white men" & "white men's culture."

Yoshie   *****

Yoshie