Emergence of European Identity

A good piece of analysis on the emergence of European/Western identity:

“The process by which people in the West came to define what made their own civilization distinctive among the civilizations of the world entailed drawing a series of sharp contrasts between what they noww began to see as Western and what they began to see as non-Western. These contrasts delienated those characteristics and virtues which Europeans were coming to see as unique to Western civilization, especially in its modern form, and which they thought accounted for its increasing power, wealth and knowledge. Conversely, it was other societies’ lack of these characteristics, these core values and traits, that made them weak and backward and that thus both facilitated and justified Western domination. In the course of defining who they were not and who their ‘others’ were, Europeans simultaneously defined and consolidated their own identity.”

Zachary Lockman, Contending Visions of the Middle East

Multiple Histories of Capital

In his chapter on Marx’s critique on capital, Dipesh Chakrabarti ( Provincializing Europe : Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, Princeton 2000) tries to deal with the idea that provincialized Europe has a universal and overarching character. Marx criticized capital on two categories: the abstract human and the idea of history. As historicism assumes that capital arose in Europe out of the Enlightenment rationalism and humanism, it constitutes a unity both in time and space. For Chakrabarti, and Marx, the main reason behind this assumption is the need for a homogenous and common unit for measuring human activity. This measurement will of course be designed to reduce diversity and human belongings into one category called ‘labor’. Abstract labor, therefore, is to destroy differences among workers. Abstract labor is abstracted from any empirical history, it is like a ghost. However, paradoxically, capital is in need of a human, concrete, labor in advance in o...

The Civilization of Clash - A Critique

Samuel Huntington, the writer of ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ article, imagines a disagreement between major cultures of the world. He suggests, for the future, a certain separation between civilizations that cannot be avoided. Through the centuries, a fault line between civilizations was created by the different views of God and man, the individual and the group, and so on. This line is also gradually growing because of the unbearable Western military, economic and cultural superiority to others. The line will not soon disappear because it is more fundamental than the separation created by political approaches.

Oppression

The worst oppression is that of knowledge. I think, an expert who assumes he has right to direct you is the most cruel oppressor. If one speaks and gives 'advice' without concerning his audience, their needs and capacities, he actually tries to maintain his authority over them. Knowledge, in this sense, becomes a tool in hands of an expert for sucking all the nourishment from non-expert people. Look at those so-called possessors of knowledge. They are as if gods of the society. Any word coming from their mouths gains an authorization quickly. However, their words not always open locked doors, rather sometimes lock the doors to people in order to keep their privileged position in the society. They consider themselves as ‘gatekeepers’ keeping lay people away from the source of knowledge. They are afraid of that once people get access to the sources, there would be no need for these so-called keepers of knowledge.

fingertips ~

Search This Blog