Global Intifada

One man doesn’t seem to think it is possible for the entire world to modernize, with or without Westernization. In “Eurocentrism“, social theorist and leftist Samir Amin seeks to expose the origins and role that European superiority plays in the global Capitalist/colonial system. He begins his book by providing an overall structure of the book.

First, Amin begins with a basic definition of Eurocentrism which, according to him, is an implicit bias that is silently embedded in many Western academic subjects including history, economics, the natural sciences, linguistics, political science, psychology, etc. For Amin, Eurocentrism is “a culturalist phenomenon in the sense that it assumes the existence of irreducibly distinct cultural invariants that shape the historical paths of different peoples. Eurocentrism is therefore anti-universalist, since it is not interested in seeking possible general laws of human evolution. But it does present itself as universalist, for it claims that imitation of the Western model by all peoples is the only solution to the challenges of our time.” (p vii) However, it is not mere ethnocentrism which is present cultures, but rather, it is “a specifically modern phenomenon, the roots of which go back only to the Renaissance, a phenomenon that did not flourish until the nineteenth century. In this sense, it constitutes on dimension of the culture and ideology of the modern capitalist world.” (p vii) It is a systematic distortion that has permeated various social theories. In order to understand the role of Eurocentrism in supporting the existing world order, Western Hegemony (which Amin interchangeably uses with “capitalism” and “colonialism”) one must scrutinize the origins of the current mode of production which lead to the rise of this hegemony and its necessary components.

Second, Amin devotes a significant portion of the book in analyzing the metaphysical roots of the tributary roots of the mode of production that preceded capitalism. He argues that the Hellenistic world view assisted in the formation of the tributary economic system since it required “universalism” to defuse the chaos caused by the conflict between the competing mythical views of primitive peoples in the communal mode of production. This metaphysics of the Hellenistic system did not originate in any one region, but was the by-product of a synthesis of competing cultures that most likely originated in Egypt. It is the Egyptian construction of the immanency of the human soul that posited in a construction of absolute justice that produces the cultural foundations that make the tributary system possible. Amin notes that the Hellenistic system was split between the “core” of Greece, the Levant, and Egypt and “peripheries” such as Persia, Western, and Slavic Europe. This core/periphery distinction is important later on when Amin deconstructs the Eurocentric view of Greek civilization as the intellectual ancestors of the “West” since it is no surprise that capitalism as an economic system and ideology develops in Europe’s periphery and not its core.

Third, Amin describes how the Muslim world inherited much of the core of the Hellenistic system (Egypt, Greece, the Levant) and was able to harmonize its metaphysics with its scriptural interpretation, producing a brilliant harmony of religion and reason. However, an unintended consequence of this philosophical success was the “closing” of the Muslim world due to the fact that deductive reasoning became the dominant philosophical process as opposed to the empirical mode of reasoning that was a necessary prerequisite for the “scientific development” of the West. Amin emphasizes that Western civilization did not shift to the empirical mode of reasoning due to its intellectual superiority, but in spite of it. Since Western cultures did not possess the necessary intellectual sophistication to reconcile religion with deductive reasoning, they slowly shifted to the empirical mode which was then utilized to diminish the role of religion in the state, producing the secular materialism that gave rise to the capitalist mode of production.

Fourth, from here, Amin’s argument picks up the pace and he goes on to describe how capitalism requires universalism in so far as it is necessary to spread its mode of production and open up foreign markets to acquire the resources and labor of foreign peoples. However, since capitalism is ultimately predicated upon inequality, the bourgeois require a justification for this inequality and hide behind Eurocentrism in this regards. Amin makes the brilliant connection between capitalism/colonialism with the Eurocentric racist undertones of many of the Western academic discourses (social sciences, history, economics, political science, linguistics) to illustrate how the superiority of the West is over exaggerated while minimizing the importance of non-Western states. Thus, Amin expounds the four axioms of Eurocentrism:

“(i) it removes Ancient Greece from the very milieu in which it unfolded and developed - the Orient - in order to annex Hellenism to Europe arbitrarily;

(ii) retains the mark of racism, the fundamental basis on which European cultural unity was constructed;

(iii) interprets Christianity, also annexed arbitrarily to Europe, as the principal factor in the maintenance of European cultural unity, conforming to an unscientific vision of religious phenomena;

(iv) concurrently constructs a vision of the Near East and the more distant Orients on the same racist foundation, again employing an immutable version of religion.” (p 90)

Relying upon Martin Bernal’s work in “Black Athena” that highlights the formation of this Hellomaniacism , Amin asserts that the Enlightenment construction of “myths” develops and Europe, for the first time, views itself as the cultural heir of Ancient Greece, in spite of an almost 15 century gap between the Renaissance and classical Greek culture. In addition to this anachronism, Eurocentric thinkers fail to understand that Ancient Greece did not view itself as an isolated culture, but recognized its interconnectedness with other civilizations such as Egypt, the Semitic peoples, Persia, and even far off India.

The purpose of these myths is not to attain a correct understanding of history, but rather, it is done in order to justify the “exclusion” of non-Western states from the purported universalism of capitalism. In order for the colonialist system to succeed, the colonizer must hide the naked truth of the true source of power, which is exploitation, by developing alternative explanations for the formation of that system. By adopting “immutable” characteristics, non-Western peoples are excluded from the “success” of the Western model. It is because non-Western peoples are not “white” enough or “civilized” enough that they have failed. The colonized, then, is given the choice of adhering to its own culture and “failing” in historical (but really economic) development or conforming to the Western model which is predicated on racial overtones (thus, still resulting in their exclusion). Amin also points out that the rise of racism in Europe corresponds directly with the rise of this Eurocentric construction which was substantiated not on superstition, ethnocentrism, or religious fanaticism, but rather, upon purportedly scientific, sociological, and economic grounds. The Darwinian view of evolution infects other academic disciplines which leads to the inevitable conclusion that Western states are the culmination of human civilization and no alternative to its path is possible. The underlying message of Eurocentrism is one of assimilation and integration into an inherently unequal and oppressive system that seeks to subjugate other peoples. Thus, it should come to no surprise that in the 19th and 20th century, the West and Westernized states (such as Japan and Russia) picks up the pace of the rabid fanaticism embedded within Eurocentrism and engages in the mass murder of non-Western peoples. Amin chillingly points out that Nazism is merely the extreme logical outcome of Eurocentrism and an inherently latent possibility that may erupt in the near future.

This should be noted by thinkers such as Tariq Ramadan, author of “Western Muslims and the Future of Islam” who calls for the integration of the descendants of the colonized who live in the West but are still denied the economic opportunities of their “fellow citizens.” The Eurocentric bias is very much alive today and the unequal financial and legal treatment of Muslims in Western states is sufficient evidence to illustrate its continued existence. If Amin’s portrayal of Eurocentrism has any truth to it, one should expect the return of the mass murder of non-Western minorities that reside in the West as they pose a threat to the monopolization of the capitalist system that the West has relied upon for its hegemonic existence. The disturbing trend of the movement of right wing parties from isolated fringes into the mainstream political establishment in the Europe may be a possible hint of the return of the fascism in the West, which is in reality, Eurocentrism in its most obvious form.

Fifthly, and lastly, Amin argues that capitalism itself has created fundamental contradictions that must have created an explosive environment in the world. The failure of the development of non-Western states and the inability of most non-Western minorities residing in the West to achieve the success and standing of their Western counterparts are beginning to expose the true roots of Western hegemony as being exploitation. Amin follows up on the arguments propounded by Ibn Khaldun, and other Ashari ‘Ulema such as Imam Juwayni as well as contemporary thinkers such as Kenneth Pomeranz, upon the role of geographical limitations upon the development of advanced economies and high culture. He argues that the failure of the development of non-Western societies cannot be attributed to internal immutable or mutable characteristics (i.e. the lack of adherence to the neo-classical, democratic, or other Eurocentric paradigms). There are external causes for the inability to develop that may have prevented foreign states from embarking upon the Western model. Thus, Amin makes a similar argument as Pomeranz does that Malthusian limitations upon global economic development and his candid conclusion that capitalism will simply not be able to promote equality or development on a global level without destroying the planet. His analysis in this regards is stunning and connects the works of Albert Memmi’s “The Colonizer and the Colonized”, Edward Said’s “Orientalism”, Jean Paul Sartre’s “Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism”, Andrew Gunder Franke “World Accumulation…”, and even Kenneth Pomeranz “The Great Divergence.”

Amin concludes with a scathing criticism of the reaction of the Muslim world to Western hegemony (which he terms “capitalism” and uses interchangeably with “colonialism” and “the current system”, something else that I don’t agree with since many of the early Western hegemons were not capitalist in any sense, exposing a minor contradiction in Amin’s underlying argument which is a result of his ideological leaning) as having failed to properly take into account of this hegemony and at best will produce mere violent or spasmotic reactions, which he characterizes as “fundamentalism” and “parochialism”, both of which will be incapable of overthrowing the present system. For Amin, neither the dominant capitalist nor the reactionary Marxist systems stand a chance at challenging the future ecological and economic collapse that humanity is rocketing towards. Only socialist systems stand poised to challenge the hegemony of the capitalist system, but they can only do so if they “delink” their economies from the global system, thus cutting off the vital raw materials and market that capitalism requires in order to propagate its unequal growth and development.

Overall, the book is impressive in its depth and analysis. However, Amin is not without his errors. In my opinion, the greatest issue with Amin’s work is his overemphasis on the role of ideology in historical interpretation which results in the accidental purveying many historical inaccuracies. For example, he describes the birth of capitalism as occurring when the Renaissance started. However, the ‘universalistic’ decrees of world domination at this time did not come from the secular element, but from the religious element (i.e. popes and crusader brotherhoods that shifted their focus from the Mediterranean to Western Europe). He is also extremely vague as to the precise moment that the capitalist system developed. While Amin correctly identifies the role of the Atlantic economy in the rise of capitalism, he forgets that this economy simply was not capitalist, but largely mercantile in nature, with feudal elements, such as in the plantation system which is essentially a left over of the feudal tributary mode of production. Pre-capitalist systems in Italy had absolute no colonial expansions while tributary-states such as Spain and Portugal expanded greatly. The economic policies of both Britain and France that lead to the formation of the Atlantic economy were largely mercantile in nature. Capitalism, it appears, is more of a by-product of colonialism rather than colonialism being caused by capitalism, especially when the former preceded the crystallization of the latter. Moreover, the economic institutions developed by the West had similar but distinct counterparts in other parts of the world, such as China and India that lead to economic growth without colonial expansion, as argued by Pomeranz.

His portrayal of Islam is also problematic. For example, he traces the roots of Islamic metaphysics within the Mu’tazila school, although both Shi’ism and Khwarajism preceded it, thus contradicting his assertion that sectarian divisions were merely economic or political challenges to the tributary mode of production that required alternative metaphysical explanations. He overemphasizes the role of the Mu’tazila in Islamic history and neglects the fact that not all sects developed scholastic traditions in their rebellion against the state, such as the Khwaraj. Also, there seems to be evidence that the Mutakallimun of the Ottoman Empire played a direct role in developing alternative economic systems that attempted to move away from the tributary system that can be characterized as pre-capitalist as well.

For a defense of Amin’s book from the charges of “Occidentalism”, see this review by Shahid Alam.

To answer the original question posed in the title of this post, modernization carries within it the implicit bias of Westernization and Eurocentrism and none of these social theories will ever be able to create either the equalization of Western and non-Western cultures nor a standard of living that can be transferred to the present day peripheries due to ecological limitations. This inequality also manifests itself in the treatment of non-European minorities that reside in the West. Lastly, the Earth simply cannot withstand such an economic model and either this system will collapse or it will be replaced by an alternative system. Thus, Muslims should be extremely skeptical of those among us that promote a discussion of modernity without deconstructing the hegemonic discourse that such a discussion is contained within. Any discourse on the modernization of the Muslim world, with or without a discussion of Westernization, that is decontextualized from the historical roots of Western hegemony through colonialism and exploitation should be met with the highest standard of strict scrutiny.

Share This