>>In contrast to Weber, I'm saying that the idea of the "West" and the
>>ensemble of social relations that make this unit seem "natural &
>>eternal" are the creations of capitalism. Therefore, Thucydides,
>>Aristotle, etc. were not "of the West."
>>It's the same type of error as saying that Socrates was "gay."
>>Anachronism, in a word.
>
>What does this alleged error have to do with cultural racism or
>Eurocentrism, though?
Have you read Martin Bernal, for instance? If you haven't, here's a teaser:
***** Greeks of the Classical and Hellenistic periods 500-50 BCE believed that their religion had come from Egypt that there had also been profound Egyptian influences on the formation of their philosophy and mathematics. Similarly they maintained that Phoenicians from what is now Lebanon and Northern Israel/Palestine had introduced cultural artifacts notably the alphabet.
I have called such beliefs, the "Ancient Model" of Greek origins. This Ancient Model was generally accepted until the beginning of the 19th century CE (AD). It then began to fall into disrepute and by the 1840s, it was replaced by what I have called the "Aryan Model." According to this, the Greek stories of their origins were mistaken and Greek culture was "in fact" a mixture of the soft but civilized natives of the Aegean basin and the dynamic Northerners who had conquered them. This mixture was seen as having created the perfect balance of Greek civilisation.
In Volume I of Black Athena I argued that the destruction of the Ancient Model was not the result of any new discoveries. Rather, it came from various ideological forces, one of which was the racism which made it intolerable that Greece, now seen as the pure cradle of Europe should have received its higher culture from Africans and "Semites."
The rise of the "Aryan Model" (which should be distinguished from the fall of the Ancient one) came partly for these reasons but also because, by the 1840s, it was generally recognised that the Greek language was closely related to Sanskrit and Latin. Furthermore, it was plausibly supposed that the Indo-European linguistic family to which they all belonged, had originated somewhere to the north of Greece. Therefore, the founders of the modern discipline of classics envisaged the Northern invaders as Indo-European speakers or "Aryans. Thus, although there were no Greek traditions of an invasion from the north and there was no archaeological evidence to suggest it, the case for such a conquest could be made on linguistic grounds alone. It was admitted that there were many Non-Indo-European features in Greek, but these were attributed to the language of the conquered early inhabitants or "Pre-Hellenes."...
Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization: Volume I: The Fabrication of Greece 1785-1985. Rutgers University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-8135-1276-x; ISBN 0-8135-1277-8 (pbk)....
<http://www.blackathena.com/outline.html> *****
As Carrol noted, the second volume of _Black Athena_ has been criticized & (I think) shown to be incorrect by scholars of ancient languages. However, Bernal's criticism of the Aryan Model which misrepresents ancient Greece as "the pure cradle of Europe" still stands, since it is an analysis separable from the rest of his work.
And Bernal's criticism is just one of many ways to attack this problem of racism created through an anachronistic assimilation of societies before capitalism to the so-called "West." Another way is a criticism of the Hegelian dialectic. And yet another way is Brenner's comparative analysis & emphasis upon class struggles. And one learns much from world systems theory, the Annales school, etc. about the complex & shifting economic, political, & cultural linkages among pre-capitalist societies. One also remembers W. E. B. DuBois's work on "double consciousness" (Blacks, etc. have been "in the West," but have they been "of the West" & treated as such?) which Paul Gilroy inherited: see _The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness_ (1992).
>And I am not so sure it is an error: every era creates its own
>antecedents, and of course before capitalsim we could not have said
>that Hayek or Hobbes belong together with Aristotle and Thucydides
>in a way that none of them belong with Confucius or Buddha. But
>after capitalism arose, we can see that there is a tradition that
>includes Aristotle and Hayek, but none that includes, in the same
>way, Aristotle and Confucius. So I am not even sure it is
>anachrobistic to say that there is such a thing a Western
>Civuilization.
(A) In the sense of the "Invention of Tradition," yes, there exists the "Western Civilization." Courses in it are taught, books on it are written, etc., recreating it daily in culture.
(B) And it is an empirical fact that the "West" (Western Europe & North America, & maybe Australia & New Zealand) is indeed today far richer than the rest of the world, with an important exception of Japan.
The problem is that those who speak of the "Western Civilization" are, even now, seldom aware that it is a historical construct in the sense of A. For many -- though not all -- of those who lived in the late nineteenth century & the early twentieth century, as Weber did, certainly ancient Athens was _really_ of the "West" before the "West" came into its social & ideological being with the rise of capitalism.
And B returns us to the debate on the causes of polarization between core & periphery. We must turn to Robert Brenner, Eric Williams, Samir Amin, etc. I'm afraid, however, that LBO-talkers may not be interested in this debate.
BTW, is Japan "of the West" in the ideological sense? During the Cold War, it partially & temporarily was. Now it isn't. It's a "crony capitalism dominated by an inefficient bureaucracy" ("Oriental Despotism" redux?).
Aside from the question of Japan, I'd like to, more generally, call attention to the simultaneous claim to & rejection of universality advanced by believers in the "Western Civilization." For instance, Max Weber writes: "A product of modern European civilization, studying any problem of universal history, is bound to ask himself to what combination of circumstances the fact should be attributed that in Western civilization, and in Western civilization only, cultural phenomenal have appeared which (as we like to think) lie in a line of development having _universal_ significance and value" (_The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_, Trans. Talcott Parsons, London & New York: Routledge, 1992, p. 13). It seems to me to be an intriguing contradiction to assert one culture's particularity & superiority to all others on the basis that it is of "universal significance and value." It is common to see so-called "Western" intellectuals assert the superiority of the "West" _& try to have the alleged superiority recognized & affirmed by alleged inferiors (so-called "non-Westerners")_ -- an odd passion that is parochial & provincial, not to mention self-defeating. If one wants to have others admire _& incorporate them into_ one's "universal culture," it makes sense _not_ to advance a theory that the said culture is inherently & eternally different from & superior to others. I mean, not everyone from the rest of the world is as obliging as V. S. Naipaul.... More likely than not, you get Edward Said, Jim M. Blaut, Gayatri Spivak, Frantz Fanon, etc., and that's if you're lucky. More people may have been influenced by Ayatolla Khomeini & Louis Farrakhan than Edward Said & Frantz Fanon.
>But even if there's no such thing, it's not racist to be
>anachronistic in thsi way, nor even "culruralist" or "Eurocentric,"
>unless yiou also add: the West is the Best. And you haven't yet
>stuck that one on Weber. (Wouldn't surprise me if he believed it,
>but you haven't shown it).
No, I don't claim that Weber unambiguously asserts that "the West is the Best." Just as one can be an ambivalent critic of capitalism _and yet_ advocate the theory of the Iron Cage that essentially says "There Is No Alternative," Weber was an ambivalent critic of, as well as a believer in, inherent superiority of the "West."
Recall Edward Said's subtle analysis of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." One can be an ambivalent imperialist (alert to irony; aware of one's own complicity; critical of brutal or inefficient imperialists who have no faith in any idea), just as Marlow is.
***** "Mind," he began again, lifting one arm from the elbow, the palm of the hand outwards, so that, with his legs folded before him, he had the pose of a Buddha preaching in European clothes and without a lotus-flower -- "Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this. What saves us is efficiency -- the devotion to efficiency. But these chaps were not much account, really. They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force -- nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind -- as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea -- something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to..." *****
One may analyze Weber's ambivalent attitude toward a "calling," taking hint from Said's analysis of "Heart of Darkness." Weber's ambivalence toward "charisma" & "bureaucracy" is noteworthy as well.
Yoshie