Eurocentrism: Colonialism under sheepskin

‘Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.’- S Jaishankar 

Foreign Minister of India, an oriental country (“rest” from the “west”), probably had not forgotten how Churchill’s exploitation of the word “barbarians” to fuel ‘western war’ in 1943 led to a devastating famine causing the death of nearly 3m people, including children, women and elderly. A decade later, he was awarded with the Nobel Prize in Literature, for his biographical description about defending human values. This is an irony of eurocentrism. Eurocentrism is rooted in a colonial mind-set that is poised on the idea that the knowledge, culture and civilization of Europe, including its extension to America and other former white colonies, are superior and the remaining as savage. As Jaishankar stated, Europe’s problems and its policies have always been presented as the global problems and policies, without considering the relevance for the whole world. 

The concept of global world, i.e. globalization of politics, economics and culture have derived its roots from the ideas of the western world, as opposed to ‘Vasudhaiba Kutumbakam’, meaning, the world is one family. It is the same mind-set that the western lens dominates what we think globally. Academic fields favor European perspectives, restricting global understanding and fostering ethnocentrism, leading to stereotyping and discrimination against non-European cultures. Today, extensive Eurocentric social theories have blended with neoliberalism that determines our vision of globality. Neo-liberal ideas claim to champion prosperity and development, pointing to calibrating numbers as indicators of progress. However, a question arises: is this growth a result of continuous human progression or the influence of neoliberalism? Even the term ‘sustainability’ derives its origin from the Western concept. After Europe and the United States had submitted benefitting from the development driven by industrialization, they popularized the principle to mean to protect the earth and its environment for the future generation. 

Now, when it comes to saying that human life has improved and we're moving towards sustainable development, my take is a bit nuanced. Certainly, technology, healthcare, and education have brought positive changes for certain sections of society. But are those changes accessible to all sections of society? While the champions of neoliberal economies are organizing the feast of prosperity, one large section is uninvited and another large section is struggling to appear at the table. The opulence and resources of the feast were one time or another expropriated from those who are not at the table today. 

The uncontrolled spread of neo-liberalism and globalization in South Asian countries is causing havoc, particularly in the realm of economic competition. The flood of inexpensive imported products from dominant market economies has overtaken our locally made goods, resulting in a trade deficit and creating further dependence on external markets. When eurocentrism historically has created a huge global economic imbalance, how can there be fair competition among first world economies and third world economies? 

The flagbearer of neoliberalism, Bretton Woods System, probably was the first of the Eurocentric policies presented to the East as a magic wand for development. The preconditions of structural adjustment to obtain monetary aids caused malfunctioning of the existing governance mechanism leading to perpetual political instability in the developing countries. The peculiarities of the Asiatic society were blatantly ignored to glamify the European idea of development. 

In South Asia, this has resulted in further marginalization of vulnerable populations, increasing economic disparity, limited access to essential services, and displacement due to market-driven policies. Privatization of essential services like healthcare, education, and utilities lead to a further exclusion of the marginalized. Agricultural sectors in South Asia are also vulnerable to the effects of neo-liberal policies. Market-oriented reforms have caused disadvantage to small farmers, sustenance agriculture based economies contributing to rural distress and migration. 

Multinational companies, the new Trojan horse have penetrated underdeveloped countries through neo-liberal policies starting to exploit natural and human resources right from their onset. Climate change, degradation of biodiversity, and social disparities persist as pressing challenges at a global scale. Indigenous people, once at the forefront in making truce with nature are likely to suffer from the climate disaster- mainly a result of neoliberalism, while others enjoyed the fruits. The crisis on food security is one of the evident and major failures of the Euro-centric idea of development. The production of hybrid and genetically modified seeds by multinational companies like Monsanto take over the entire agricultural system, a direct hegemony forced over indigenous scientific knowledge which has resisted unsuccessfully through food sovereignty movements. 

Addressing the problems associated with neoliberalism outside Europe, requires a careful consideration of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of market-oriented policies. Europe needs to realize that the Oriental societies are not the experimentation ground for the Eurocentric ideas of neoliberalism. Plus, the Orient societies do not require a European-meter to curate their progress. Although global challenges require global efforts of mitigation and prevention, the peculiarities of the Orient societies should never be meddled with. 

It is true that the world has made progress in recent times in numerous aspects, but Europe is not the cause of the improved human condition. Rather it is the opposite. Before European colonialism came to the Oriental Societies, civilization was thriving. Asia constituted the majority of the world’s wealth and prosperity. The ongoing major thirty eight conflicts continue to further deteriorate living conditions—which are either the problems Europe created or are the remnant of the Eurocentric idea of superiority mastered through imperialism. Only after the fall of colonies, the world’s societies have been progressing towards an improved human condition. Europe can only be credited for the progress towards sustainable development in one way, i.e., its colonial downfall. Moreover, it is now high-time that the Oriental and Indigenous ideas of governance should be credited for the progress towards sustainable development.