There Is An Important Distinction Between Centricity And Cen ✓ Solved

There Is An Important Distinction Between Centricity And Centrism

There is an important distinction between "centricity" and "centrism," and that distinction hinges on the difference between the suffixes "-ity" and "-ism." The former simply denotes the quality or state of being of something; the latter has a very specific connotation: It points to a very specific ideology or doctrine, often in a negative way. It follows that Eurocentricity and Eurocentrism, which are often used interchangeably, are, in fact, quite different. The former simply tells us that the center of Europe is in Europe, which goes without saying; the latter suggests an ideology according to which Europe is at the center of the world, and therefore superior to all other regions of the world.

Eurocentrism turned into West-centrism when the world was divided into West and non-West. For our purposes, we can use the terms Eurocentrism and West-centrism interchangeably. In your paper, explain in your own words how you understand the difference between Eurocentricity and Eurocentrism, and, more generally, between "-ity" and "-ism." Think, for example, of "nationality" versus "nationalism," or any other such pair, and reflect on the difference between them as well as on what each of those two terms entails. Then explain why a world centered around Europe or the West (or any other region, for that matter) is problematic, to say the least, and how that makes it impossible for a true and sustainable form of globalization (which you may want to define) to arise.

Use examples from our readings (especially from the Chomsky & Vltchek book and/or from The Amartya Sen book) to illustrate the damage that has been done through 500 hundred years of colonization. Use examples of specific countries to show how they were robbed of their 'center' and therefore of their identity. Requirements: --You have to use at least two course readings and, optionally, one independently researched source. --Do not use Wikipedia as one of your sources. You should feel free to read Wikipedia for information and ideas, but if you want to quote and/or paraphrase, you should go to the original source(s). --The essay must be typed and double-spaced in 12-point font. --Use MLA style.

Paper For Above Instructions

The concepts of "centricity" and "centrism" are foundational in understanding cultural and ideological frameworks. Centricity, denoted by the suffix "-ity," refers to a state or quality of being central or focused around a certain point. For instance, the term "Eurocentricity" merely implies that Europe is at the center of a particular discourse or context, which is a basic geographical or cultural observation. It states a fact without carrying ideological weight. In contrast, "centrism," marked by the suffix "-ism," embodies a belief system or ideology; hence, "Eurocentrism" implies a viewpoint where Europe is not only central in a geographic sense but is also deemed superior, placing it as a moral and cultural benchmark against which all other regions are judged.

This ideological framework is problematic because it fosters a worldview where non-European cultures and societies are marginalized. Centricity presents a neutral observation, but when transformed into centrism, it endorses an ethnocentric perspective that valorizes one culture over others. This ideological supremacy can distort historical narratives and perpetuate power imbalances, which is particularly evident when examining the historical contexts of colonization.

Drawing comparisons with terms like "nationality" versus "nationalism" can further clarify this distinction. While "nationality" refers to a person's affiliation with a nation, "nationalism" infers a belief in the superiority or interests of one's nation over others, often leading to exclusionary or aggressive policies. This shift from a neutral descriptor to a charged ideology is a central theme in understanding how ideas of centricity can morph into dangerous doctrines of centrism.

The transition from Eurocentricity to Eurocentrism is not merely academic language; it has profound implications for identities and global interactions. As Amartya Sen illustrates in his works, a Eurocentric worldview can obscure the rich tapestry of global cultures and histories, reducing them to mere footnotes in a Eurocentric narrative. This is evident in how colonized nations have had their historical narratives overwritten, often rendering them invisible or inferior in the eyes of the global community.

Eurocentrism’s historical legacy can be profoundly damaging for nations robbed of their centers and identities. The colonial experience disrupted indigenous cultures and societies, enforcing foreign views and systems that devalued local customs, languages, and institutions. For instance, in India, British colonialism not only restructured the economy and political systems but also imposed an educational system that sought to minimize native cultures and languages, thereby instilling a sense of inferiority among the colonized (Chomsky & Vltchek, 2016). Similar patterns can be seen in African nations where colonial powers often replaced indigenous governance structures with their own, perpetuating power dynamics that favored the colonizers and sidelined native leadership and frameworks of knowledge.

The concept of globalization further complicates the implications of Eurocentrism. True globalization should ideally reflect an interconnected world that values diverse cultural perspectives. Yet, when a singular worldview dominates, particularly one entrenched in Eurocentrism, it risks creating a homogenized global culture that diminishes local identities. The very essence of globalization should be to celebrate and integrate a multitude of cultures, allowing for mutual respect and understanding rather than one culture prevailing over others.

Drawing on the critical perspectives of Chomsky and Vltchek (2016) in their analysis of Western imperialism and through Sen's lens on identity and pluralism, the challenges posed by a Eurocentric worldview are brought to the forefront. For instance, in the context of globalization, Sen emphasizes that real interconnectedness requires recognizing the capabilities and contributions of all cultures, rather than prioritizing a singular dominant narrative (Sen, 2006). The lack of recognition for cultural diversity often leads to misunderstandings and fosters an environment where conflict can flourish, contradicting the principal objective of global unity.

Moreover, specific examples illustrate the challenges of a Eurocentric focus. In Bolivia, for instance, the indigenous people’s knowledge and connection to the land have often been disregarded by colonial powers and post-colonial regimes that favor Western scientific understandings. This tension signifies not only a clash of knowledge systems but also the cultural erasure experienced by indigenous populations. Such examples serve to underline the fundamental problem with a Eurocentric approach: it marginalizes vital perspectives that are essential for sustainable development and coexistence in a diverse world.

Consequently, addressing the ideologies of centricity and centrism is crucial for fostering a more inclusive and equitable global narrative. Recognizing the nuances between these concepts allows for greater appreciation of cultural identities and the importance of localized perspectives in both historical and contemporary contexts. By dismantling the hegemonic narratives that prioritizes one center over others, we pave the way for a more realistic and sustainable form of globalization.

In conclusion, the distinction between Eurocentricity and Eurocentrism lies at the very heart of how we understand culture and global interactions. While the former can be perceived as a neutral standpoint, the latter embodies a discriminatory ideology that has shaped histories and identities across the globe. Embracing a truly global perspective necessitates a commitment to recognizing the myriad cultures and histories that compose the world, enabling us to move beyond a Eurocentric lens toward a more balanced and equitable understanding of our shared humanity.

References

• Chomsky, Noam, and Andre Vltchek. "On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare." Pluto Press, 2016.
• Sen, Amartya. "Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny." W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
• Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. "Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples." Zed Books, 2012.
• Mignolo, Walter D. "The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization." University of Michigan Press, 1995.
• Kaplan, Robert D. "The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War." Atlantic Monthly, 1994.
• Fanon, Frantz. "Black Skin, White Masks." Grove Press, 1967.
• Loomba, Ania. "Colonialism/Postcolonialism." Routledge, 1998.
• Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o. "Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature." Currey, 1986.
• Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In "Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory," Routledge, 1994.
• Bhabha, Homi K. "The Location of Culture." Routledge, 1994.