Arrogant West

From Zanecorpwiki

The idea is this: the West is special. The West is the basis for the modern world. The West is the source for much of what is good in the modern world. Democracy is peculiar to the West. It was developed in the West, thrived in the West, and only spread from the West by the West. Not only that, but liberty, freedom, and rational thought are also products of the West and the West alone. All peoples of all places owe whatever measure they have of these things--all being of manifest good--entirely to the West.

The narrative usually starts with Greece, and Athens in particular. Democracy was indeed a special and fairly unique development and deserves our admiration and attention. This, the story goes, is the root of Western civilization. From Greece to Rome to Western Europe to North America and the United States which becomes the bringer of all things good and Westy to the rest of the world.

Those that hold to the Awesome West narrative claim that liberties and democracy are not natural or necessary, but a product of a superior civilization.ref group=notesThose that propose this view are unlikely to use the term superior civilization, but the implication is inherent in the narrative./ref It is therefore incumbent upon the West (by which the proponents usually mean the United States) to defend and spread these ideas. The narrative underlies and is used to justify so much policy in the West, from the Cold War to the Iraq War.

The problem is, it just doesn't hold water.

First, we should be suspicious because it's such an obviously self-serving interpretation of history. This alone doesn't make it wrong, just suspicious. That's why Donald Kagan, Yale Professor of Greek Studies says this in his introductory lecture: I think the Nobel Prize laureate, V.S. Naipaul, a man born in Trinidad, of Indian parents, was right, when he spoke of the modern world as our universal civilization shaped chiefly by the West.ref group=noteshttp://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/transcripts/transcript1-introduction/ref It's important to establish that non-Westerners who ostensibly don't have the self-serving bias feel the same way. However, such anecdotes are themselves self serving and fail to rise to the standard of evidence.

Worse, the narrative is inconsistent with the basic facts of history. The Grecian civilization was based on Eastern civilization. To call Greece a Western civilization is beyond arbitrary. It's re-writing history to fit later developments.

Moving beyond labels, the narrative implies a Western tradition of Democracy and political freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Roman Republic degenerated into the Imperium and the remainder of Western history was one of chaos and tyrany.ref group=notesI use tyrany here in the full pejorative sense, not in the classical Greek sense./ref If these things were truly Western, then how is it they tradition was completely absent--or at least no more present than other cultures--from the Western experience for over two thousand years?

Finally, I think we can easily do better. Better in terms of fitting the facts and therefore better at suggesting advantageous policy.

The Awesome West narrative is based firmly in the idea that Democracy, freedoms, etc. are not inevitable because they are rare in human history. However, this is like saying that increasing lifespan or knowledge of mathematics or literacy are not inevitable because they are rare in history. In fact, these things are inevitable. As time goes on, civilization gains more knowledge and that knowledge becomes more diffuse and emmust/em lead to advances in medicine, mathematics, and education. That's how societies work.

To say that democracy (etc.) are not inevitable is to deny our experience of general advancement. If we accept democracy as a more advanced form of government--a proposition for which we have ample argumentation--then we would expect democracy to develop. The fact that it developed first in the West is merely a result of the economic and technical developments which created and empowered the middle class.

Indeed, if we look at the ancient Chinese Empire, the reason they failed to develop democracy on their own was because their advanced, completely merit based bureaucracy gave an outlet to class aspirations. Personally I am quite certain if the leaders had failed to develop such an enlightened and egalitarian system of government, the people would have developed one for them.

So while it is true that democracy did developed in the West, it doesn't make sense to attribute the development to a particular cultural disposition. Nor should we think democracy (etc.) as particularly fragile, surprising, or isolated. As the ACLU's tag line says, freedom cannot defend itself. On the other hand, when it is in there interests and economy and technology empowers them to do so, there are plenty of people willing to demand and defend freedoms.

See also Arrogant Christianity.

Notes

references group=notes /