Re: [PEN-L] Books/ articles criticizing this eurocentric idea
By all means, don't read Orlando Patteron, FREEDOM. It might convince you that the idea is not so absurd. (Caveat: It's on my to read bookshelf) For most of human history, and for nearly all of the non-Western owrld prior to Western contact, freedom was, and for many still remains, anything but an obvious or desirable goal... Indeed, non-Western peoples have thought so little about freedom that most human languages did not even possess a word for the concept before contact with the West. Stuart Elliott www.ksworkbeat.orgKansas Workbeat http://newappeal.blogspot.com/ My blog www.laborstart.org Labour Start - Original Message - From: Walt Byars [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:18 PM Subject: [PEN-L] Books/ articles criticizing this eurocentric idea Hi, can anyone recommend some books or articles criticizing the (absurd sounding) claim that that the idea of political freedom and its desirability were invented in the West and only exists in other cultures because of Western influence (and similar such claims)?
Re: [PEN-L] Books/ articles criticizing this eurocentric idea
Walt Byars wrote: Hi, can anyone recommend some books or articles criticizing the (absurd sounding) claim that that the idea of political freedom and its desirability were invented in the West and only exists in other cultures because of Western influence (and similar such claims)? I don't know of any single book that does the trick, but I would recommend the following: 1. Basil Davidson, African Civilization Revisited: From Antiquity to Modern Times 2. Edward Said, Orientalism 3. Zia Sardar: various titles focused on Islam 4. A.G. Frank: Re-Orient
Re: [PEN-L] Books/ articles criticizing this eurocentric idea
At the risk of more rants, I will also recommend Sen's The Argumentative Indian. There are a couple of chapters (the first two) that deal with democracy, pluralism, and voice in a broad (Indian) historical sweep making precisely the argument that democracy is neither new nor western in practice. As for other areas of discussion, which apparent was not present in the Financial Times piece, there are many essays in the book that deal explicitly with inequality, illiteracy, poverty, gender discrimination, etc. Anthony Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor Currently Comparative International Development Senior Visiting Research Fellow University of WashingtonAsia Research Institute 1900 Commerce StreetNational University of Singapore Tacoma, WA 98402, USA 469 A Tower Block Phone: (253) 692-4462 Bukit Timah Road #10-01 Fax : (253) 692-5718 Singapore 259770 http://tinyurl.com/yhjzrm Ph: (65) 6516 8785 xx On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Louis Proyect wrote: Walt Byars wrote: Hi, can anyone recommend some books or articles criticizing the (absurd sounding) claim that that the idea of political freedom and its desirability were invented in the West and only exists in other cultures because of Western influence (and similar such claims)? I don't know of any single book that does the trick, but I would recommend the following: 1. Basil Davidson, African Civilization Revisited: From Antiquity to Modern Times 2. Edward Said, Orientalism 3. Zia Sardar: various titles focused on Islam 4. A.G. Frank: Re-Orient
Re: [PEN-L] Books/ articles criticizing this eurocentric idea
me: On the other hand, Western-style possessive individualism (a.k.a. anti-social personality disorder) does seem to have arisen with capitalism, somewhere between 1600 and 1700. (The first well-known book with this sort of ideology is Hobbes' LEVIATHAN, published in 1660.) Possessive individualism suggests a different kind of political freedom than democracy does. David Shemano writes: Do you really believe that Western-style possessive individualism did not exist before 1600? Or do you mean that there was no ideological defense of the behavior before Hobbes, which is a different point? On the latter point first: I used the phrase well-known because I _don't know_ of any other defenders of possessive individualism before Hobbes, though they may exist. Though I try to know the history of philosophy and political theory, it's not my specialty, so I may have missed it. Nonetheless, I think that Hobbes' use of the concept fits the way history usually works: a real-world phenomenon arises -- or begins to rise -- and then philosophers start rationalizing it. I doubt that anyone read Hobbes or Locke and then said wow! I coulda been a possessive individualist! starting a chain-reaction (or contagion) of self-centeredness. People usually look to philosophers for rationalizations of what they're already thinking or doing. Two meanings of rationalization fit here: the philosopher justifies the actions and thoughts _and_ sands off the rough edges, making them more coherent for people. On the former point: I'm using C.B. Macpherson's definition of possessive individualism: To the him, someone embracing this kind of individualism (1) sees an individual as essentially the proprietor of his own person and capabilities, while (2) owing absolutely nothing to society for them. A possessive individualist sees his possessions and personal attributes as merely measures of his success, without any obligation to give back to society. In the tradition of John Locke, he does not steal or violate others' rights under current law. Though he wants as much as possible, a possessive individualist is a free-rider rather than a thief. (This assumes, of course, that Locke's assertion that property rights are natural is accepted. If property rights are a social creation, then the line between a free-rider and a thief fades.) By the way, the possessive individualists _do_ give back. But instead of doing so as part of a democratic society, they follow the Bill Gates model: First, they grab for all the lucre they can, by crook or by hook. Then, they try to avoid even a minimal amount of public responsibility by avoiding taxes as much as possible. Next, the give back in a way that they have as complete personal control over as possible, so that charity involves the philanthropist's personal taste (attitudes, ideology) as does buying a yacht. In fact, it may involve buying a yacht. A charitable foundation combines these last two parts. The grab for lucre step is maximized to allow the maximum philanthropy (along with maximum consumption -- the philanthropist balances costs and benefits in order to balance philanthropy and personal consumption). This possessive individualism is different from other kinds of nastiness, brutishness, and shortness seen in other countries and historical eras. Clearly such leaders as Attila the Hun were greedy in a lot of ways. But they saw themselves as integral links in the chain of kinship, tribal relations, and kinship, while interpreting these chains in religious terms. (Locke and Hobbes also used religious terms, but these were jettisoned later. Hobbes may not have believed in them at all, using religion as a tool for persuasion.) Attila, I think, was like many or most in the pre-capitalist era: he saw an essential unity of what's in it for me and what's in it for my kin, my tribe, my ethnicity. That does not mean that old Attila didn't do really well for himself and his immediate kin, but he justified almost everything in terms of society. Giving back and what's in it for me were united as part of the seemingly seamless web of social relationships. Note that this was not just a matter of personal attitudes on Attila's part. He was in reality part of a web of kinship obligations and the like. The glue that held his armies together was kin, tribe, ethnic, and religious in nature. If he did not give back to his community (kin, tribe, etc.) his whole enterprise would collapse. Attila's personal attitudes meshed well with the society he operated in. That's a key reason for his success. BTW, from what I understand, such barbarians as Attila have received a horribly bad rap. Partially this has been done by exaggerating the virtue of the self-described civilized. BTW2, the attitudes I ascribe to Attila still apply to our captains and generals of industry, within their corporate organizations: they see their own greed in terms of what's good for their organizations. (I am the corporation,
Re: [PEN-L] Books/ articles criticizing this eurocentric idea
I don't know if individualist communitarianism initially had something comparable to the slaves, but it did differ from possessive individualism in the sense that it did not place of high-value on consumptionism, but rather on people developing their own potential -- something like From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Devine Michael P. mentions a very attractive type of individualist communitarianism [that] existed in Italy in the 13th century until the tyrants took over the city states. Machiavelli [1469-1527] reflected the tyrannical period. I don't know enough about this subject, but individualist communitarianism seems to involve a strong sense of individualism _and_ a commitment to one's community. This kind of attitude has prevailed in relatively small communities which enjoyed a lot of equality internally. (As in ancient Athens, which had a similar attitude, there was a large class of outsiders (slaves, women, foreigners, etc.) who were not seen as part of the community.) Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 michaelperelman.wordpress.com
Re: [PEN-L] Books/ articles criticizing this eurocentric idea
On Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 16:18:08 (-0400) Walt Byars writes: Hi, can anyone recommend some books or articles criticizing the (absurd sounding) claim that that the idea of political freedom and its desirability were invented in the West and only exists in other cultures because of Western influence (and similar such claims)? It depends on what's meant by political freedom. On the on had, as far as I can tell, democracy goes back to primitive communism: most tribal societies had tremendous amounts of democracy, no matter where they were in the world. (The Greeks didn't invent it.) On the other hand, Western-style possessive individualism (a.k.a. anti-social personality disorder) does seem to have arisen with capitalism, somewhere between 1600 and 1700. (The first well-known book with this sort of ideology is Hobbes' LEVIATHAN, published in 1660.) Possessive individualism suggests a different kind of political freedom than democracy does. -- Jim Devine / In every [stock-dealing] swindle every one knows that some time or other the crash must come, but every one hopes that it may fall on the head of his neighbor, after he himself has caught the shower of gold and placed it in safety. Après moi le déluge! is the watchword of every capitalist ... -- K. Marx
Re: [PEN-L] Books/ articles criticizing this eurocentric idea
Bruni, Luigino. 2006. Civil Happiness: Economics and Human Flourishing in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge). He says that a very attractive type of individualist communitarianism existed in Italy in the 13th century until the tyrants took over the city states. Machiavelli reflected the tyrannical period. On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote: Jim Devine writes: On the other hand, Western-style possessive individualism (a.k.a. anti-social personality disorder) does seem to have arisen with capitalism, somewhere between 1600 and 1700. (The first well-known book with this sort of ideology is Hobbes' LEVIATHAN, published in 1660.) Possessive individualism suggests a different kind of political freedom than democracy does. Do you really believe that Western-style possessive individualism did not exist before 1600? Or do you mean that there was no ideological defense of the behavior before Hobbes, which is a different point? David Shemano -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
