How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

[Geronimo]

I think paiktis actually raises some valid objections to ascribing much meaning to the concept of a Western Civilization spanning multiple centuries. I admit that at first I dismissed his argument as too at odds with conventional wisdom and more importantly too clearly an argument presented by paiktis to deserve much consideration. However, I don't think we have really addressed the crux of his argument which is what is it which defines this very long lived 'Western Civilization' which we all take for granted we know so well. I'll start with the quote from Boris Godunov that uses Huntington's defination:

Huntington's 8 Characteristics that define Western Civ:

Classical legacy
Western Christianity
European languages
separation of spiritual and temporal authority
rule of law
social pluralism and civil society
representative bodies
individualism

paiktis actually already pointed out that it was rare indeed for all of these characteristics to be present in any given 'Western' region at once and indeed in all of recorded history the entire list has never applied to the entirety of what we think of as 'Western Civilization'. This argument was countered by simply saying that it doesnt matter if all of these items do not apply so long as most do over most regions in the civiliation. But really, how useful is such a defination for describing something of such critical historical importance as a Civilization? For starters even if we take this defination to mean that Western civilization consists of all areas in which at any time at least 5 of these attributes (just over half!) were clearly applicable we find that 'Western Civiliation' did not unambiguously arise in the regions we traditionally include in it until almost modern times! We also need to awkwardly ignore many qualifying regions we might never think of as 'western' on the basis of geography alone. Another problem which I see paiktis actually seems to have tried to address is that many of these characteristics might have been shared in a very technical sense between various 'Western' countries but the actual history of these attributes in any particular country might be drastically different in its origin and implementation from many or even almost all other 'Western' countries. It seems as if 'Western Civilization' consisted of multiple 'civilizations' which rose and declined and disappeared undetected precisely because they were such amorphous entities to begin with. For instance we might seem to clearly identify 'the West' in the 'Christendom' of the middle ages in the 'unity' of the Western roman catholic peoples, but this 'civilization' if we wish to call it that clearly broke apart long ago due to the protestant reformation and even more so due to recent declines in religious zeal throught what we think of as 'Western civilization'. Outside the context of religion the distinctiveness of a 'Western civilization' especially one excluding the eastern orthodox regions is not at all apparent. The islamic countries for example matched all of these attributes about as well as 'the west' throughout the middle ages and yet they are never regarded as a part of it.

Since all of these points have already been raised and ignored earlier in this thread with posters even resorting to simple ad hominem attacks on imagined irrational zeal attributed to paiktis (when did he ever indicate that he really cared deeply about this little acedemic debate?) I don't suppose I have changed any minds so far so I'm going to try an analogy to illustrate why I no longer think the existance of a centuries spanning single 'Western Civillization' can be taken for granted. In Taxonomy entire kingdoms have come and gone and merged and divided several times as it was realized that defining criteria we more widely shared than once though or that the defining criteria were less relevant than once thought or because increased understanding of evolutionary relationships between organism rendered divisions that might be workable with known extant organisms completely impractical for various earlier eras in the course of evolution. From a taxonomical point of view the existance of a 'Western Civiliation' would be considered very questionable indeed. I'll refrain from elaborating further on the analogy for the moment in view of the late hour and the tendancy of my posts to drop into oblivion unread but I'll be happy to add more in this vein later if necessary.

One final thought I'd like to throw out is this. If we accept the validity of the idea of a single 'Western Civilization' throughout history since classical times can we also think of any other 'civilization' which is anywhere near as amorphous and inconsistantly defined as the 'West' is which is so universally recognized as a 'real' and meaningful civilization description? I can't. I begin to think that maybe 'Western civilzation' is valid and obvious for the same reason that Europe as a continent is valid and obvious. We have always recognized it so it must be valid. If that really is the root of our recognition then it probably is a very good idea for us to reconsider the importance of this concept to our interpretation of history.

[Sikander]

The grander the generalization the more time it saves, and the easier it is to pick apart.

[Berzerker]

Along with the outbreaks of the Black Death were several other factors combining to make it a more effective killing machine in Western Europe than in its Central Asian reservoir- poor harvests over several years had increased the populace of towns in Europe, which were already insanitary, and able to feed only a limited number of mouths, and now found themselves coping with an even greater number of indigents in distinctly unhygienic conditions.

Plus the religious nutcases saw cats as devilish creatures and killed most of them off just in time for the plague carrying fleas to arrive on rats which had few predators to keep under control.
Kill the cats, the cats aren't there to kill the rats, the rats flourish and so do the fleas = the plague.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander
And what I'm saying is not that there was no impact of the New World on the Old, but that the momentum for change had already begun in Europe, while many impacts from the trans-Atlantic exchange in Europe did not kick in until later. Europe was simultaneously beginning to digest the lost inheritance of its Classical knowledge and receiving technical knowledge from the East in larger and larger gulps as it managed to continually improve its contacts. This made Europe more used to adapting to technological change at a faster pace, and when Europe had caught up to the several centuries of innovation it missed out on it began to supply innovations itself at an ever increasing pace. This last bit is certainly in part a product of such things as scientific method, which are considered hallmarks of Western Civilization.

The advance of European technology comes AFTER the discovery of the Americas. The one giant technical cahnge beforehand is the printing press- real serious change as far as technology and ideads about science don't start until the mid 16th and 17th century. Th thing is, all these men away in their labs doing experiements- who pays for it? Any sicnetist today can tell you what sience they can do depends on what grants they can get- well, this was not much different before. People had to 1. have an interest in adancement (thus a reason to care) and 2. the money to pay for it. These are changes not tied to culture but economics and politics, both of which saw an immense change in Europe come 1500.

I find your thought experiment to be pretty unfair. Drop any civilization into a wilderness without any possessions and I can guarantee that the first thing you will see is a die off that makes the dark ages look like a stroll in the park. Like the dark ages, there will be no food surplus to maintain the technicians, and thus much knowledge and huge chunk of the culture will die out in a generation.

Well, giving them pack animals would simply transfer one of their Eurasian gifts. If one claims culture makes the difference, then one has to try to set up an experiement to remove other variables- perhaps the experiment is impossible, given that some variables are too important and basic to remove.

Pushing further along, there will be very little pressure for the much smaller population to do anything but attempt to improve their local physical situation. No farms, crops, roads etc. will have the Europeans rooting in the mud for more than the 500 years that it took the historical Europeans to undertake a trans-atlantic voyage of discovery. If they managed to do anything more than become a strange hunter-gatherer group in America, I would imagine that they would focus their efforts on the almost empty North American continent before turning their attentions to Central and South America eventually.

Again, you are assuming they have access to Eurasian advantages (which the point of the experiement is to remove)- the Europeans, with 1000 ad tech, would have to adopt a new biota to farm, one far less capable of supporting large pops with 1000 ad tech- but still, they would have their culture, no?

The point is that Europe was nursed with immense advantages living in Eurasia- and its discovery and exploitation of a new rold made virgin by disease propelled them ahead of the competition.

[debeest]

Geronimo, your post didn't drop into oblivion without at least me reading it , and I agree. Paiktis argued poorly and his points were lost in vitriol, but it's entirely reasonable to question the validity of the concept "Western civilization." Certainly the concept has utility, but it also has major flaws that are important in this particular thread. Japan as part of Western civilization? South America as part of the "dominant Western civilization?" Spain being dissed for failing to capitalize on its initial possession of the New World, as if Spain wasn't the epitome of Western civilization at the time? Reality is too complicated for the model.

[debeest]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

The advance of European technology comes AFTER the discovery of the Americas. The one giant technical cahnge beforehand is the printing press- real serious change as far as technology and ideads about science don't start until the mid 16th and 17th century. Th thing is, all these men away in their labs doing experiements- who pays for it? Any sicnetist today can tell you what sience they can do depends on what grants they can get- well, this was not much different before. People had to 1. have an interest in adancement (thus a reason to care) and 2. the money to pay for it. These are changes not tied to culture but economics and politics, both of which saw an immense change in Europe come 1500.
[endquote]

Quite right. In fact, I'd be interested to hear what everyone else thinks were the great and multitudinous innovations, who they think produced those innovations, and when the innovations occurred. I think if we all weighed in on that, we'd find much less evidence for the notion that Western civilization dominates because of its particular creativity.

Unless of course it turns out that most innovation is directly attributable to good patent laws....

(Is that what's called trolling? )

[lord of the mark]

points

While i disagree with some of what paktis has to say about western civ, im largely in agreement with him about Huntington.


Paktis point out something significant - there is a civilization whose literature, music, arts, etc were shaped by the heritage of Catholic europe - I think thats undeniable looking at the history of "western" art music, thought, etc.

HOWEVER - this is NOT the same as the area of liberal democracy - some states like Spain that are UNDENIABLY western in art, literature, etc were no quicker to adopt liberal democracy than non-western states. And it is questionable whether we can even speak of "states" as being Western. Many "western" nations, including the US, Israel, etc include individuals of non-western origin who bring with them the heritage of non-western civilizations. States are political entities. Civilizations, at bottom, are not, PACE Huntington. Civs and states are only coterminous in computer games, not in RL.

And liberal democracy has spread beyond the western civ cultural sphere - while its spread has often collerated with the spread of western civ, they are NOT the same thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I For starters even if we take this defination to mean that Western civilization consists of all areas in which at any time at least 5 of these attributes (just over half!) were clearly applicable we find that 'Western Civiliation' did not unambiguously arise in the regions we traditionally include in it until almost modern times! We also need to awkwardly ignore many qualifying regions we might never think of as 'western' on the basis of geography alone. Another problem which I see paiktis actually seems to have tried to address is that many of these characteristics might have been shared in a very technical sense between various 'Western' countries but the actual history of these attributes in any particular country might be drastically different in its origin and implementation from many or even almost all other 'Western' countries. It seems as if 'Western Civilization' consisted of multiple 'civilizations' which rose and declined and disappeared undetected precisely because they were such amorphous entities to begin with. For instance we might seem to clearly identify 'the West' in the 'Christendom' of the middle ages in the 'unity' of the Western roman catholic peoples, but this 'civilization' if we wish to call it that clearly broke apart long ago due to the protestant reformation and even more so due to recent declines in religious zeal throught what we think of as 'Western civilization'. Outside the context of religion the distinctiveness of a 'Western civilization' especially one excluding the eastern orthodox regions is not at all apparent.

1. Part of the problem with Huntingtons definition is his heavy reliance on political concepts that became dominant with the enlightenment - if we limit it to more traditionally civilizational attributes and traditions, I think its clearer - of course thats troublesome for SH, since his main purpose was to reject a universalist approach to liberal democracy.

2. i dont think the Protestant reformation is that big a problem for western civ. For the most part ideas and artistic movements continued to move freely across the Catholic - Protestant divide, which became of very limited relevance after 1789.

3. I think the use of the Catholic-Orthodox divide is quite useful. Latin was the language of secular learning in western europe from the fall of Rome almost to the enlightenment. The Catholic - orthodox divide marks real differences in culture, at least until the 19th c. Then one gets into the question of Westernizers versus slavophiles in Russia. Without privileging the side of the Slavophiles, as SH would seem to, it should be possible to recognize western civ as an entity.

[lord of the mark]

Re: How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

Originally posted by VetLegion
I was browsing through a list of significant inventions and discoveries of the last millenium and as we all know - the west is responsible for the majority of them.

As a result the west really dominated the last 500 years or so.

I'm not suggesting Europeans are superior or anything like that, but when they teach about world history say in China, how do they explain that?

they explain that its all due to the fact that the West got the Croats, and theyre superior nature accounted for the triumph of the West. Isnt that obvious?

[Ned]

Does anyone here seriously question whether Western dominance is related to Western technology? And if we do not doubt this, should not the focus of the analysis be directed not to the consequences of the development of technology (such as the formation of empires) but what led to the culture of invention?

Here again as a brief summary of developed of patent systems and Europe. They apparently began in the 12 hundreds in Venice and spread from there. England, for example, had patents as early as 1449. I don't think it is a coincidence that Leonardo da Vinci was employed as an inventor in late 1400's considering that Venice had passed a patent ordinance in 1474, and Milan, where Leonardo was employed as an inventor, is not that far from Venice.

What is interesting is that the concept of patents simply does not exist in other regions of the world until modern times. Even today is difficult to even discuss the importance of patents to the development of technology and industry with Third World nations. They do not have the concept that the protection of intellectual property actually leads to its creation. They do not understand that granting patents in exchange for publishing the invention in the patent document accelerates the spread of technology.

Here is some selected history:


1200s 10-year monopolies granted in Venice, Italy to inventors of silk-making devices
1449 First recorded patent granted in England for a glass-making process
1474 First patent statute passed in Venice
1624 Statute of Monopolies issued in England
1790 First American patent statute passed
1791 First French patent statute passed
1880-1882 Patent statutes introduced in most European countries

http://www.isinet.com/patents/3pptimeline.html

The word patent comes from the Latin 'litterae patentes', meaning an open letter. Such letters were used by medieval monarchs to confer rights and privileges. With a royal seal, the letters served as proof of those rights, for all to see.

While the first system for patenting inventions cannot be attributed to any one country, it is generally acknowledged that the first informal system was developed in Renaissance Italy. This system was introduced into the rest of Europe by émigré Venetian glass-blowers to protect their skills against those of local workers.

The first recorded patent of invention was granted to John of Utynam. In 1449, he was awarded a 20-year monopoly for a glass-making process previously unknown in England (subsequently, he supplied glass for the windows of Eton College Chapel, UK). In return for his monopoly, John of Utynam was required to teach his process to native Englishmen. That same function of passing on information is now fulfilled by the publication of a patent specification.

http://thomsonderwent.com/patinf/patentfaqs/history/

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/history/fivehundred/origins.htm

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


The geography of Europe combined with the collapse of the Roman empire (itself caused by geography) resulted in many competing groups, which caused technological progress (though delayed, because they had to consolidate and organise themselves).

Complete nonsense. The breakup of the Roman Empire hardly helped the progress of technology.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sikander
I find your thought experiment to be pretty unfair. Drop any civilization into a wilderness without any possessions and I can guarantee that the first thing you will see is a die off that makes the dark ages look like a stroll in the park. Like the dark ages, there will be no food surplus to maintain the technicians, and thus much knowledge and huge chunk of the culture will die out in a generation.

Pushing further along, there will be very little pressure for the much smaller population to do anything but attempt to improve their local physical situation. No farms, crops, roads etc. will have the Europeans rooting in the mud for more than the 500 years that it took the historical Europeans to undertake a trans-atlantic voyage of discovery. If they managed to do anything more than become a strange hunter-gatherer group in America, I would imagine that they would focus their efforts on the almost empty North American continent before turning their attentions to Central and South America eventually.

Actually, this may help explain why the early Viking settlements in "Vinland" not only did not flourished, but disappeared. They could not exist on their own and were probably soon overwhelmed by starvation and natives. The early settlements of the Spanish and others had to be supported extensively by resupply from Europe

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


The advance of European technology comes AFTER the discovery of the Americas. The one giant technical cahnge beforehand is the printing press- real serious change as far as technology and ideads about science don't start until the mid 16th and 17th century. Th thing is, all these men away in their labs doing experiements- who pays for it? Any sicnetist today can tell you what sience they can do depends on what grants they can get- well, this was not much different before. People had to 1. have an interest in adancement (thus a reason to care) and 2. the money to pay for it. These are changes not tied to culture but economics and politics, both of which saw an immense change in Europe come 1500.

Not true, the develement of technology began in earnest prior to the discovery of America in 1492. As I have pointed out before, patents were well-established in places like Venice as early as 1474, in English began granting patents as early as 1449. The age discovery and invention preceded the discovery of the New World and did not follow it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by debeest

Quite right. In fact, I'd be interested to hear what everyone else thinks were the great and multitudinous innovations, who they think produced those innovations, and when the innovations occurred. I think if we all weighed in on that, we'd find much less evidence for the notion that Western civilization dominates because of its particular creativity.

Unless of course it turns out that most innovation is directly attributable to good patent laws....

(Is that what's called trolling? )

It's not that the West is innately creates inventions. The development of patents to protect inventions made by businesses was critical to development of nearly all the key inventions made buying human beings in the last 500 years. Patent systems were unknown outside of Europen and the United States until just recently. Even within Europe, patents took root only in places like Northern Italy, Germany and England until modern times. It is no accident that those regions of Europe became industrialized first; and there is no doubt that United States owes nearly 100% of technological and industrial advancement to its well-developed patent system.

Since Japan develop its own patent system, it to us take off in terms of technological development.

It is interesting in note here that patents make no sense where there is no legal system and where there is no private business. One could expect that technological progress in systems without the rule of law and without private businesses to be essentially nonexistent. If one observes the world, this is actually what one sees.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone here seriously question whether Western dominance is related to Western technology? And if we do not doubt this, should not the focus of the analysis be directed not to the consequences of the development of technology (such as the formation of empires) but what led to the culture of invention?

First:

Do we accept that there is such a thing as “Western civilization?” I’d say yes, there is, but it’s amorphous and undefined, and we must keep in mind the flaws in the concept. One important flaw is the notion that Western civilization is a constant rather than a changing entity. The modern Western civilization grew mainly out of Greek and Roman culture, but is dramatically different and must be considered a new entity, different from the Greek/Roman entity. Another important issue is the question of who is a part of Western civilization and who is not. Japan? India? Israel? Turkey? Mexico? El Salvador?

Second:

Do we accept that “Western civilization” is “dominant?” Certainly we are currently dominant in some ways (technology, capital), but not in other ways (there are lots more non-Western than Western people, for example). What’s the important measure? The initial post in this thread referred specifically to “inventions and discoveries.” Okay. As I said earlier, I’d be interested to see a list of innovations, dates, and attributions. I think we would quickly descend into argumentation about which inventions and discoveries are important enough to count, and who really invented or discovered something rather than getting it from someone else, and what “civilization” that inventor belonged to. I think there would be considerable disagreement about the actual degree of Western dominance in invention and discovery. I think we would also quickly begin to squabble about what to choose as a starting date, since there’s no clear starting date for Western civilization, nor for a sudden burst of technological development.

Third:

The rate of invention and discovery is increasing, and mostly has increased throughout human history. In fact, the rate of acceleration is increasing, too. That’s because the more we know, the more capable we become, so the faster we can learn new things. Thus, inevitably, most inventions and discoveries are recent (you pick the time frame for “recent,” it’ll be true in any case). So, inevitably, whoever currently dominates economically and militarily can dominate technologically as well, either by actually innovating, or by seizing innovations OR ATTRACTING INNOVATORS. (In a time of easy migration, those with ideas will want to go where the freedom and capital to exploit them exist. Yes, freedom AND capital.)

Fourth:

European civilizations discovered the New World, wiped out the native populations both accidentally and deliberately, and exploited it. This provided a stunning increase in capital resources that gave the West an advantage plenty sufficient to last through the present. The discovery and exploitation of the New World was almost bound to be a European activity, because Africa was geographically unsuited to develop competitive civilizations (consider Egypt as Middle Eastern for these purposes), and the rest of the world was too far away. It didn’t stem from technological superiority – Europe was only about on a par with other major civilizations at the time – and it didn’t stem from a greater tendency to innovate. There is no “culture of invention” here that doesn’t exist elsewhere. What we have in Western civilization is a whopping great capital advantage with which to attract innovators, develop innovations, market innovations, seize other people’s innovations, and seize other people’s capital in order to keep the whole thing going.