A Vietnamese with a non-Vietnamese college schooling, I can’t however look upon my nation via a double perspective. One is banal and instinctual, as a born-and-raised Vietnamese native, to work together with my household, neighbors and navigate the labyrinthine streets of my city-home; the opposite is personal and analytical, as a tutorial looking for to grasp each the overlaying and underlying motions of this cityscape and its inhabitants. Benedict Anderson, borrowing from a Philippine nationalist novel, has a phrase for this when describing his intercultural expertise: the specter of comparability. For each the novelist’s protagonist and Anderson, they “can now not matter-of-factly expertise [their places of origin], however sees them concurrently shut up and afar.”

Wanting via an ‘an inverted telescope’, nevertheless, isn’t totally liberating however will be constraining. There’s a division of epistemic labor right here: My Vietnamese guides via alleyways, order meals, converses with residents, whereas my English does the pondering and the knowledge-making. It’s a discomforting realization that English – as each a literal and educational language – dominates my capability to know the world and the social sciences, its ideas, and theories. My Vietnamese turns into an informant to the Western educational and theoretician; for the Vietnamese to be understood and visual, they needed to be translated into English, into customers or rational people. (The irony isn’t misplaced on this English essay.) Although my remark bears a humanistic taste, others within the social sciences have voiced an analogous sentiment: “Concept is all the time for somebody and for some goal,” or “the evaluation of social and political processes is itself inherently, irredeemably, and primarily political.”

This essay, knowledgeable by postcolonial critiques, seeks to look at the methodological Eurocentrism within the social sciences, notably political evaluation. It first outlines methodological Eurocentrism – the tendency of contextually particular Western information to universalize itself – as underpinned by postcolonial evaluation, then strikes past these critics’ political paralysis and examines alternate options in Space Research, notably Asian Research, as a subject of research knowledgeable by political evaluation.

The Coloniality of Information

Postcolonial critiques of colonial epistemologies

An understanding of Eurocentrism (and its methodological selection) requires some background into the disparate scholarship that valorized it: Postcolonial research. Regardless of its deliberate heterogeneity and refusal of definition, there are widespread parts that may be recognized. Postcolonial research have a deconstructionist mode of research that transcends standard disciplinary boundaries, with traceable inspirations from poststructuralist and postmodern authors like Foucault and Derrida. At a cursory look, postcolonial research share with postmodernism what Colin Hay calls “an ontology of distinction, an epistemological skepticism, and a deconstructionist methodology.” It has a nonetheless  extra targeted topic of research: The mutual imbrication of identification for each colonizer and colonized inside a context of asymmetrical energy within the colonial encounter, and the ambivalent and resistant existences resulted therefrom. It’s extremely skeptical of the challenge of European modernity and seeks to problem its basic assumptions. It does so via a deconstruction of binary opposition of the colonizer/colonized, the West/Relaxation, North/South, by historicizing varied common precepts comparable to ‘progress’ or ‘civilization’ to show their socially constructed, temporally and culturally particular nature. Edward Stated formulates Orientalism – a now basic idea in postcolonial research – at size: 

“It’s slightly a distribution of geopolitical consciousness into aesthetic, scholarly, financial, sociological, historic, and philological texts … an elaboration not solely of a primary geographical distinction (the world is made up of two unequal halves, Orient and Occident) but additionally of a complete sequence of “pursuits” which, by such means as scholarly discovery … not solely creates but additionally maintains [itself] … It’s, above all, a discourse that’s not at all in direct, corresponding relationship with political energy within the uncooked, however slightly is produced and exists in an uneven change with varied sorts of energy…”

Information in Stated’s Orientalism is a politicized idea and follow, embedded in and serving colonial pursuits by inferiorizing the Orient and justifying their mission civilisatrice. It has a veneer of objectivity or purity as a result of its positional politics – within the West, to the East – require its social origins be erased and its existence thereby naturalized – changing into scientific and ‘common’.

Later postcolonial scholarship goes additional than Edward Stated, questioning even the potential for self-representation by the colonized. Gayatri Spivak begins in a revised version of her influential essay Can the Subaltern Converse on the self-immolation follow (sati) of indigenous Indian ladies:

“Ladies exterior of the mode of manufacturing narrative mark the factors of fadeout within the writing of disciplinary historical past even … that efface as they disclose. If … the [European, capitalist, or Marxist] mode of manufacturing narrative is the ultimate reference, these ladies are insufficiently represented or representable in that narration. We will docket them, however we can’t grasp them in any respect.


Certainly, it is just of their demise that they enter a story for us, they turn into figurable…”

For Spivak, these subalterns (ladies) can solely be spoken for, both within the colonizer’s narrative of “white males are saving brown ladies from brown males” or the nativist/nationalist narrative that “the ladies truly needed to die.” Her essay marked a poststructuralist flip for Subaltern Research Group, an influential postcolonial research group: “Now the query was not ‘What’s the true type of the subaltern?’ The query had turn into ‘How is the subaltern represented?’.” Subalternity calls out the impossibility of speech (self-representation and information) for individuals who lie past the ‘modes of manufacturing’, whose existences are solely seen via the speech of others. Most important of these speeches are these of lecturers as legitimated producers of data.

The analytical penalties of methodological Eurocentrism

Methodological Eurocentrism refers to the concept social science stays deeply Eurocentric, in that ideas and theories developed in Western historic settings and by Western lecturers will be universally apply all over the place to provide value-free information. Western scientific information is known as true, common, and goal. Analytically, methodological Eurocentrism goes past the overall/particular dichotomy and cuts throughout disciplinary debates of construction/company or materialism/idealism.

Methodological Eurocentrism bears first an epistemological consequence because it suppresses different modes of data – indigenous, native, or non-Western – thereby universalizing itself. On an institutional degree, Western academia pool sources to the West and delegitimizes non-Western information as ‘unscientific’. Non-Western college students at residence and overseas research ‘foundational texts’ from Plato to Max Weber with out questioning their historical past and in flip look to their society via such concepts. Their incongruence with non-Western realities however, their continued perpetuation may end in sure ‘self-fulfilling prophecies’ whereby Western perceptions and theories are internalized by these with energy to form non-Western societies, thus reinforcing their ‘common’ veneer. Whereas Western students earlier than ‘Orientalized’ non-Western topics, these topics now Orientalize themselves: The (nationalistic) reaffirmation of a Chinese language identification as Confucian or Indian identification as Hindu, regardless of their preliminary European building via the texts of missionaries and ethnographers.

The universality of methodological Eurocentrism holds an implicit teleology and essentialism. Understanding ideas comparable to ‘political modernity’ inevitably invoke and have interaction the mental and theological traditions of Europe, whereas these past the West are sometimes disregarded or handled solely as secondary supplies. Right here, Dipesh Chakrabarty critiques the ascription of ‘pre-political’, ‘archaic’, and ‘conventional’ or the secularizing logic as an indication of modernity in Hobsbawm’s evaluation of Indian peasant revolts. Within the phrases of Dipesh Chakrabarty: “Historicism transformed historical past itself right into a model of [the] ready room. We have been all headed for a similar vacation spot … however some folks have been to reach sooner than others.” We see situations of this in such declarations of Western liberal democracy as “the top of historical past.” Within the course of, methodological Eurocentrism essentializes each the West and the Relaxation, via time and house. One finish of the spectrum is the West – with identifiers of civilization, developed, democracy, rule of regulation – whereas the opposite finish is the Relaxation – with perennial uncivilization, growing, authoritarian, and lawlessness. This bears upon our analytical prowess when such phrases don’t seize the topics’ numerous and altering realities, but nonetheless utilized by advantage of their ‘comfort’ in political rhetoric and evaluation.

Methodological Eurocentrism fuels a disciplinary divide as nicely. Whereas a lot of those critiques is most felt within the humanities and worldwide relations, their affect is much less in political science. The disaster of confidence introduced by the top of the Chilly Battle has affected the previous, although not sufficient to supplant the hegemonic Eurocentrism in a research of politics with ‘scientific’ aspirations. Demarcation exists throughout the humanities as nicely. “Historical past belongs to the colonizers”, separated from the anthropological realm of custom and ‘different cultures’. Non-Western subjectivities are handled successfully as displays in museums with out a lot bearing on the current realities. That the intimate relationship between anthropology and colonialism possible contributed to its appreciation of postmodern and postcolonial critiques. But these newfound cultural sensibilities by anthropology contributed to its marginality as a ‘science’, critiqued by extra ‘scientific’ endeavors for being too particularistic and unscientific.

Past Methodological Eurocentrism?

Postcolonial evaluation or paralysis: The hazards of reductionist particularism

Searing although postcolonial critiques are, they aren’t with out personal analytical tensions. Instantly we see a difficulty in its definition: What precisely is the postcolonial? The sheer heterogeneity of the colonial expertise throughout the Latin America, Africa, Asia, even North America, brings into query the usefulness of the time period ‘postcolonial’. That is particularly putting with the relative absence of the Asian expertise and critics inside a scholarship seemingly dominated by South Asian, Center Jap, and African students. Even the colonial enterprises themselves operated otherwise from one another – at instances competing – slightly than being monolithic (as ‘The West’). As a conceptual framework, ‘postcolonial’ stands to disregard sure particularities of the colonial expertise and extra refined terminology (e.g., neocolonial, anti-colonial) to justify itself as a viable mode of critique.

This brings us to a different paradox of postcolonialism: That it, too, essentializes, regardless of its anti-universalism and anti-essentialism. For one, the insistence on the colonial encounter appears to reify its totality in restructuring the worldwide expertise and the entire lack of company on the a part of the colonized. The prevalent themes of hybridity and ambivalence therein perform virtually like metanarrative of the human situation, very like the postmodern ‘ironic metanarrative’ that there isn’t any metanarrative. Each postcolonial and postmodern ideas seem to reify present social, political, and temporal variations and forego company (as a result of agential capability is conditioned by totalizing discourses). Their factors of departure finally arrive at a reductionist particularism: Everybody at each second is essentially totally different from one another. This precludes any risk of figuring out and appearing to have an effect on the established order, as a result of all actions both inflict violence upon distinction or are preconditioned by present discourses.

By relativizing Western modernity and Eurocentrism, postcolonialism is silent on why Eurocentrism was in a position to obtain its common standing.  By overemphasizing tradition and discourse, postcolonialism reduces Eurocentrism to merely one other ethnocentrism and mockingly accepts Eurocentrism and its West/Relaxation binary as ‘given’ universals, with out explaining why it turned so universalistic. This problematically implies a superiority of Euro-American values with out specifying the content material of such values that led to their hegemony, ignoring capitalism (certainly a Marxist metanarrative) as constitutive component of the colonial encounter that has now globalized. These prevailing points deprive postcolonialism of any significant praxis and render postcolonial authors complicit within the upkeep of worldwide Western hegemony. Such an accusation isn’t unwarranted: Probably the most distinguished postcolonial authors are tenured inside essentially the most prestigious Western establishments (Columbia College, for instance, homes already Spivak and Stated, two out of three towering figures within the scholarship). As Arif Dirlik poignantly quipped:

“When precisely … does the ‘post-colonial’ start?” queries Ella Shohat in a current dialogue of the topic. Misreading the query intentionally I’ll provide right here a solution that’s solely partially facetious: When Third World intellectuals have arrived in First World academe.”

Postcolonial students take mental sources from postmodern and poststructuralist concepts, concepts particularly conceived inside a Western context to critique Enlightenment purpose. Whereas they share a identical objective of decentering the West, the bigger problem is their overtly complicated and deconstructionist concepts that lack rapid relevance to those that wrestle day by day on the bottom, not paper. Postcolonial authors, although sharing the ethnic origins with native intellectuals, write with out actual penalties and attachment to native realities. As Colin Hay famous in opposition to the postmodernist vow of silence: “For these for whom life is commonly nasty, brutish and brief, philosophical purity is probably going to supply restricted solace.”

Alternatively: Non-Eurocentric universals?

The problem in opposition to methodological Eurocentrism has engaged in an lively deconstruction of Eurocentric assumptions, with none prospects of an alternate reconstruction. What is required is a re-engagement with the common, however in a approach that that doesn’t scale back the variations of the topics inside mentioned common. As a substitute of understanding the common as teleological with a parochial and homogenizing content material, we might reconceptualize it as open and heterogenous, recognizing its inevitable historic unevenness and mixture of interactive variations. In different phrases, an alternative choice to Eurocentric capitalist modernity can solely be conceived in a building of holistic social principle. Spivak herself acknowledged this necessity earlier than with the notion of strategic essentialism: That sensible political resistance inevitably requires a level of essentialized (universalized) identification round which one can mobilize, however with an consciousness of its contextual limits and the identification as means, not objective. Her notion of subalterns is to not ‘defend’ them or for us to talk for them, however to in truth cast off it:

“…Who the hell desires to museumize or defend subalternity? Solely extraordinarily reactionary, doubtful anthropologistic museumizers. No activist desires to maintain the subaltern within the house of distinction. To do a factor, to work for the subaltern, means to deliver it into speech.

[…] you don’t give the subaltern voice. You’re employed for the bloody subaltern, you’re employed in opposition to subalternity…”

Postcolonial critiques furnished our consciousness of our political tendencies in knowledge-making, however that extends as nicely to a place of indifference. As a substitute, heeding Bruno Latour’s argument, we must always transfer past a mode of critique for the sake of critique, to not “get away from information however nearer to them, not preventing empiricism however, quite the opposite, renewing empiricism.” On this sense of ‘renewing empiricism’, there will probably be all the time be some type and diploma of essentialism in our categorization, vital or analytical – the analytics of essentialism is sort of synonymous with categorization, generalization, and induction, thus unavoidable in any type of social evaluation. A lot as we’re guarded in opposition to sweeping overgeneralization, we must always equally hold our anti-essentialism focused.

Universalizability as Praxis: Space Research and pluralizing modes of data manufacturing

How can we transfer from a methodological Eurocentrism in the direction of a constructive and non-Eurocentric methodology? Among the many attainable fields, I discover space research among the many extra promising, given its intentionally explicit and bounded (areal) focus. To furnish constructive arguments, I tackle first the critiques: Its ulterior motives in the course of the Chilly Battle, the artificiality of its ‘areas’, and a secondary place to solely check Eurocentric hypotheses. On the primary critique, the top of the Chilly Battle, very like the sphere of worldwide relations, has compelled areas research to reinvent itself and admire the critiques launched in opposition to it. Secondly, ‘areas’ (East Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, and so on.) are solely geographical demarcation, which in away serves a sensible slightly than epistemological goal. ‘Areas’ are arguably much less synthetic than, for instance, the disciplinary demarcation between political science and sociology, which regularly overlaps. Conversely, space research prioritize an interdisciplinary dedication and contextual understanding of a sure space, listening to each particularities however not precluding generalizations, to seize extra absolutely the dynamics of mentioned space. Areas themselves don’t erase distinction, however exist alongside subunits (nations, provinces, and so on.), simply as each Asian research and Japan research are co-constitutive. The notion of ‘areas’ furnish a capability for regional evaluation, which permits an account of, for instance, a budding European identification as bigger than the sum of its nations. Probably the most enduring critique thus can be the relegation of space research to particularism and empirical testing, unable to transcend in the direction of common theories – a methodological Eurocentrism at core.

But space research can nonetheless overcome methodological Eurocentrism. This isn’t a recourse to methodological nationalism, producing as many ‘indigenous’ nationwide faculties of ideas that are by-product of self-Orientalization in its aspirations to European capitalist modernity. Neither is this to carve out an unique house by-Asian-for-Asian theorizing which in the end would produce particularistic information relevant to solely Asia. The purpose, exactly, is to provide information with contextually-bound observations that’s generalizable and helpful elsewhere. As has been made clear by postcolonialism, all information is preconditioned inside their manufacturing. The following step, then, is to universalize information produced inside non-Eurocentric contexts. It’s with a throughgoing engagement with universalizability that space research can contest methodological Eurocentrism, decenter Western modes of data manufacturing, not by harmful ‘uprooting’ Western custom however elevating non-Western information.

There are two concrete examples for universalizability-as-praxis. As Giovanni Sartori has identified, the enlargement of ‘politics’ brings in regards to the threat of ‘conceptual stretching’ that ‘waters down’ conceptual and analytical precision. There may be thus an actual want for theorization from non-Western empirical settings. One notable demonstration is the Murdoch College in Australia that theorizes from Southeast Asian state formation expertise a extra encompassing political financial system principle that comes with each structural and sociocultural components. It finds that Weberian approaches, via specializing in ideal-types and bureaucratization, don’t clarify nicely the uneven and traditionally particular developments of Southeast Asian political financial system. Historic institutionalism, alternatively, by overemphasizing autonomy of establishments, is unable to elucidate why explicit establishments exist or change, notably Southeast Asian ‘establishments’ which might be often deeply wedded into sociocultural contexts, not fairly rationalized or autonomous. On this sense, the Murdoch College challenges methodological Eurocentrism by offering a viable, generalizable competing different, whereas nonetheless listening to contextual specificity. It concurs with Charles Tilly that “historical past issues” however doesn’t preclude the potential for transhistorical explanations, comparable to Tilly’s WUNC configuration.

One other instance is the rising follow of Inter-Asia referencing by Asian students that decenters Western frames of comparisons. Inter-Asia referencing refers back to the rising educational follow of Asian students the place they cite extra than simply Western scholarship and embody Asian works, and critically strategy Western theories. Whereas methodological Eurocentrism, with its pooling of sources and hegemonic information manufacturing, casts non-European realities as lesser variations of the West, inter-Asia referencing permits Asian scholarship to ‘take itself critically’ and paves the methods for brand new universals. Inter-Asia referencing is most distinguished in export-oriented industrialization, city improvement, and regionalization of fashionable tradition, whereby there are ‘Asian’ specificities in economics and cultures that require a supple Asian – past a strictly Western – perspective. Nonetheless, the focus of inter-Asia referencing in what seems to be merchandise of Asian capitalism casts sure doubts into whether or not it may meaningfully present different to capitalist modernity. An remark by Arif Dirlik is related right here: “Though the companies which might be situated in EuroAmerica perhaps the promoters of Eurocentrism, they’re by now the not the one ones, and probably not a very powerful ones.” We would, as an alternative, discover viable alternate options past Asia, in Latin America with the indigenous expertise and the outgrowing of rights-based discourse, for instance. As such, space research, with the promise of pluralized and complementary information productions, is especially promising.


This essay examines the concept of methodological Eurocentrism, the place Western social sciences generate and common theories and ideas purportedly relevant all over the place. It first traces the idea’s background in postcolonial principle that by specializing in the colonial encounter, deconstructs the universality of West and the Relaxation binaries and expose their contextual specificity. Methodological Eurocentrism outcomes from this entrenched colonial structuration of the world, whose penalties are threefold: A Western mental hegemony that concentrates mental labor within the West and delegitimizes non-Western information productions; an implicit Western telos as ‘the top of historical past’ and essentialization of non-Western dwelling as falling behind the West; and a disciplinary divide in social sciences between those who aspire to be scientific and people ‘much less scientific’.

The second half teases out the bounds of postcolonialism: Its questionable educational rigor and consistency, an analytical paradox the place it too essentializes and universalizes, a reductionist particularism that deprives postcolonialism of significant praxis, and its incapability to elucidate how Eurocentrism was in a position to universalize itself. This essay then reframes essentialism and universality to be extra focused and productive, re-engages the capability to create normal principle that retains postcolonial respect for distinction. This essay lastly identifies space research to be notably promising to counter methodological Eurocentrism by advantage of its non-Western websites of research, and the universalizability-as-praxis whereby their non-Eurocentric information is coeval to Western information.


Acharya, Amitav. Id with out exceptionalism: challenges for Asian political and worldwide research. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Worldwide Relations and Strategis Research Programme, 2001.

Alvares, Claude. “A critique of Eurocentric social science and the query of alternate options.” Financial and Political Weekly (2011): 72-81.

Anderson, Benedict Richard O’Gorman. The spectre of comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the world. Verso, 1998.

Bates, Robert H. “Space research and the self-discipline: a helpful controversy?.” PS: Political Science and Politics 30.2 (1997): 166-169.

Beng Huat, Chua. “Southeast Asia in postcolonial research: An introduction.” Postcolonial research 11.3 (2008): 231-240. 

Carrithers, Michael, et al. “Is Anthropology Artwork or Science? [and Comments and Reply].” Present Anthropology, vol. 31, no. 3, 1990, pp. 263–282. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2743629.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historic distinction. Princeton College Press, 2008.

Cheah, Pheng. “Common areas: Asian research in a world in movement.” Traces: a multilingual journal of cultural principle and translation 1 (2001): 37-70.

Chen, Ching-Chang. “The absence of non-western IR principle in Asia reconsidered.” Worldwide Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11.1 (2011): 1-23.

Corntassel, Jeff. “Towards sustainable self-determination: Rethinking the modern Indigenous-rights discourse.” Options 33.1 (2008): 105-132.

Cox, Robert W. “Social forces, states and world orders: past worldwide relations principle.” Millennium 10.2 (1981): 126-155. 

De Kock, Leon. “An Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.” Ariel: A evaluate of worldwide English literature 23.3 (1992).

Dirks, Nicholas B. “Historical past as a Signal of the Fashionable.” Public tradition 2.2 (1990): 25-32.

Dirlik, Arif. “Chinese language Historical past and the Query of Orientalism.” Historical past and Concept, vol. 35, no. 4, 1996, pp. 96–118. 

Dirlik, Arif. “Is there historical past after Eurocentrism?: Globalism, postcolonialism, and the disavowal of historical past.” Cultural Critique 42 (1999): 1-34. 

Dirlik, Arif. “The postcolonial aura: Third World criticism within the age of worldwide capitalism.” Vital inquiry 20.2 (1994): 328-356.

Donnelly, Jack. “The relative universality of human rights.” Human rights quarterly (2007): 281-306.

Eagleton, Terry. “Postcolonialism and ‘postcolonialism’.” Interventions: Worldwide Journal of Postcolonial Research 1.1 (1998): 24-26.

Fukuyama, Francis. “The tip of historical past?.” The nationwide curiosity 16 (1989): 3-18.

Hameiri S., Jones L. (2020) Theorising Political Financial system in Southeast Asia. In: Carroll T., Hameiri S., Jones L. (eds) The Political Financial system of Southeast Asia. Research within the Political Financial system of Public Coverage. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28255-4_1

Hay, Colin. Political evaluation. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002.

Latour, Bruno. “Why has critique run out of steam? From issues of truth to issues of concern.” Vital inquiry 30.2 (2004): 225-248.

Matin, Kamran. “Redeeming the common: Postcolonialism and the interior lifetime of Eurocentrism.” European Journal of Worldwide Relations 19.2 (2013): 353-377.

Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Elden Wiebe, eds. “Eurocentrism.” Encyclopedia of case research analysis. Sage Publications, 2009

MORRIS, ROSALIND C., editor. Can the Subaltern Converse?: Reflections on the Historical past of an Thought. Columbia College Press, 2010.

Phillips, Anne. “What’s unsuitable with essentialism?.” Distinktion: Scandinavian journal of social principle 11.1 (2010): 47-60

Rattansi, Ali. “Postcolonialism and its discontents.” Financial system and society 26.4 (1997): 480-500.

Ruskola, Teemu. “Authorized orientalism.” Michigan regulation evaluate 101.1 (2002): 179-234.

Stated, Edward W. Orientalism. Classic, 1979.

Sartori, Giovanni. “Idea misformation in comparative politics.” The American political science evaluate 64.4 (1970): 1033-1053.

Tilly, Charles. “Why and the way historical past issues.” The Oxford handbook of contextual political evaluation (2006): 417-437.

Wolff, Kristina. “Strategic essentialism.” The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (2007).

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations