What is the West?

[dominic]

'3 the east's resentment of the west ' - i have absolutely no clue wot your on about here...maybe clarify that dominic or just give it a rest cos i think that sounds like an offensive generalisation

i meant that even before, for example, damascus became a muslim center, political and religious leaders there tended to resent the influence of constantinople and rome -- although many of the doctrinal disputes of the early xian era reflected real confusion about the nature of jesus christ (how divine? how human?) and of the trinity, the positions taken were also politically motivated

resentment and arrogance are valid terms to use here -- i.e., rome and constantinople arrogating political and doctrinal power, and great cities like damascus and alexandria resenting such arrogance

(if you don't think resentment is a common feature of political psychology -- no less than arrogance or contempt -- then i'm not sure where to begin in breaking things down for you)

also -- i'm not sure what point you're attempting to establish w/ the portrait of mehmet

in general, early renaissance painting in italy borrowed heavily from byzantine art -- a fact recognized by the standard historical narrative

further, according to the standard account, the west does not fully eclipse the east until after the fall of constantinople -- i.e., the turks are portrayed, in the conventional narrative, as militarily and administratively vigorous up until about 1700, but as having contributed very little to science, learning or art -- i.e., the new center of learning and art is northern italy circa 1500 -- so i don't really see the point of the image you posted of the painting -- i.e., how does this advance a "revisionist" account???

 

[dominic]

why on earth do you think something like individualism can be culturally determined ffs??

first, i'm trying to provide the standard account of what the west is, so as to make the terms of this argument more concrete -- as for my own position, i'm not really sure what i think

second, what do you mean by "individualism"???

for aristotle, the city-state promotes the development of the individual by allowing men to act as citizens -- i.e., to deliberate rationally, to fight courageously, to concern themselves with matters greater than their own petty households and pocketbooks -- the city-state, for aristotle, was a kind of stage upon which men could *distinguish* themselves from and in front of their peers -- the agon, the bid for excellence -- in short, the city-state allowed men to be excellent specimens ("individuals") of the creature human being -- whereas under conditions of asiatic despotism, men have no political dimension to their lives, their lives are impoverished in this respect, and so they lack certain capacities and talents, i.e., they are deformed

liberal society and theory yields a different kind of individual -- isolated, out for himself, greedy, etc -- i.e., the figure of the bourgeois

and in nietzsche, the individual is what we today think of as an individualist -- the kind of person who emerges after tradition and authority have been nearly fully discredited -- the person who lives by his own code, marches to his own drummer -- i.e., the individual as the exception to the rule rather than its exemplification

but really, i find it hard to argue with you if you can't be bothered to explain what you mean by "individualism" -- b/c you're not affording me much chance to focus my remarks

 

[dominic]

in any case, i think this discussion has gotten sidetracked . . . .

edward said and anderson may show that things like national identity and western identity are largely "imaginary" developments, having to do with how people are educated, the books they read, the newspapers they read, etc -- as well as processes of defining the "self" against the binary other -- but at the end of the day, the question is whether there is such a thing as the "west," and if so, what is the "west" -- i.e., this is the question that pearsall initially posed

greece, egypt and rome belong no more to the modern arabs and turks than to modern west europeans -- i.e., in all instances the modern people are the product of barbarians settling like so much sediment upon a declining civilization -- i.e., in all instances the modern people have a relationship with the earlier civilization's legacy, as well as introduced entirely new factors to the situation

nor should we lose sight of the fact that people may have multiple identities -- e.g., spanish people may have both a western and a mediterranean identity, just as turks have both a muslim and a mediterranean identity -- and within turkey, some people will have a more "modern" identity, and others a fundamentalist islamic identity -- and so forth

do such complications render invalid the question that pearsall initially posed?

again, the origins of western identity are to be found, first, in the schism b/w constantinople and rome, and, second, in teachers and scholars educating people in a certain tradition of books -- i.e., educating the elites in this manner -- such that the arguments found in those books then took objective expression in the public laws, the moral norms, etc, shaping the people as a whole -- athough certain "structures" of life have persisted, folk customs endured, etc

but if this thread is going to continue, others should join the argument

or perhaps the question is too tangled and thorny to pursue productively in this space

 

[Pearsall]

been away, just getting back to this.

'west' is a western construct, very much tied up with a need to big up the culture by contrast with this completely fictional nemesis 'east', a self-definition based on rather hateful stereotypes and confusions between 'modernity' & 'westernism'

OK, but surely that is the point with all identity concepts, that they exist in opposition to something else? Ie 'Arab' as a concept only exists because there are people who aren't Arabs; if everyone shared the phenotype common on the Arabian peninsula and spoke Arabic as their mother tongue than there would be no need for the idea of 'Arab'.

Of course 'the West' is an invented concept; does that mean it doesn't exist?

 

[burnt ape]

the term "westenisation" seems to be used to describe the process of cultural life coming under the control of the market economy - nothing more

 

[henrymiller]

the term "westenisation" seems to be used to describe the process of cultural life coming under the control of the market economy - nothing more

absolute bollocks. this would be an incredibly minor phenom if that were all it went; any case it rests on the assumption of "the market" as something basically uniform IN the west, absent OUTSIDE the west, and "cultural life" as something SEPARATE from same in both west and east. bollocks.

 

[henrymiller]

So, even if the west/east dichotomy doesn't exist 'in reality', it nonetheless plays a part in the symbolic economy and thus has 'real' determinate effects.

this in a post citing said. this 'dichotomy' (no-one ever called it a dichotomy until it became to convert everything into binaries... and so to demolish same) was 'in reality' inasmuch as empire brought a massive inequality of power between west and east -- ie the very basis of the cultural work examined in said. ie, it existed in reality.

 

[D84]

for aristotle, the city-state promotes the development of the individual by allowing men to act as citizens -- i.e., to deliberate rationally, to fight courageously, to concern themselves with matters greater than their own petty households and pocketbooks -- the city-state, for aristotle, was a kind of stage upon which men could *distinguish* themselves from and in front of their peers -- the agon, the bid for excellence -- in short, the city-state allowed men to be excellent specimens ("individuals") of the creature human being -- whereas under conditions of asiatic despotism, men have no political dimension to their lives, their lives are impoverished in this respect, and so they lack certain capacities and talents, i.e., they are deformed

You should bear in mind that tyranny was the "natural" state for the ancient Greek city-state. Tyrant is a greek cognate. Also note that Aristotle was the young Alexander's tutor and Alexander had his own ideas about individuality, perhaps more akin with Nietzsche.

Maybe Aristotle wrote the above to encourage his charge to be more civic-minded. Or maybe he wrote it to encourage his charge's subjects to be more strenous in their service of excellence on behalf of their country.

liberal society and theory yields a different kind of individual -- isolated, out for himself, greedy, etc -- i.e., the figure of the bourgeois

and in nietzsche, the individual is what we today think of as an individualist -- the kind of person who emerges after tradition and authority have been nearly fully discredited -- the person who lives by his own code, marches to his own drummer -- i.e., the individual as the exception to the rule rather than its exemplification

So is Nietzsche's superman the ultimate incarnation of the bourgeois individual?
(sorry I haven't read much of his work)

 

[D84]

this in a post citing said. this 'dichotomy' (no-one ever called it a dichotomy until it became to convert everything into binaries... and so to demolish same) was 'in reality' inasmuch as empire brought a massive inequality of power between west and east -- ie the very basis of the cultural work examined in said. ie, it existed in reality.

Yes the dichotomy is partly mythical, eg. insofaras the West is better, more democratic etc, and the idea of The West is often used to support the activities of one party against another. That's the short answer.

 

[henrymiller]

i don't see how that's 'mythical' -- given that the 'betterness' or 'democraticness' of the west are going to be interpreted inside the west's own categories, the argument is always going to be tautological. in western terms, the west is more western (ie, democratic) than the east! i can think of few domestic political struggles fought in terms of 'western' vs 'not-western', either -- unless you mean the ukraine, which is a somewhat different matter. which political parties have been accused of holding 'non-western' values?

 

[Backjob]

Well I don't fink japan and china got much in common with the middle east, innit, and that seems to be where a lot of this confusion is stemming from - bit of a loose use of the word "east" on this thread.

Naughty orientalists.

 

[D84]

i don't see how that's 'mythical' -- given that the 'betterness' or 'democraticness' of the west are going to be interpreted inside the west's own categories, the argument is always going to be tautological.

Yeah, that's what I mean. I think I said "partly mythical" in my last post. Yes there is a real difference between eastern and western cultures - sure thing. But politically it's mostly just gangs wherever you look.

I am ready to be criticized for being overly reductive

in western terms, the west is more western (ie, democratic) than the east! i can think of few domestic political struggles fought in terms of 'western' vs 'not-western', either -- unless you mean the ukraine, which is a somewhat different matter. which political parties have been accused of holding 'non-western' values?

Well I got the feeling that this thread was brought up by musings by governments and journalists that eg. muslims should become more British or face expulsion etc. Surely that's a case of internal divisions b/w local east and westerners, so to speak.

 

[henrymiller]

mm. i'm not one of those saying 'be more british', whatever that means, but i don't think you can reduce criticisms of extreme islamism to 'west vs east'. that's what the islamists themselves want, here, a clear distinction. the first mosque in britain was, after all, set up but a white, british, northern european; the ottoman empire did, after all, help preserve much of the 'west''s heritage (inclusing, of course, jewish culture). historically the west itself is split into catholic and protestant parts (a division easily as important as the division between muslims and non-muslims now). the reaction against extreme islamism is sometimes covert bigotry, but not always.

 

[dominic]

So is Nietzsche's superman the ultimate incarnation of the bourgeois individual?
(sorry I haven't read much of his work)

i don't necessarily have the most reliable grasp on nietzsche -- he's clearly uses "literary" methods in setting forth his philosophy, such that any interpretation of him must be justified by close attention to the text -- which i've never personally done (i.e., i've read most of his works, but not closely, and that was many years ago)

let's just say "the ultimate incarnation of the bourgeois individual" has been one of the effects of nietzsche's writing -- or perhaps more accurately, that nietzsche was among the first to recognize the emergence of such a figure in modern society -- i.e., the lazy person who purports to live by his own code and shirks all duty and responsibility and believes in nothing

at same time, nietzsche also clearly inspired the rigorous morality of the 20th century avant garde -- people like schoenberg, etc -- w/ all his talk of "supermen"

in short, i don't know

 

[qwerty south]

my simplistic understanding of the superman (from my 'individual and society' module at the elite humberside uni and personal study):

the superman is a benevolent creative individual who looks after the 'common herd' in a paternalistic way.

 

[henrymiller]

i haven't read FN closely, but i don't think benevolence and helping "the herd" was high on the ubermensch's to do list.

 

[zhao]

don't have time to give this a proper go, but just a comment off the top:

ofcourse there are fundamental philosophical differences in attitude toward many things between east and west, how ever you want to divide them, including individuality and his/her relationship to the world. just compare paintings and their perspective view points from old europe and ancient China...