User:Sean Heron/Refactor of West discussion

After User:Sean Heron stated that the "Western world" as such does not exist (or more precisely that the term has some very different meanings), he and User:Jcchat66 discussed the definition of Western civilisation in history and as a contemporary term.

In this context User:Jcchat66 made clear that he strongly believes that the "Western world" is a real entity, seperate from other civilizations. Upon being asked he gave a detailed definition of "civilisation" (in short: this being a common economic system and moral code that multiple cultures/nations share; this is according to Carroll Quigley's "Evolution of Civilizations"). He also described a number of civilisations and there interrelations to exemplify the concept. User:Sean Heron conceded that the "Western world" existed in the past, and both came to agree that in their opinion the "Western world" now encompassed the whole globe.

As a conclusion to this discussion User:Sean Heron asserted that the article does not reflect what the two of them agreed upon, and that a substantial reorganisation/rewrite was necessary. He proposed to discuss the structure and content of how the article was to look in a new section.

Hello, I've recently posted a (somewhat harsh? - I'm sorry) criticism of the Western World article on its talk page. I'll post a few comments here. I'm glad both of you agree that the term has reached a plateau of confusion in the modern world. I disagree that we should outright say that some sort of entity called "the west" existed in the past. Terms like "west", "occident", "orient", etc. are, fundamentally constructions (and at that, European constructions). This is not to say that there aren't some general qualities which attempt to define them - such as those pointed out above - but that these qualities are more transient and complicated than a term like "the west" would suggest. Though there are definite similarities, for example, within the nations of Western Europe, there is no clear border where these similarities end and just what these similarities are. Usually, when trying to group people, similarities are exaggerated and differences ignored; for comparisons between civilizations, differences are exaggerated and similarities ignored. Perhaps the only meaningful definition of "the west" came in describing the Catholic/Orthodox schism, but even then the status of some buffer states becomes problematic. Such a construction becomes even more problematic when applied to other civilizations. For example, the "Muslim civilization" can easily be subdivided by the Shia/Sunni split (much like an original usage of "west" divided Catholic and Orthodox nations), or split into vague ethnic groups - Turks, Arabs, Persians, Kurds etc. The problem is, these two categories cannot be overlapped - some Arabs are Sunnis, some are Shias, etc.

By calling it a construction, what I mean is that it is essentially a categorical framework (a box, so to speak) by which certain people and qualities can be lumped together, offering a convenient, but simplistic view of how human civilization is organized. In being so simplistic, it paints an erroneous history where certain attributes (such as democracy, technology, etc.) are given clear 'homes' and other civilizations are left in the dark (despite, for example, ancient India having a republic system very similar to that of the ancient Greeks, and China being technologically superior to European nations until the mid-1600s). The terms Occident and Orient, or West and East, fundamentally come down to a viewpoint best characterized by a section in Sam Huntington's ridiculous "Clash of Civilizations" article - it becomes easy to pit "The West versus the Rest".

--Skyesepp (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I propose finding citations that support the traditional ideas of Western Civ first, and identifying perhaps some more recent bad assumptions. Another thing to consider is that civilizations, even in decline, tend to linger badly, which further confuses matters. There may be another unique layer to help with this ... legal systems. One unique feature, that is not given enough credit for effecting cultural evolution, is a culture's legal system. Western Civ seems to have been more dominated by "common law" than the ancient laws of Rome, still known today as civil law. See http://ldolphin.org/cooper/appen6.html for some idea of these differences, which may be more of a catalyst for the development Western thought and ideas than we realize. At the risk of being overly simplistic, these legal systems reflect the character of the West quite well. Where the common law is generally hostile to the nation-state, being from a "barbarian" people like the Britons and Gauls, it was better suited for undermining dogmatic thought (Protestant movement), adapting different aspects of Christianity (Celtic Church that predates the Catholic, and emphasis on free will) and finally flowered with the Age of Enlightenment. Let's face it, Adam Smith, a Scotsman, was merely promoting ancient Celtic ideals of egalitarian economics than the more Greco-Roman-like mercantilism of the ancient world. Western thought relies heavily on the notion of free will, which has defined almost every aspect of its history and its perpetual conflict with authority and the state. The Dark Ages was the expression of this struggle, where no real nation-state existed, unlike Eastern Europe were nation-state and empire continued and flourished.

I don't mean to glorify the West by this, but only help identify various things that uniquely identify Western Civilization, things we may take for granted today, but which made the West very alien to all other civilizations in history. I think Western Civ leaned more towards "barbarian" ideals held by ancient Britons and Gauls, than Greco-Roman ideals of state-power, which other contemporary civs clearly went in the direction of. This struggle has always existed in history, as much ancient metaphorical stories like Cain and Abel attest to (the Mesopotamians had their own version.) The pursuit of remaining free and unrestrained as hunters on land for mariners at sea, which defined the cultures of the Phoenicians, Hebrews, Celts and North American Indians, or the pursuit of power that defines the agricultural, city-dwelling cultures of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Rome. They of course overlap and mix, and often thrive when a balance is reached between the two. But as far as civilizations go, Western Civ is clearly more Abel-like than Cain-like, and it's legal system, I believe, is just one example of this. A legal system that ultimately led to the removal of slavery, where no other civ had ever come close to achieving before.

Just food for thought, which I hope helps. Jcchat66 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded in a few days. Been rather busy. Now, to the point:
For a good article, I definitely think we have to gather together all the elements that have traditionally been classified with the West, but a problem becomes differentiating the Western World article from the Western Culture or the History of Western Culture articles. Now, looking at those articles, they seem to be pretty poorly organized, and I wouldn't even be opposed to merging them with this article, but that's a different battle. What we should maybe focus more on is the geography of the "Western World". To do so definitely requires some sorting of the various similarities and differences found in the West, but we should also closely examine these in a worldwide context. Unfortunately, I'm rather poorly versed in the history of legal institutions, so I can't fully debate the subject. But I will ask you, what you mean exactly by "western thought relies heavily on the notion of free will"? Are you implying that non-western thought is somehow fatalistic?
Here, I'll try and outline how I think this article should be structured, with a geography bent :

Introduction
- It might be worthwhile to examine the extent to which such a division exists in other cultures, to avoid an entirely eurocentric approach; like, did the Chinese Empire define itself as an "Eastern" culture, or were they more concerned with differentiating themselves from Mongolian, Tibetan, Hindu, etc. cultures? I have a friend who is a historian, I'll ask him if he knows anything about it.
- note how historically the term has been used to draw general difference between cultures, rather than stress similarities.
Origins of The West
- Famous Historians, concepts of differing cultures, etc. (Toynbee, Quigley, etc.)
- Stuff on "Orient vs. Occident"
Defining the Western World ("Delimiting" might be a more accurate world, but is it too technical?)
- Ancient World
  - We should note whether the orient/occident division existed back then, or whether it is a more modern division.
- Medieval Ages
  - Great Schism, etc. - I'm not sure if "East" and "West" were always synonymous with "Orient" and "Occident" - I'll look into it, it might be worth noting at what point the terms converged
- Imperial Geopolitics
  - noting how the term came to be used to define a 'superior' culture and (maybe) link it to justifications for colonialism (e.g "the white man's burden")
- The Cold War
  - George Kennan's "Long Telelgram"?
  - Perhaps a point about "1st" "2nd" and "3rd" world definitions.
Contemporary views on "The West"
- Usages
  - A note about the Cold War influence?
  - Huntington, et al
- Criticisms
  - "The whole world is west"/globalization
  - Edward Said's Orientalism
  - Critical geopolitics, other views

For the historical divisions part, I copied more or less the same format the article has now. I don't have my good sources here right now, so I can't look up whether they're entirely accurate, but they do constitute at least major "shifts' of how the term was used, and what countries were being referred to. The real difference between the two articles is that this one wouldn't treat the "west" as a set entity, so we wouldn't say things like "Western nations, as comparatively rich, well-armed, and culturally powerful states, still wield a large degree of influence throughout the world.". Rather, it would treat it as a term loosely grouping a (changing) set of nation-states based on perceived similarities versus perceived differences -- now, some of these sim. and dif. might be very real, the point is that they aren't always, and they usually require cherry-picking a few "key" attributes and ignoring other, conflicting ones (for example, saying that Western states are "culturally powerful" is really just singling out the American cultural influence. Very few people would cite Canadian or Belgian culture as "powerful".)

--Skyesepp (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To the question on whether other civilization seem fatalistic compared to Western Civ, I say yes. I normally call it destiny driven culture, though fatalistic might do as well. Greco-Roman and Phoenician Civ's show some evidence of becoming free-will driven on certain levels, such as Athen's attempt at democracy, and Phoenician attempts to make it easier for everyone to read and write with the alphabet (rather than leaving it in the monopolistic hands of priests.) This was brought to a halt by Alexander the Great, who burned Sidon to the ground, one of Phoenicia's last strongholds, and completely ignored Athenian sensibility. He was a very destiny-driven individual that attemtped to reshape the world in his image, and started a new trend that many followed, including Caesar. You will also note, that in history, slavery increased dramatically since Alexander, in Greece and Rome, which became the driving force of economics. Not until the Western Roman Empire total collapse did slavery begin to ebb, while it continued on faithfully in the east. This is an important dynamic.

Well, I'm going ot have to break out some old books to help with this, but have to make the time, as well. Be back soon, hopefully. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have come to realize that this is all moot without defining other civilizations. I was dismayed to see nothing in Wikipedia about Eastern Orthodox or Russian Civilization, only Orthodox Christian. Surely Wikipedia is not so narrow-minded as to deny other cultures their history. Even more disturbing, things that I plainly saw as non-Western, like the Renaissiance, is expressed as Western. Apparently Western Civilization takes as much credit for other culture's achievements as the Romans had in their day. No wonder there's so much anti-Western sentiment out there! How can we define the West when no one else has been defined? Only then can we get a clearer picture of what is Western and what is not. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)