How Do You Define Western Values?

Uncategorized

How Do You Define Western Values?

Published by

Clarissa

September 14, 2012

I just had the following dialogue with a student that I really need to share.

Student: I was surprised to discover that the Aztecs were such a Western civilization.

Me: What do you mean by “Western” in this context?

Student: They had such a sophisticated knowledge of science, medicine, technology. . .

Me: As we learned earlier in the semester, the Europeans destroyed their own cultural legacy and had to wait for the Muslims to restore it back to them. Do you remember what the buildings left behind by the Visigoths looked like by the side of the Great Mosque of Cordoba?

Student: It isn’t just that, though. The central values of the Aztecs, their driving force, seem very Western.

Me: Which values specifically?

Student: It’s mainly that they were conquerors, empire-builders. This is what defines the Western civilization. The US and the British Empire created their wealth by exploiting other people.

Me: The Umayyads, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane. . .

Student: I know what you mean but still. . .

I’m now looking for a Western equivalent of the word Orientalism.

Rate this:

16 responses to “How Do You Define Western Values?”

David Gendron

September 14, 2012

Occidentalism??

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  September 14, 2012
  
  Does this term exist?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. David Gendron
    
    September 14, 2012
    
    I don’t think so but I love to create neologism. (I’m better in French, of course)
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. kelly
    
    September 14, 2012
    
    I don’t know if the term does exist. Right now I would be much happier knowing how to make skype work. Later on, I would get into the orientalism/occidentalism stuff.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      September 14, 2012
      
      Good luck with Skype! I know it can be tricky.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
David Gendron

September 14, 2012

But not this time, it seems… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidentalism

LikeLike

Reply
musteryou

September 14, 2012

That’s a huge problem, that “Western” has acquired an essentialist meaning. Actually any group can dominate and subjugate other groups. It’s not peculiar to Western society to be able to do that. It’s very narcissistic to think only Western culture does this, but that is also part of liberalism, to maintain that one’s guilt is greater than anybody else’s because one is so special that it simply must be.

Look up Gukurahundi, and see that even people with African genetics can also dominate and subjugate — and, no, it’s not because they were contaminated with Western culture and thus their primeval purity was spoiled. If anything, cultural contamination is purely a Western concept.

LikeLike

Reply
sheddingkhawatir

September 14, 2012

Occidentalism is a real term, complete with academic analysis. Like Orientalism in reverse, it is exotifying and essentializing the West in order to define the East. Obviously, the entire concept of “western” and “eastern” anything falls apart with about two seconds worth of critical thought, but Orientalism and Occidentalism have reified this model to the extent that it has considerable power and influence. It is impossible to avoid, and at times can result in useful analyses, but it is too rarely critically examined (in my opinion)

LikeLike

Reply
1. n8chz
  
  September 15, 2012
  
  Obviously, the entire concept of “western” and “eastern” anything falls apart with about two seconds worth of critical thought…
  
  Yes, what about borealism and australism?
  
  The key to being an occidental is possession of all 5 of Niall Ferguson’s killer apps.
  
  Dismissing critics of the West as noble savage romantics is little other than political incorrectness for its own sake. It isn’t about whether anyone has a “monopoly” on conquest, but about farther reaching questions like the ability to project power across oceans, or the ability to overwhelm an area with decisive technological advantage.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    September 15, 2012
    
    All I see in this is, yet again, a desire to scratch the “privilege itch.” “We are the baddest badasses of all the baddies ever!” Nothing annoys pseudo-progressive Americans more than the suggestion that somebody somewhere managed to mess up their own lives without any interference from the US. This is in no way different from the attitude of American conservatives who are just as annoyed by any suggestion that somebody somewhere managed to do something right without any “assistance” from the US.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. musteryou
    
    September 15, 2012
    
    I actually don’t understand n8chz’s post, but I think if the whole Mea Culpa navel gazing liberalism were to be swept out of the way, socially we could all breathe a sigh of relief and politically things would remain much the same.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      September 15, 2012
      
      I agree completely about the obnoxious uselessness of the liberal guilt complex.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
miguel (St. Orberose)

September 15, 2012

Looks like that student has been brainwashed into loathing his own culture, the poor thing.

I wonder if Muslims feel as bad about their conquests of Europe as Europeans do about the conquests of America? Or if this self-critical ability to feel ashamed about our past isn’t perhaps one of the West’s best values? The ability to understand we were wrong?

LikeLike

Reply
Wirbelwind

September 15, 2012

Eh, too many people believe in the idea of “noble savage”. Anybody thinking that only some European nations tried to carve out empires with their blades should read a bit more.

LikeLike

Reply
Kyle

September 16, 2012

“It’s mainly that they were conquerors, empire-builders. This is what defines the Western civilization. The US and the British Empire created their wealth by exploiting other people.”

I’d have to disagree with the student in three ways:

1) “Western civilization” is not solely defined by conquering and empire-building. When I think of “Western civilization,” I think of tolerance, reason, respect for human rights and freedoms, democratic government, respect for property rights, free thought, science, the Enlightenment, and so forth, most of which go against the idea of imperialism. I’d say imperialism was a big part of the entities which played a role in the development of what we today refer to as “Western civilization,” but I do not see it as being definitive of Western civilization itself.

For example, Rome played a large role in the development of the modern West, but yet Rome was a formal empire and had lots of slavery. Athens Greece only allowed men to vote. The British Empire played a huge role in the development of the modern West, but they had a large empire as well. And the United States itself oppressed the Native Americans, did not protect the rights of minorities and women for many years, and if you go by the southern U.S. pre-Civil War, had slavery.

2) The U.S. and Britain did not create their wealth by exploiting other people, they created it by adopting inclusive economic institutions that allowed for economic growth, innovation, and constant creative destruction to occur. In saying that, I’m not saying exploitation did not occur, it did, but that exploitation, the colonization and slavery in the southern U.S., is not what created the modern economies of the U.S. and U.K.

3) One can find conquering and empire-building in every culture. That is not unique to “Western civilization” or “Western” countries.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  September 16, 2012
  
  I agree completely with everything you day here, Kyle.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply