What is the West?

[pacifism]

In a couple of semi-recent political conversations, the person I was talking to or myself would start invoking the concept of “the West”. It could be western values, western culture, or just the West itself. When this happened, I would often realize that I would become way less certain whether we were on the same page or not. It was a very weird sensation because you would think that everyone knows what it is. At school, we have classes in western literature, western music, western architecture, western history, and so on. So why didn’t I know what other people meant by the West in the political circus? Here are a few things that people associate with the West:
- Christendom
- Enlightenment
- Colonies and global empires
- The free world

Without getting bogged down in a history lesson – I would lose to quite a few people at TWC when it comes to nitpicking history – there is something unusual about this list. All of those associations are exclusives with foils: for the Christian West to exist as a polity, it requires a heathen non-West; an enlightened philosopher required an obscurant to rail against; an imperialist country requires the existence of natives being imperialized; and a free world is fighting for supremacy over the unfree world. Furthermore, not only are these ideas of the West rather exclusive, but they are also contradictory at times. Enlightenment thinkers were fighting against the Roman Catholic Church and Christian absolutist monarchies. Colonies are being ruled in an undemocratic way that is decidedly unfree.

This tension can also be seen in the peripheries of what is or isn’t the West. Why isn’t Latin America commonly seen as part of the West? A majority of them are Roman Catholic, despite a few authoritarian governments Latin America as a whole is still much more democratic than Africa or Asia, and they were a part of the Allies in WWII which was when the free world became a part of American lexicon. But there is the fact that these countries were colonies and a part of battlefield of the Cold War more than they were active participants.

Does this mean that being imperialist and anti-Communist are now the biggest qualifiers of being a part of the West? The West decided that maintaining its colonies was politically as well as morally untenable. The truly Western thing to do is now is to not have colonies and not exert military control overseas against the locals’ wills. And Marxism? Karl Marx is a 19th-century stateless German Modernist philosopher whose ideas as we know them couldn’t’ve been made in anywhere but the West. The Reformation and the Enlightenment were probably seen by their detractors as an existential threat to the Christian West in their own days, and they were in some ways, but we do not think of them that way anymore. Now, they are just chapters and periods of needed change in a historical progression that is way more convoluted and less unique than we imagine them to be by calling it all “the West”.

The idea of the West was made after the fact, but its dichotomies strikes me as an oversimplification no matter how you dice it. It’s a false binary. The different definitions of the West is also something of a house divided. Right now, I cannot synthesize the significantly disparate things I associate with the West in a way that is more meaningful than simply recognizing the nuances of the globe and everyone in it. A more cosmopolitan view of humanity strikes me as more useful, but perhaps I’m just missing something in these discussions invoking the West. What do you think?

[Cyclops]

The West is what you need it to be. I put it in Athens and points within one thousand miles (intellectually). Moscow, Mecca, Madrid and Montreal, not to mention Melbourne (AUS.) are all The West.

I think dualism is a deeply important element in understanding "The West", so Communism and Islam are in baby. There's a great little summary in a recent translation of Sun Tzu (using the cool bamboo strips from the Han tombs which interestingly included some bizarre interpolations) contrasting a more-or less Eastern/Great Han/Chinese monism vs Western dualism. India is the third leg of this tripod, with its amazing infinite/one-ism.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

East of Japan.

[Donny Crane]

for the Christian West to exist as a polity, it requires a heathen non-West: Not even in the slightest. That is an odd claim.

an enlightened philosopher required an obscurant to rail against;....eh???

an imperialist country requires the existence of natives being imperialized: I mean kind of but that is a very odd statement to make a country isn't be definition imperialist, it isn't like a founding driving factor its just what people did with power because they could. Countries aren't borne and made materialist and it is not an inherent property, it is something people all over were doing and they weren't imperialist while being invaded but were when Kinda weird you think imperialist countries is a separate class of countries almost like you think....and it would not shock me...that this was a western thing.

and a free world is fighting for supremacy over the unfree world; unfounded nonsense.

The biggest barrier to south america which seems to be the fulcrum of your argument is the cold war, and you act like its a binary issue as opposed to being a very complex scenario of competing influences and bad actors which left the place ruined. I honestly am not sure you are in a position to take this topic seriously if you think american and western perspectives has always been south americas problem.

[Ludicus]

,Why isn’t Latin America commonly seen as part of the West?

A pertinent question. Why not?

A more cosmopolitan view of humanity strikes me as more useful,

Precisely. How many times have I cited Appiah? There is no such thing as western civilisation | Philosophy ...

We live with seven billion fellow humans on a small, warming planet. The cosmopolitan impulse that draws on our common humanity is no longer a luxury; it has become a necessity. And in encapsulating that creed I can draw on a frequent presence in courses in western civilisation, because I don’t think I can improve on the formulation of the dramatist Terence: a former slave from Roman Africa, a Latin interpreter of Greek comedies, a writer from classical Europe who called himself Terence the African. He once wrote, “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.” “I am human, I think nothing human alien to me.” Now there’s an identity worth holding on to.

[pacifism]

for the Christian West to exist as a polity, it requires a heathen non-West: Not even in the slightest. That is an odd claim.

Why would any describe the Christian world as a distinct entity if there is not a non-Christian world to compare it with? Why would that concept even exist?

an enlightened philosopher required an obscurant to rail against;....eh???

Well, enlightenment thinkers had to be enlightened about something. Excuse me for assuming it was rationality and human rights in a time that lacked both.

an imperialist country requires the existence of natives being imperialized: I mean kind of but that is a very odd statement to make a country isn't be definition imperialist, it isn't like a founding driving factor its just what people did with power because they could. Countries aren't borne and made materialist and it is not an inherent property, it is something people all over were doing and they weren't imperialist while being invaded but were when Kinda weird you think imperialist countries is a separate class of countries almost like you think....and it would not shock me...that this was a western thing.

Not many non-Western countries had oversea empires that were global powerhouses the way that countries we usually call Western did.

and a free world is fighting for supremacy over the unfree world; unfounded nonsense.

That's how the term "the free world" as you think of it was first used. Henry A. Wallace was one of the first people to use it to describe the coalition that made up the Allies in WW2 in his speech "The Century of the Common Man". After that, it was the term for collection the anti-communist first world nations led by the U.S. and a little bit by Western European countries attempting to spread their freedom-loving ideology across the world.

Or are you implying that there was no fighting for supremacy and influence in regions around the world during the Cold War?

The biggest barrier to south america which seems to be the fulcrum of your argument is the cold war, and you act like its a binary issue as opposed to being a very complex scenario of competing influences and bad actors which left the place ruined. I honestly am not sure you are in a position to take this topic seriously if you think american and western perspectives has always been south americas problem.

My position is that the term "the Western world" is actually kind of poorly-defined. The fact is that even though most of South America cuts the mustard for what we often associate with "the West", it is rarely included in the cool kids club.

Of course, if you've got it all figured out and you can straighten out my confusion, feel free to share with the rest of the class.

[sumskilz]

The fact is that even though most of South America cuts the mustard for what we often associate with "the West", it is rarely included in the cool kids club.

That's because we typically think of them as impoverished countries still inhabited by people who have a lot of Native American ancestry. Which is partially true and in some cases how they think of themselves. As I recall, Mexico went through a postcolonial stage of emphasizing their indigenous identity. Which made some sense for them, but it would have seemed absurd had colonial Americans started emphasizing their indigenous identity post-independence.

A copy/paste of my somewhat recent comment on the topic in another thread:

Regarding the debate on whether or not Western culture exists, I think it’s an issue of framing rather than facts. Fuzzy boundaries and disputed definitions come with any attempt to apply a framework to social phenomena, but the same is actually true to a lesser extent even with seemingly more concrete phenomena, such as the concept of species in biology. I’d say the various formulations deemed Western culture being relatively recent has to do with people historically being primarily concerned with rivalries between local identity groups. So the question is whether or not the concept of Western culture is a useful analytical or political tool in any given context. Sometimes it’s more useful to think of cultural traits as a complex Venn diagram mapped upon populations and/or regions.

[Muizer]

The idea of the West was made after the fact, but its dichotomies strikes me as an oversimplification no matter how you dice it. It’s a false binary. The different definitions of the West is also something of a house divided. Right now, I cannot synthesize the significantly disparate things I associate with the West in a way that is more meaningful than simply recognizing the nuances of the globe and everyone in it. A more cosmopolitan view of humanity strikes me as more useful, but perhaps I’m just missing something in these discussions invoking the West. What do you think?

Hmm, by that logic, should we not abolish the concept of "yellow" as a colour as well?

[antaeus]

It is a beautiful piece of marketing speak.

As we have already seen, and will continue to see in this thread, the more it is pulled apart the less it's logic holds. At a glance, most people have some surface level inkling of what is being described, until you ask them to describe where the term ends - after which it becomes an exercise in subjectivity and personal biases.

The term has a lot of logic as a generalism, but not nearly as much when used as a specific. I'm not entirely sure there is any sense going much further in the conversation than that. The grey areas are very wide.

[0riflamme]

The Church.

[Donny Crane]

It is a beautiful piece of marketing speak.

As we have already seen, and will continue to see in this thread, the more it is pulled apart the less it's logic holds. At a glance, most people have some surface level inkling of what is being described, until you ask them to describe where the term ends - after which it becomes an exercise in subjectivity and personal biases.

The term has a lot of logic as a generalism, but not nearly as much when used as a specific. I'm not entirely sure there is any sense going much further in the conversation than that. The grey areas are very wide.

It is not remotely marketing speak. When Bertrand Russel wrote a History of Western Philosohpy it was not something that was designed as marketing, it was a compelling synopsis of the thoughts of western philosophy spanning 2000 years...maybe 2500 thinking about it. Within those thoughts are the philosophies which often peripherally but also not without impetus drove western culture, even Christianity has its influence along with western philosophical tradition and it has resulted among other traits resulted in individual rights something which other cultures do not engender in fact often strive to oppose it as part of their culture (chinese for instance).

I'm sure a lot of the words you used like "logic" (wholly inappropriate) and generalist (wholly inappropriate in terms of an academic review of west vs east philosophy) sound great but they don't hold to any kind of scrutiny.

[Donny Crane]

As complex as your answer is and I'd like to address some of it but I'm not sure anyone ever said south america was west?

[Donny Crane]

[QUOTE=pacifism;15980396]Why would any describe the Christian world as a distinct entity if there is not a non-Christian world to compare it with? Why would that concept even exist?"

Much like Islam Christianity is a culture not a "world" and it spread as movement of peoples spread. That is why we have indonesia about as far removed from anything anyone would normally think of as "muslim" as being the most populous nation and why we have a christian korean santa clause.





Well, enlightenment thinkers had to be enlightened about something. Excuse me for assuming it was rationality and human rights in a time that lacked both.

Why would anyone talk of a "christian world" simple, they don't which is why the non west is the most populous christian place. Africa and South America.

Not many non-Western countries had oversea empires that were global powerhouses the way that countries we usually call Western did.

No just the second biggest empire in the world that did the most genocide was asian and mongolian.

That's how the term "the free world" as you think of it was first used. Henry A. Wallace was one of the first people to use it to describe the coalition that made up the Allies in WW2 in his speech "The Century of the Common Man". After that, it was the term for collection the anti-communist first world nations led by the U.S. and a little bit by Western European countries attempting to spread their freedom-loving ideology across the world.

Or are you implying that there was no fighting for supremacy and influence in regions around the world during the Cold War?

You literally already told us that things can change via periods and yet don't want to accept that the term is subject to change after these things that fit your narrative, why?

My position is that the term "the Western world" is actually kind of poorly-defined. The fact is that even though most of South America cuts the mustard for what we often associate with "the West", it is rarely included in the cool kids club.

Of course, if you've got it all figured out and you can straighten out my confusion, feel free to share with the rest of the class.

You specifically want to muddy the waters and conflate about 10 different concepts to aid in your confusion. You want to talk about history and the historical actions of christendom but then say the "west' is cold war actions, you don't want to discuss western philosophical tradition which has a compelling progressive narrative often at odds with itself but cohesive in its bubble. You don't really settle in on the political tradition which definitely sets it apart from the rest of the world if in its influence alone and would also help us understand why Japan transitioned into the west while South america is case dependent and sits half in half out.

I'm not so sure you really want a sophisticated discussion of western culture, philosophy, military, politics and geo-political progression so much as a generalist mess of conflation. I don't know where to go with much of it truthfully.

[antaeus]

It is not remotely marketing speak. When Bertrand Russel wrote a History of Western Philosohpy it was not something that was designed as marketing, it was a compelling synopsis of the thoughts of western philosophy spanning 2000 years...maybe 2500 thinking about it. Within those thoughts are the philosophies which often peripherally but also not without impetus drove western culture, even Christianity has its influence along with western philosophical tradition and it has resulted among other traits resulted in individual rights something which other cultures do not engender in fact often strive to oppose it as part of their culture (chinese for instance).

I'm sure a lot of the words you used like "logic" (wholly inappropriate) and generalist (wholly inappropriate in terms of an academic review of west vs east philosophy) sound great but they don't hold to any kind of scrutiny.

Ok then. It's that kind of thread.

Seeing as you object to most of what I've said, and not understood I was using "marketing" analogously (or ironically or euphemistically if you prefer), can you address my point then?

Describe in detail, the specific conceptual boundary between west and non west? And when doing so, I don't need a philosophy lesson. I need you to help me understand what it means in detail when the term is used by the average Joe (or Jane - or any other generic "western" name) on the street.

[Donny Crane]

You specifically want to muddy the waters and conflate about 10 different concepts to aid in your confusion. You want to talk about history and the historical actions of christendom but then say the "west' is cold war actions, you don't want to discuss western philosophical tradition which has a compelling progressive narrative often at odds with itself but cohesive in its bubble. You don't really settle in on the political tradition which definitely sets it apart from the rest of the world if in its influence alone and would also help us understand why Japan transitioned into the west while South america is case dependent and sits half in half out.

I'm not so sure you really want a sophisticated discussion of western culture, philosophy, military, politics and geo-political progression so much as a generalist mess of conflation. I don't know where to go with much of it truthfully.

quoting myself I honestly don't know what you want from "this kind of thread' when you want to conflate every type of thing, seemingly on the negative side, to suit the lowest bar. Not sure I can help with that. There is the generic idea that west is western europe america and japan that most public joes subscribe too, there you go I did it, and it so avoids the hard conversationt you want to avoid. Thread closed?

[Muizer]

quoting myself I honestly don't know what you want from "this kind of thread' when you want to conflate every type of thing, seemingly on the negative side, to suit the lowest bar. Not sure I can help with that. There is the generic idea that west is western europe america and japan that most public joes subscribe too, there you go I did it, and it so avoids the hard conversationt you want to avoid. Thread closed?

"The West" is one of those terms, (like "patriotism") that is subject to ideological turf wars. Its propaganda value (positive connotations) is such that it can't be studied objectively amidst factions attempting to imbue it with a meaning that is agreeable to them. I suspect the latter is what "this kind of thread" refers to.

[Donny Crane]

"The West" is one of those terms, (like "patriotism") that is subject to ideological turf wars. Its propaganda value (positive connotations) is such that it can't be studied objectively amidst factions attempting to imbue it with a meaning that is agreeable to them. I suspect the latter is what "this kind of thread" refers to.

Nothing to disagree with just a pedantic note to say its propaganda value can be a negative connotation which is currently how its being used, like a counter narrative to the idea that west is good he is trying to say west is bad. Because.

[antaeus]

"The West" is one of those terms, (like "patriotism") that is subject to ideological turf wars. Its propaganda value (positive connotations) is such that it can't be studied objectively amidst factions attempting to imbue it with a meaning that is agreeable to them. I suspect the latter is what "this kind of thread" refers to.

While this statement is entirely applicable, and when I look back it is appropriate, by "It's that kind of thread" I was meaning that this is one of those threads where the conversation gets so focussed on it's arguments that analogies get lost.

quoting myself I honestly don't know what you want from "this kind of thread' when you want to conflate every type of thing, seemingly on the negative side, to suit the lowest bar. Not sure I can help with that. There is the generic idea that west is western europe america and japan that most public joes subscribe too, there you go I did it, and it so avoids the hard conversationt you want to avoid. Thread closed?

Oh to the contrary. You don't need to throw your toys and sarcastically avoid deep conversation. I just think you're focussing too much on where the term came from, and not enough on how it is currently used - we are after all in the Academy and not the Ethos. When a news reader or politician or your racist old uncle talks about "the west" when referencing a story are they talking about a philosophical tradition or religion or how someone defined the term 250 years ago? or are they just meaning "people like them"? I want the conversation about 'the west' to include this part of the usage as well as the academic or theoretical.

Sure, there is a tradition of philosophy and literature and religion. I agree with you on that count. But even that presents us with a nebulous and changeable idea that is politically abusable. Sure I was flippant in use of terms like 'logic', but my point still stands: That the term is nebulous and extremely subjective, and thus prone to the type of situation that Muizer presents above (although I wouldn't quite go as far as to say it can't be studied - more that an in depth study of it could end up being a self defeating experience).

[Donny Crane]

While this statement is entirely applicable, and when I look back it is appropriate, by "It's that kind of thread" I was meaning that this is one of those threads where the conversation gets so focussed on it's arguments that analogies get lost.



Oh to the contrary. You don't need to throw your toys and sarcastically avoid deep conversation. I just think you're focussing too much on where the term came from, and not enough on how it is currently used - we are after all in the Academy and not the Ethos. When a news reader or politician or your racist old uncle talks about "the west" when referencing a story are they talking about a philosophical tradition or religion or how someone defined the term 250 years ago? or are they just meaning "people like them"? I want the conversation about 'the west' to include this part of the usage as well as the academic or theoretical.

Sure, there is a tradition of philosophy and literature and religion. I agree with you on that count. But even that presents us with a nebulous and changeable idea that is politically abusable. Sure I was flippant in use of terms like 'logic', but my point still stands: That the term is nebulous and extremely subjective, and thus prone to the type of situation that Muizer presents above (although I wouldn't quite go as far as to say it can't be studied - more that an in depth study of it could end up being a self defeating experience).

Sorry it seems like you want all and nothing at the same time.

I feel like there may be something deeper you are driving at, that there can be deeper sub narratives between cultures perhaps or there is zero evidence of such a thing? Because what is definite is there is a western tradition of many things as I have mentioned. I mean you asked it and I've given multiple examples of it. Its not so simple as ||west|| But many such wests exist.

[0riflamme]

I'm afraid my answer is too simple for the sophists. The West is the Church, to the extent Western Christianity (so the Catholic Church) permeates a culture. Nations, individuals, states only belong to the West through the Church that Jesus built, so when they sever that bond they are no longer the West but their own little experiments.