Cultivating Critical Consciousness

There was a nice progression in the readings this week, in that we started with a problem and worked towards a solution. While Hamid Dabashi’s article itself seemed rather hurried and accusatory in its presentation, he succinctly pinpointed a markedly Euro-centric bias in the realm of modern philosophy. He begins his article with a quote by Slavoj Zizek, who names only the Europeans on his list of today’s most important philosophers. The others are categorized under national headings. Although Dabashi fails to comment on the fact that three women were among the European thinkers listed and one man from a former Soviet Block country, the non-naming of any thinkers outside of the European boundaries is conspicuous. Tied with the conspicuousness of the anonymity of the non-European, is the prevalence of the distinguishing prefix “ethno” when discussing philosophy, music, art, literature etc.

What intrinsic quality of European culture distinguishes it as the norm, requiring everything “non-“ to be preceded by the “ethno-“ caveat? My first response to Dabashi’s argument, is a rhetorical question of my own: How does one come to understand the new/foreign? He compares it with what he knows as a reference point. If this person has been socialized in a Euro-centric/Western society, he will necessarily view the world through this lens. Antonio Gramsci argued much the same in his prison notebooks, when he wrote that everyone is self-indulgent and acts according to his culture. This begs the question, however, of how this socialization might be adjusted in the future to halt the perpetuation of further stereotypes.

Edward Said presents a solution in his writings. In “Traveling Theory”, he proposes approaching all theory with critical consciousness. Each theory is a product of its social and historical situation. The tendency to orient (the small o is meant here) oneself in the world from a Euro-centric perspective can perhaps be understood as a relic of the economic predominance of Europe at the height of colonialism, a status quo that lasted well into the 20^th century. As capitalism reached its fever pitch, commoditization and reification objectified everything, including thought. It was perhaps then that the Oriental influences that gave the Romantics their abilities of abstraction (see Hogan) lost much of their intrinsic value through their commoditization. What was innovative theory became cultural dogma appropriated by schools and institutions, which in turn dulled critical consciousness, perpetuating an unquestioned bias for European/Western thought that undervalues any cultural production outside of this geographical sphere. To stop the perpetuation of this, Said urges a permanent state of critical consciousness.

I particularly liked ending with Patrick Colm Hogan’s piece, because, whereas Dabashi’s article was accusatory and negative, Hogan positively treated the same problem with explanation. Where Dabashi listed a great number of names, which brought shame to any reader who couldn’t recognize more than two or three (like myself), Hogan highlighted the positive cultural contributions of the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Arabic traditions, as well as their influence on Europe. I think much of the reason why the Euro-centric bias towards literary theory and philosophy perpetuates today is due largely to ignorance regarding the wealth of the cultural heritage outside Europe, which, often, greatly influenced it. Having access to this information allows one to locate himself vis-à-vis the Orient when examining Oriental texts and thought, as recommended by Said.

How does this apply to me? Studying Romanticism, particularly German Romanticism, Hogan’s contribution was of great interest to me. I’ll certainly be looking at E.S. Shaffer’s Kubla Khan and the Fall of Jerusalem, recommended by Hogan as a pivotal text to understanding the origins of Romanticism. Further, I agree with Said and Gramsci, that man is a product of his society. As much as Hogan seeks to enlighten his readers, his argument provides evidence of a Euro-centric upbringing, in that he lumps Japan, China, India and the Arab nations under one heading in much of his argument, arguing their collective worth as the other, against a negatively-viewed Europe. Being aware of the persistence of my own socialization, and the vital need for critical consciousness to resuscitate “old” theory when looking at the world today, can only serve me good stead in my future career as an academic.