EUROCENTRISM

EUROCENTRISM
Aarhi Priyadarshini(23/401), Arpita Yadav (23-612), Jaya Paul (23/1057), Manvi (23/240),
Zarina Batool(23/1048)

The eurocentric theories of rise include that in the pre 1500 period was mainly based on its
environment and usually progressive culture. In the post 1500 period, after the successful voyage
in America, huge wealth was brought in Europe and a merchant class eventually grew. The
political power of the merchant- capitalist class and its allies grew rapidly as a subsequent result
of this.

What is Eurocentrism?
Eurocentric world history is not just a theory- its a set of beliefs, a world model, made of
countless statements of facts and explanatory theories; some statements are tied with good
evidence, some with poor, some with no evidence at all (folk myths). Eurocentrism is not saying
Switzerland has got green lands with clear skies, but comparing it with the landscape of any
oriental country like India, is Eurocentrism.
Columbus met non europeans and could think themselves as superior- could be “conquered
easily”. The European superiority was confirmed by the success of colonialism and the great
profits that it produced.
Europe colonised many areas of Asia and Africa and they proved to be profitable as well-
Eurocentric beliefs turned to be true and useful

Diffusionism
The base of the Classic Eurocentric Diffusion theory is that Europe, being the most rational had
made all the inventions and innovations in agriculture, metallurgy, city, states, fines arts and
everything else under the sun. According to the Tunnel history, historians viewed everything to
the European past via a tunnel- the walls were of Greater Europe (core), rest of the world was
peripheral. After 1492, everything diffused from the core to the periphery via the mechanism of
colonialism. Non european society do not change due to their internal causes but due to changes
coming directly/indirectly from the European sector
The critic that wealth drained from non- European to European countries was rejected rather vice
versa was said. Due to globalisation, colonial development and international programs, Europe
brought modernity and development to a world that was originally sunk in poverty.
Therefore, the europeans profited from colonialism because of their location on the globe and not
because that they were advanced or venturesome.
According to Max Weber, a Eurocentric scholar and racist in approach, social evolution is as an
assent of human rationality. At each stage, new innovations in terms of new social institutions is
a product of rational thought. No way to defend the social system than to say that it reflects the
wishes and choices of the people. Worker is a worker because of calling, because he had
volunteered to do the same.

Oriental Despotism
Asia, Egypt have dry lands, irrigation facilities are required by the people, which was made by
the state. Thus people were dependent on the state for their survival, which made the rulers
despotic and the people, unfree.
On the other hand, Europe received good rainfall thus there was no need for dependence o the
state for irrigational facilities, allowing the freedom of survival for the people. However, the fact
that irrigation is for intensification of food production, not to support agriculture was largely.
Coastal cities like are freer like Greece-, which led to the growth of democracy, according to
Weeber. Greece and Rome are considered to be the predecessor of the Western society and
culture.

He was critised based on the following points-

● Unfair comparison of 20th century Europe with contemporary non- European
civilisations, currently crushed under colonial rule;
● Science, maths and technology in India and China prior to early modern period (1492),
Europe stood no way better;
● Just projecting the rather standard prejudice of the european bourgeoise gentleman of his
time in his negative judgement about the art and culture of non- europeans - their music is
not harmonious, art not rational.

Weberian Arguments-
● Sleeping Beauty awakened by the Prince- social evolution in Europe was used as a
formula for bringing modernity to “backward” societies of Africa, Asia and Latin
America. The key concept of this theory was the notion that “traditional societies” would
be shaken out of their traditionalism and awakened to economic development by new and
better ideas introduced from the west, as Sleeping beauty being awakened by the Prince;
● Notion of Traditional Society- irrational, beliefs on magic and superstition composed the
societies of China and India. Characteristics like ‘liberty’ and ‘free’ of the European
societies were in contrast to the non European traditional societies.
● Landholding system- Weber popularised though he did not originate, the idea that the
medieval European manor is much closer to genuine private property, and also much
more pregnant with potential for social change, than the large estates of asia. This was
crucial for the development of individualism, private property, and eventually capitalism
in europe and the non development of such things [Link], in the
 orient, agricultural landholdings were retained as property of the state/king. He was
criticised on the ground that medieval European estates were usually granted on service
tenure, that is conditionally, as were non european estates, and both tended in various
regions to congeal into permanent, hence in essence, private ownership.

Inventive Europe
Lynn White, Jr.'s book, "Medieval Technology and Social Change" (1962), is a significant work
in historical explanation. Lyn White is a prominent North American historian who argues that
technological determinism- where new technology is seen as the primary driver of historical
change- led to major social transformations during the medieval period and beyond and was
hence, responsible for growth of Europe and transmission of “EUROCENTRIC” [Link]
main arguments could be summarised in the following points:
● Technological determinism: White argues that technological innovations were the main
catalysts for historical changes, regardless of the origin of these technologies. He says
that Europe was uniquely inventive and advanced compared to other regions. However,
we need to realise that some of the technological traits in medieval Europe were
borrowed from other cultures. This contradicts the notion of European exceptionalism.
An example in this case could be the use of gunpowder which was first used in China in
firecrackers and then Europeans used it in gunpowder. While a possibility of it’s use in
canons in China is also highlighted by some during the same time as that of Europe.
● Medieval Innovations: Europeans invented or adopted several revolutionary
technologies during the middle ages, which, according to Lyn, were responsible for
European transition from Feudalism to Capitalism and Modernity.
● Iron Stirrup: The invention of iron- stirrup revolutionised mounted warfare, leading to
the rise of medieval knights and the feudal system.
● Agricultural Technology: Europe's production technologies led to an increase in
agricultural production, which White believes, is the root cause of Eurocentric historical
perspective. This occurred as a result of 3 main inventions- use of plow; horse collar or
horsepower; three field system. All this can lead to a perception that Europe's agricultural
advancement was unparalleled and ignores similar or even earlier innovations in other
parts of the world. For example, advanced agricultural practices in China, the Middle
East, and the Americas played crucial roles in their respective societies. Recognizing
these contributions can provide a more balanced and less Eurocentric view of historical
development.
● Cultural Imagination: While White occasionally mentions the “imagination,” “talent,”
and “dynamism” of Europeans, these qualities are not unique to Europe. Other cultures
have demonstrated similar traits throughout history, contributing to significant
technological and social advancements.
However, technological determinism is a paper tiger and it must dissolve into something else as a
‘thing to be explained.’ It must dissolve into the values, religion and prevailing social structure
as defining factors.
A few years after the appearance of Medieval Technology and Social Change, Lynn White
published a very important and very influential article titled “The Historical Roots of Our
Ecological Crisis.” In this article White traces the environmental loss in terms of the
technological advancements of the west. He says that the root of ecological loss lies in the
scientific development of the west and the religious values that propagated this progress. One
must therefore, look for the solution to this crisis in religion and solve it.

European Miracle
Eric L. Jones’s book, “The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the
History of Europe and Asia,” presents several key arguments to explain why modern states and
economies first developed in Europe rather than in other parts of the [Link] European
Miracle is a pure example of Eurocentric history, and an especially sophisticated one.J.M. Blaut
mentions the use loaded word “devices” instead of “approach” or “procedures” because what
Jones has to say in this book is not factual, empirical, scientific, scholarly: it is made to appear so
by the form of argument. The devices used include asserting truth, using hard factors
only(environment, population and not culture); comparative analysis; ‘shown’ as truth; week
source/evidence; telescoping history; misinterpretation of Asian history and assuming it as static.
‘The European Miracle’ has 3 key propositions- Europe's unique environmental “gifts”; Non-
Europeans “spent” these resources on mere “multiplication of the common life” ; ‘insensate’ :
Non- Europeans, in a word, are irrational.
Key arguments as to explain why modern states and economies first developed in Europe rather
than in other parts of the world aim to explain why Europe experienced a “miracle” of economic
and political development, setting it apart from other regions during the same period. They
revolve around- Quality of Europeanness; Technological advancements; expansionism; Free
market; Development of states and nations; ‘Primitive’ Africa; ‘Barbarous’ Asia and growth
recurring.
● Environmental and Geopolitical Factors:
The interaction between Europe’s natural environments and political systems created favourable
conditions for economic development, contrasting with the less favourable conditions in the
Ottoman Empire, India, and China.
● Marginal Differences with Long-Term Impact:
Marginal advantages accumulated over time, giving Europe a growing edge over other regions.
● Economic and Political Systems:
Europe’s economic and political systems were more conducive to growth and innovation. The
decentralised political structure of Europe, with its competing states, fostered a competitive
environment that encouraged technological and economic advancements.
● Comparative Analysis:
The book gives a comparative analysis of Europe and other major civilizations, such as the
Ottoman Empire, India, and China. Jones contrasts the successful interaction of environmental
and political factors in Europe with the frustrating patterns of their interplay in these other
regions.
While Jones acknowledges the complexity of factors contributing to Europe’s rise, his focus on
European exceptionalism can still reinforce a Eurocentric narrative. However, we also need to
take into account Non- European history in order to account for the errors committed by
Eurocentric Historians.

Euro- environmentalism
There are 3 main theories to claim eurocentric perspective. After World War 2 race dropped out
and hence, only the cultural and environmental factors worked jointly or separately to claim
[Link] such theory, however, was put forward by Jared Diamond, in his much
discussed Pulitzer Prize-winning 1997 book; “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human
Societies.”
Jared Diamond argues in terms of: a natural environment; agriculture; civilisation growth and
Europe & China.

A natural experiment: The comparison between New Zealand’s Maori and Moriori illustrates
how environment influences societal success. Maori, living in the warmer northern part of New
Zealand, practiced agriculture and formed larger, more advanced societies. They even launched
expeditions to conquer the Chatham Islands, where the Moriori lived, who practiced a
hunter-gatherer lifestyle due to their colder environment that was unsuitable for agriculture.
Critic J.M. Blaut argues that this is not a scientific experiment but a superficial comparison. He
points out that Moriori likely migrated from the cold southern part of New Zealand, which also
limited agricultural practices. Additionally, the Chatham Islands, contrary to Diamond’s
description, are not “subantarctic” but lie about 45° south.
Agriculture: Diamond distinguishes between the “ultimate factors” that explain “the broadest
patterns of history” and the “proximate factors,” which are effects of the “ultimate factors” and
explain short-term and local historical processes . The “ultimate” factors are environmental, not
cultural. The most important of these “ultimate” factors are the natural conditions that led to the
rise of food production. Those world regions that became agricultural very early gained a
permanent advantage in history. Regions that became agricultural much later were at a
permanent disadvantage, but those that never acquired agriculture on their own were, for that
reason, totally out of the stream of historical development. The “ultimate” causes led, in much
later times, to regional variations in technology, political organization, and health; these, then,
were the “proximate” causes of modern history. More than half of Guns, Germs, and Steel is
devoted to elucidating the “ultimate” causes, explaining why differing environments led to
differing rates in the acquisition of agriculture, and explaining how the resulting differences
produced several thousand years of human history.
Civilisation: factors—time of onset of food production, barriers to diffusion, and human
population size- led straightforwardly to the observed intercontinental differences in the
development of technology.
Europe & China: Diamond argues that Europe and China were destined to succeed in global
historical competition due to their environmental advantages. He believes Europe ultimately
triumphed because its environment is superior to China’s. Both regions, located in temperate
Eurasia, have the best conditions for agriculture, with Europe seen as an extension of the Fertile
Crescent. Diamond suggests that China dominated eastern Eurasia from the Neolithic era and
posits that an agricultural revolution in central China displaced hunter-gatherers in Southeast
Asia. However, there is uncertainty about the origins of agriculture in China versus Southeast
Asia, as evidence for early farming in New Guinea is comparable to that in China, and rice may
have been domesticated in India or Southeast Asia, not China.

Religion and Culture

The supremacy of Christianity

Eurocentric historians propose various causes for the so-called “European miracle,” with many
attributing significant importance to Christianity. Scholars like Lynn White and Hall argue that
Christianity uniquely positioned Europe for progress, unlike other civilizations. They explain
how early churches contributed to societal advancement in ways that were not replicated
elsewhere.

1. Church’s as a Rome legacy:

As HALL believes that After the fall of Rome, Christianity took the responsibility for promoting
culture and civilization in various European Regions that led to the integration of various
European regions. Hall says “ The church wore the mantle of Rome . It was civilization” . Most
notable Jones Mann, and Landes, share the similar Eurocentric view about Christianity. Hall's
argument is true but other religions played the same culturally cohesive role in society.

2. Christianity role in politics :

Christianity also provided a framework that helped the state to develop or evolve by legitimising
the rulers through religious endorsement, such as the coronation of kings. Hall suggests that the
church's egalitarian principles contributed to a democratic tradition in later European history.
While this view is insightful, it overlooks the socially conservative role of the medieval church
and the equally egalitarian aspects of Islamic governance during the same period.

3. Economic impact :
Eurocentric historians frequently highlight howChristianity, particularly Protestantism,
cultivated a distinctive “work ethic” that emphasised discipline, responsibility, and thriftiness.
For instance Max Weber uses : “ Whatever your hands find to do , do it with all your might.”
Unlike some other religions, Christianity did not impose restrictions on economic activities,
fostering a climate which is favourable to trade and market autonomy.

4. Concept of progress:
The concept of progress in western societies is greatly shaped by Judeo- Christian theology that
has profoundly influenced Western attitudes toward nature and progress. Western Christianity
promotes a belief that the society is in perpetual progress —an idea less prevalent in many other
religious traditions. Furthermore, this theology conveys a sense of dominion over nature,
viewing humanity as separate from and superior to the natural world.

5. Rationality and innovation :

Finally, Eurocentric historians argue that the rationality and innovative spirit of European
societies are the products of Christian influence. This assertion highlights the connection
between rational thought and Christian doctrine, which encouraged inquiry and exploration of
the natural world. However, it is important to note that other cultures also demonstrated
significant rationality and innovation .

China and Confucianism

Confucianism is not a religion in a traditional sense but it has been significantly shaping China
from society to governance along with economy.

1. Static Society:
Hall portrayed China as a society that lacked progress and innovation, attributing this perceived
stagnation to Confucianism. According to Hall, Confucian values—emphasising on tradition,
social harmony, and respect for authority—created a rigid social structure that resisted change
and led to societal backwardness. However, this perspective overlooks the reality of a dynamic
and vibrant Chinese society. Historically, China’s economy was far from static, engaging in
significant trade along the Silk Road and also numerous innovations such as gunpowder, paper,
and the compass, which had profound global impacts.

2. Barbarian Label:
By labelling China as "barbarian," Eurocentric historians sought to assert the superiority of
European culture and civilization. They misunderstood Confucianism's ethical and hierarchical
structure, viewing it as a symbol of despotism and backwardness rather than recognizing it as a
different but equally sophisticated system. This labelling allowed European historians to degrade
the value of Chinese civilization.

3. Confucian Rationality:
Hall argued that the Chinese lacked the rationality and innovation of Europeans, failing to see the
intellectual rigour within Confucianism. But they overlook Confucian values that focus on
education, ethical governance, and logical thinking. It promotes systematic approaches to
governance and social conduct, emphasising reasoned decision-making, respect for social order,
and continuous learning. This intellectual foundation contradicts the claim that Chinese society
lacked rationality.

The image of China presented by Hall and other Eurocentric historians was a distorted one,
reflecting Western biases rather than the realities of Chinese society. This ignored not only
China’s substantial contributions to global knowledge, trade, and culture but also diminished its
complex social systems and historical achievements.

Hinduism: The land of Brahamnas

India fares even worse than China by Eurocentric historians. For India , as for China Hall out
forward the traditional European stereotype of the country and its deficiencies. Just as China is
traditionally labelled by Europeans as despotic, India is stereotyped as a country governed
strictly by caste rather than politics or economics. Indian history is almost reduced to this one
single trait i.e “ caste ” as no other force is important . They view India as “The land of the
Brahmans. ”

1. Static Society:
Eurocentric historians frequently describe India’s caste system as a rigid, unchanging social
structure, suggesting that it prevented social mobility and innovation, leading to a “static”
society. They viewed the caste system as deeply rooted in Hindu religious beliefs. This view
overlooks the historical evidence of fluidity and reform within the caste system, such as social
mobility during the Bhakti movement, when lower-caste individuals gained prominence through
devotion rather than birth.

2. Comparison with European Feudalism:

Some Eurocentric historians compared India’s caste system to European feudalism but argued
that, unlike feudalism, the caste system did not evolve or adapt. They basically ignored the
regional variations that happened in India over time. In reality, both systems had complex
hierarchies and regional differences, and like feudal Europe, India saw shifts and changes in
caste dynamics.

3. Impact of Colonialism:
British colonial administrators reinforced these stereotypes, often using the caste system to
justify their rule and policies in India. They codified the caste system in ways that made it appear
more rigid and unchanging than it actually was, further entrenching these stereotypes. For
example, the British census categorized people strictly by caste, solidifying divisions and
promoting a more rigid view of social structure that hadn’t existed in such a form before.

4. Influence of Brahmans on Indian politics:

In India the caste system and the influence of Brahmanism took away the focus from politics and
instead gave the power to religion i.e Brahmans . Hall then stated “The Brahmans blocked the
emergence of powerful politics”. And India does not have a political history . Therefore Hall
describes Indian states as unstable and short-lived with kings whose main aim was just to fight
unnecessary wars and take resources without offering much in return. In his view, these states
were focused on taking from people rather than creating structures for the public good, such as
roads or schools. Caste system also prevented India from having any political infrastructure that
is needed for economic development.

Islam

1. Islam and Pastoralism:

In historical writing, the term "Islam" has been used broadly to describe regions with Muslim
majorities, just like the term "Christendom" for Christian-majority areas. European historians
tended to link Islam with nomadic lifestyles, imagining Muslims as tribal wanderers in the desert
who rob and pillage or convert people forcibly to their strange religion. They oversimplified
Islamic societies, which also included highly developed cities like Baghdad and Cairo and
extensive trade networks. Hall argues that these nomadic people were unfamiliar with the lands
that they took over and they were not able to connect with the land thats why Islamic societies
were nomadic , unstable and were not able to develop a strong government.

2. Barbarian Label:
By labelling Islamic societies as "barbarians," Eurocentric historians aimed to emphasise the
supposed superiority of European Christian civilization, portraying Muslim societies as less
advanced and more [Link] portraying Muslims as "barbarians" or "uncivilised," European
countries could claim that colonial rule was necessary to bring progress .

3. Distorted View of Islamic Contributions: Eurocentric perspectives often downplay or

overlook the major contributions which were done by Islamic civilizations to the fields like
science, mathematics, and culture. These historians tend to attribute progress in these areas to
later European achievements, ignoring the foundational work of Islamic scholars. Because they
believe Islam do not any rationality .

Whether it's China , India or Islamic societies they basically overlook the foundation work done
by non European societies and they have the tendency to portray these societies as static and
unchanging which is inaccurate . By depicting the non European religion as primitive,
Eurocentric historians reinforced the idea of European cultural superiority and this leads to the
justification of colonial .Besides, many other religions played a role and pose challenge to
Eurocentric perspective but their role have been marginalised and hence, need to be reviewed.

Culture

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: A Cultural Critique of David Landes

In The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, David Landes argues that Europe has been historically
more successful than other regions due to its unique cultural values and practices. And there has
been always been a fundamental difference between East and West .He claims that concepts like
private property, personal freedom, and democracy are primarily European in origin and have
significantly contributed to Europe’s progress. Landes suggests that these cultural traits made
Europe superior to regions such as the Islamic world, India, China, Africa, and Latin America,
which he characterizes as less advanced. However, many historians today challenge this
Eurocentric view, demonstrating that other cultures have also exhibited similar values and
achieved significant advancements.

Critique of Key Cultural Arguments

Landes asserts that the European emphasis on private property and individual freedom
distinguishes it from other civilizations. However, civilization that exists in East have also
property rights though these were often limited and ancient societies like Mesopotamia
possessed their own cultural understandings of property rights and personal autonomy. For
instance, the Code of Hammurabi established comprehensive rules about ownership, illustrating
that the value placed on property is not exclusive to Europe. By suggesting that the ideas of
private property is unique to Europe is incorrect .

When discussing democracy, Landes predominantly highlights ancient Greece, where the
concept of freedom was limited to elite males. This narrow perspective disregards democratic
practices in other cultures. For example, the Iroquois Confederacy in North America
incorporated women in governance, showcasing a different yet equally valuable approach to
democracy long before European influence took hold. There is no evidence that West have more
freedom than the people in the East.
Landes, compares the so-called evil empires of the East with the supposedly democratic states of
ancient and medieval Europe. He argues that because European political structures were
fragmented during the feudal era, they were more democratic than the larger empires in Asia.
However, the fragmented feudal system didn't really create true states but rather a complex web
of local powers led by lords.
Additionally, Landes portrays European cities as centers of cultural innovation and freedom,
claiming that these urban spaces propelled economic growth. However, cities in Asia and Africa,
such as Baghdad during the Islamic Golden Age and Timbuktu, were vibrant hubs of culture,
education, and trade. These cities made significant contributions to the global cultural landscape,
demonstrating that advancements were not confined to Europe alone.

Moreover, Landes adopts a traditional view of overpopulation, suggesting that non-Europeans

struggle to manage their reproductive rates, leading to unchecked population growth. He
contrasts this with the practices of Western Europeans, who he claims embraced delayed
marriage and spaced births. This perspective oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores the
diverse cultural practices surrounding family and fertility in many societies. For example, in
various African cultures, there exist long-standing traditions of family planning that reflect
careful consideration of social and economic factors.

Ultimately, Landes's arguments rely on the notion that Europe is the pinnacle of cultural
advancement, a perspective that simplifies history and disregards the rich contributions of
non-European cultures

Euro- Marxism

● Europeans have always been the leaders in the forward march of history and that
● Europe is the fountainhead of civilization, the main source of innovative social change.
● For Eurocentric Marxist, the origins of capitalism are European. Class struggle is the
main essence of capitalism. Whereas,
● Colonialism was rather a marginal process not contributing to European capitalism.

Robert Berner
He is a Euro Marxist historian. In 1976 and 1977 He supplied two long essays named “Agrarian
class structure and economic development in pre industrial Europe" and “The origins of
capitalism development: A critique of Neo Smithian Marxism” respectively. These essays were
mainly to prove that capitalism and modernisation originated in Europe and evolved mainly there
with little outside influence and colonialism.

Brenner’s Theory
In the fourteenth century, the English peasants basically won their freedom. The
elimination of serfdom set in motion several processes that then swept away feudalism.
Since peasants were now free, they would tend to rise or fall in economic status,
depending on such matters as the size of their holdings. This was a process of
differentiation of the peasantry into status groups, which eventually became classes.
The less successful peasants remained as subsistence farmers or lost their holdings
and became landless labourers. The more successful farmers now negotiated with the
landlord/lords to acquire leases on fairly large holdings, holdings now large enough so that, with
hired labour, they could produce a profit and favour the accumulation of
[Link] the key factors in the process were these: First, the elimination of serfdom freed the
minds of the peasants so that they could begin, rationally, to think up ways to improve
agricultural production. Second, the new freedom from serfdom meant that agricultural labourers
would move around in a labour market, taking work where the compensation was [Link]
were the two essential features of capitalism:
capitalist rationality, leading to technological innovation; free wage labour, leading to efforts to
reduce the cost and raise the efficiency of labour.
The larger peasants now became small businessmen, leasing land from the lords, hiring labour,
competing with one another, and accumulating capital or—if unsuccessful—going out of
business. In short, the standard menu of attributes for a modem small business enterprise.

Perspectives of Brenner’s Theory

Geographical:
● Outside world is not at all involved in the transformation.
● It is only a northwest European fact.
● Only England is central to the transformation.
● The rise of Capitalism is a rural English fact.

Historical:
● Transformation occurred over four centuries- 14 to 17th.
● Arrival of capitalist agriculture in the English countryside during a rather brief and
almost revolutionary way during the middle or late part of the 15th century.

Criticisms of Brenner’s Theory

● Brenner, like some other Marxists, holds to a very mystical conception of capitalism.
Capitalism is conceived to be an entity, an essential thing. Suddenly technological
inventiveness and innovativeness appear; they were not really present during the feudal
age, says [Link] working people are “free,” that is, they begin to make
economically rational decisions in a free labour market. Suddenly society (English
society) acquires an “economy.’’ And more.
● Brenner confuses the various phases of the process and so mixes together the events of
several centuries,positing that there was a quick revolutionary transformation that
occurred roughly in the late fifteenth century, and describing this revolutionary
transformation in such a way that it contains processes that we know were characteristic
not of the fifteenth century but of the fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth.
 ● Brenner makes a somewhat similar, and equally fallacious, argument about the feudal
landlords who, he says, have no incentive to innovate technologically because they are, in
essence, satisfied with their social situation. Brenner makes two errors here. First, there
were periodic crises throughout the Middle Ages, and landlords were very frequently
faced with a lack of delivery of surplus and a need to increase it. Brenner imagines that
the standard way to do so was to squeeze the peasantry ever more tightly rather than to
attempt to improve production methods, on the demesne farm or on the peasant farms.
Granted that feudal lords were expert squeezers, nonetheless many of the estates, lay and
ecclesiastical, made serious and important efforts to improve agricultural methods and
introduce better technology. Brenner’s next error is to assume that squeezing had no
limit: nowhere does he notice that mediaeval serfs were suffering exploitation to and
sometimes beyond the subsistence line. Another fact about the squeezing process that
Brenner ignores: when peasants were forced to increase the delivery of surplus produce,
they were under intense pressure to increase their levels of production, hence were likely
to (and often did) innovate, technologically and in other ways, in order to increase
production. In other words, it is simply untrue that serfs (and also landlords) had no
incentive to innovate.
● Next there is a serious difficulty with Brenner’s conception of mediaeval technology. He
holds a very contradictory image of the peasantry. He thinks that mediaeval peasants
were not at all innovative as to technology but that some peasants became marvellously
innovative as soon as they were touched by the magic wand of capitalism. This error
aside, the fact is that peasants were not hidebound and traditional. We can infer this from
modem research that disproves the contemptuous attitude that European “modernization”
theorists hold about peasants and their supposed irrationality, traditionalism, and the
like—an attitude that Brenner clearly shares. We know this also from the research, which
has uncovered a broad array of peasant-generated technological advances in the Middle
Ages.

March of History
Michael Mann espouses a resolutely Eurocentric thesis, tracing Europe’s superiority back to
prehistoric foundations and rejecting the view that it lagged behind other civilizations until the
Late Middle Ages. Mann contrasts Europe’s “intensive” development with Asia’s “extensive”
growth, viewing Europe’s cultural and economic vitality as flowing westward—from the Middle
East to Greece to northwest Europe, in a sort of "Occident Express." Over millennia ‘this leading
edge of power’ in Near eastern, Mediterranean and Europe progressively shifted to the
northwest. Here,power means the level of civilization which gets reflected in – technological
productivity, cultural progress, military strength, socio-cultural organisation etc.

Iron Age Peasants

Mann attributes Europe’s edge to its Iron Age peasants—independent, iron-plough-wielding
farmers relying on rain-fed agriculture, free from the despotic control that irrigation demanded in
societies like Egypt and Mesopotamia. While irrigation expanded agriculture in these
civilizations, it also entrenched authoritarianism, or "Oriental Despotism" which left them in a
‘trap of nondevelopment’. Europe’s rain-fed farming, in contrast, empowered a class of
autonomous, individualistic peasants, decentralizing economic power and fostering a distinctly
entrepreneurial spirit . (The concept of rain-fed, free peasantry largely echoes Max Weber’s and
Eric Jones’ ideas .)

Role of Christianity
Mann posits that Christianity was Europe’s transformative gift, binding it into a unified entity
adept at discerning “opportunities” and “blockages” to growth. Eastern despotism and Islam, he
argues, posed “blockages,” stunting regions like Italy and the Byzantine Empire, whose
resources were drained in defending Europe’s frontier.

Northwest Europe, by contrast, surged forward with “revolutionary” advances, powered by the
“rational” and “restless” spirit of its people—a dynamism Mann traces to Germanic peasant
traditions, rather than the eastern influences that imposed serfdom through Rome. For Mann,
Christianity cultivated a pan-European trust, a cohesive “essential rationality.”

Rejecting the view of medieval Christianity as purely conservative, Mann contends that Europe’s
fragmented feudalism encouraged competition, sparking the individualism and capitalist zeal that
fueled European ascendancy. Christianity, according to Mann infused the qualities needed for
technological and economic revolution – set of norms to develop trust, rationality, ethics.

Environmental opportunity
Europe's westward expansion was propelled by favorable environmental conditions and
pioneering technological advancements. Mann’s perspective aligns closely with Jones'
Environmentalism and Lynn White’s determinism. Europe’s inherently fertile soil and
innovations in ploughing, sowing, animal harnessing, crop rotation, and the water mill provided
a unique agricultural and technological edge, especially over Asia.

The west-facing coastline further catalyzed maritime exploration, fostering Europe’s economic,
social, and political ascendancy.

Hence,Mann posits that Europe’s advantageous environment, Christian influence, and

deep-rooted individualism cumulatively spurred its evolution into a capitalist powerhouse,
distinguishing it from other civilizations.

Criticism of Michael Mann’s Eurocentric explanations

Mann's notion that Europe's ascendancy sprang from iron-plough-wielding, rain-fed farmers has
been critiqued, as these practices were prevalent across Asia, not uniquely European. Blaut
points out that even parts of southeastern Europe employed irrigation, much like Egypt’s
low-rainfall areas.

Further, the idea of Europe's "inherently fertile" soil is seen as overstated; excessive rainfall and
nutrient-poor soils meant low yields, with India, China, and Java offering more productive soils
for staples. Technologies like the plough, animal harnessing, and water mills also predated
Europe in Central Asia and China.

Mann’s claim that Christianity was the bedrock of Europe’s dynamism is equally debatable.
Blaut argues that other religions offered ethical cohesion; medieval Christianity, in contrast, is
often depicted as conservative, dogmatic, and bureaucratically encumbered.

To conclude, the eurocentric beliefs are ingrained `in the minds of not only the Europeans but the
world as a whole till date and we need to look at alternate perspectives as no development in
history is unidirectional, there can be no upward or downward graph alone for a region while
developing and transition.

References
Blaut, J.M.(2000). Eight Eurocentric Historians. The Guilford Press.