Shifting Paradigms: From Eurocentrism to Intellectual Autonomy

Mohamad Chehab

The awareness of a social scientist when it comes to scholarship should be a vast one encompassing every aspect that may lead to problems. One of these integral aspects is Eurocentrism. It is arduous to communicate this concept as it may generate impediments for individuals of diverse backgrounds. However, the agreed-upon definition of Eurocentrism in scholarship is that it is the self-centered study of the histories and cultures of non-European societies based on the European experience by naturalizing its assumptions and ideals as common-sense while italicizing non-Western values and ways of knowing. It surmises that European concepts and theories apply to all societies throughout time and place and produce value-free knowledge. Eurocentrism, being the prevalent cognitive viewpoint in social sciences, enables the fabrication of academic and scientific data demonstrating how Western civilization is superior. Thereby, social science can be seen as an exclusionary instrument through Eurocentrism. However, this is unethical, and proper measures should be implemented to deter individuals from plunging into this trap. The sole way to not plunge into this trap is by garnering intellectual independence.

Sociology is as significant as it is controversial in terms of its emergence. Recent events and crucial developments in the nineteenth century are accountable for the emergence of sociology as a discipline. These events and developments include, most crucially, the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment period, and the French Revolution. The development of such an era of intellectual advancement was critical for sociology because it promoted the idea that society is more than a political state. Therefore, its birth as a field is linked to the enormous changes that occurred with the social and intellectual conditions of the time. Hence, a reaction to modernity. August Comte, who coined the term ‘sociology,’ is credited with starting the scientific study of human society. He was able to establish sociology as a separate social science because he realized that other social sciences focus on certain aspects of society, but he sought to create a social science that studies and analyzes society as a whole. Other social scientists include Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer, and others who contributed extensively to the development of sociology in the academic field and are considered the founding fathers of sociology. All these figures mentioned differed in the environment they operated in but definitely were impacted in their studies from different environments. For instance, Comte operated in the intellectual realm but was impacted by the political scene to pursue his intellectual goals.

Inevitably, Eurocentrism is infused in the theories, approaches, and assumptions done by these sociologists. Some examples of theories that are instilled with Eurocentrism may be the Conflict theory and Structural Functionalism. These would be termed Eurocentric for a couple of reasons. One of which is being created by white European individuals and under an ‘imperial lens.’ Essentially, traditional socialists such as Marx and Durkheim, who invented the theories mentioned above respectively, viewed the world from a European perspective. When they examined and studied non-European countries, they compared them to European societies, which they saw as "modern." Where they saw these modern European societies as more advanced. It is crucial to note that these scholars had easy access to these non-European societies due to European imperialism at the time.

The question of the emergence of sociology and who truly founded sociology has been a matter of dispute between scholars. There is no doubt that such a vast field cannot be fully attributed to a single founder, but it is a question of who established the foundational and theoretical framework of the discipline in a systematic manner that incorporates the discipline's key pillars. Thereby, Ibn Khaldun, a Muslim Arab scholar, is the oldest and first to articulate Sociology’s key foundations and pillars in the 14th century, before Western sociology's systematic development. Khaldun examined scientifically the fundamental concerns of what would come to be known as contemporary sociology. Hence, ibn Khaldun laid down the basics for this social science and contrived it. Later on, there came about other social scientists who contributed significantly to institutionalizing and crystallizing sociology as an academic discipline, the most renowned was Auguste Comte, who coined the term ‘sociology,’ in which he discerned sociology from other sciences. Thereby, as Ibn Khaldun was an Eastern scholar, he is much ignored and not considered ‘the father of sociology,’ but Aguste Comte is viewed as ‘the father of sociology,’ giving a sense of Eurocentrism embedded within this field.

Eurocentrism’s appearance in the academic realm is unethical due to the one-sided interpretations that come along with it, leading to fabrications and misinterpretations due to egotistical reasons. Thereby, proper measures should be implemented to deter individuals from plunging into this trap. The sole way to not plunge into this trap is by garnering intellectual independence. An individual garners this intellectual independence by thinking beyond Eurocentrism by identifying Eurocentrism in social sciences and discerning different experiences and perspectives of different civilizations. Thereby, a plurality of civilizations and not just one civilization as the focal of the world.

An individual garners this intellectual independence by thinking beyond Eurocentrism by identifying Eurocentrism in social sciences and discerning different experiences and perspectives of different civilizations. Thereby, a plurality of civilizations. The reason Eurocentrism impedes intellectual independence and engenders mental captivity in social science research is that Eurocentrism is a uni-layered approach to social sciences. Hence, he or she views the West as the exclusive source of civilization and truth. Observing social sciences at one level rather than multiple levels is a substantial error that can lead to a variety of problems. For example, if a Eurocentric scholar approaches another culture in this manner, he or she may scrutinize progress or change in that society based on an idea derived from the Western experience that does not apply to that culture. Thus, this scholar may misinterpret these certain changes or developments. This single-layered framework is exemplified more clearly by paradigms such as orientalism or evolutionary social theory, both of which serve the function of ostracizing or stigmatizing non-Western civilizations as well as misinterpreting certain aspects of those civilizations or societies. By doing this, intellectuals abandon truth and justice for political and egotistical reasons. Thereby having “captive minds” polluted by Eurocentrism.

To not be lapsed into this uniplex approach, a multiplex paradigm should be taken. Where individuals adhere to the fact that social sciences cannot be approached through one level, multiple levels are needed to explore social sciences since it is a world of pluralism and not singularism. One paradigm that reflects this multiplex approach may be “contingent history,” which views history as an interconnected place producing historical events based on multiple causes in a cyclical approach. For instance, they argue that humanity may progress materially throughout time, but this does not inevitably imply moral progress. This is a coherent argument depicting a multiplex approach, in which they examine the evolution of history across various levels, in this case, both the material and moral aspects, since truth varies from one level to the next. Thereby, this multiplexity, if accompanied by an intellectual through social science research, will gain intellectual independence, in which he or she is not inclined to depend on one particular lens to study the social sciences but a couple of lenses, making the truth perspicuous. With this independence, the mind is unfettered from the captivity of the West.

Ultimately, intellectuals in the scholarship should thrive on a multiplex approach to all social science research aimed at disseminating and cultivating social justice and regulating social diversity. As a result, the requisite intellectual independence in the field is achieved, opening the path for national independence.