The Bias of Backwardness

What Is Anthropology? ANTH 2301 The Bias of Backwardness The idea that European and Euro-American civilizations are more developed and civilised than other cultures is shared by both primitivism and orientalism. The concept that the world's cultures may be ranked from least to most evolved on a sociocultural sophistication scale has dominated Euro-American thought at least since the 19th century. Native American and African civilizations were often seen as the most primitive, while Asian and Middle Eastern cultures were seen as marginally more advanced but still not as civilised as European nations, which were regarded as the pinnacle of human development. This ethnocentric style of thinking was enhanced by early anthropology. Anthropologists of the 19th century described a number of speculative plans that mapped out the stages of evolution that every culture would experience as it strived to achieve the European ideal of civilization. An extremely well-known plan was put out by British anthropologist Edward Tylor. According to Tylor, every society developed from "savagery" to "barbarism" to "civilization." Such "evolutionary" plans, frequently referred to as "theorising from the armchair," were mostly based on theoretical supposition because the researcher could not see the transition from one stage to another. Some anthropologists contributed to the popularisation of this theory, but others made efforts to disprove it as erroneous and misdirected. American anthropologist Franz Boas's works made clear that no civilization undergoes developmental change in isolation. Rather, as new concepts and innovations spread from one culture to the next, each culture grows as a result of its contacts with other civilizations. Furthermore, cultures develop in a variety of ways, sometimes embracing new practices and other times resurrecting and reclaiming ancient ones, and are not always shaped by an overarching trajectory of progress as characterised by the European example. Every culture creates its own distinct history through these various patterns of change. The concept that sociocultural development is moving towards a Euro-American ideal, despite the evolutionary theories of 19th-century anthropology being refuted, is a pervasive example of ethnocentric prejudice outside of the field of anthropology. There are still many who call certain nations "developed" and "modern," while labelling others "backward" and "undeveloped." Take a moment to consider this: Which nations are commonly regarded as modern? Which ones are called "underdeveloped" most often? What do these labels actually mean? The values behind these classifications are Euro-American. Many Americans and Europeans who support capitalism and technology consider the creation of material riches to be the main indicator of a society's success. Richer and poorer countries make up the majority of the difference between the world's more and less "advanced" nations. The most prosperous societies are those in Europe and America, which have benefited from the growth of industrial capitalism and international commerce. "Undeveloped" refers to societies that have not attained the levels of wealth and technology associated with industrial capitalism in Europe and the United States. Some refer to societies that have not engaged in any industrialization as "premodern" or just "traditional." This line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that every culture seeks economic growth independently, much as previous evolutionary theories. The world's poorer nations are taught that they, too, can become wealthy like the US, UK, and Germany by working hard and implementing the right economic policies. However, how did those nations initially get to be wealthy? Not by itself, however. When it comes to economic transformation, the Boasian focus on cultural interaction holds true. cultures in Europe and America rose to prosperity mostly via subjugating and impoverishing other cultures. The global capitalism system that European nations built was intended to enrich them greatly via the exploitation of labour and raw resources from their colonies. Actually, that served as colonialism's primary driving force. Sidney Mintz is a cultural anthropologist who has researched this phenomenon among others. Mintz (1985) examined how European traders created a very profitable sugar-based system of production and consumption. Using the labour of enslaved Africans carried from West Africa, European merchants established sugar plantations in the New World when customers in Europe started to acquire a taste for sugar in the 17th century. The European traders who created the system made a sizable profit from the sale of sugar from these farms to Europe and other countries. Locals who lived near the sugar plantations did not gain much from this trade, and slaves suffered and perished as a result. For the production of other major commodities including cotton, cocoa, coffee, and tea, comparable methods were created. The fundamental framework of the commerce was the same, albeit certain items engaged small farmers and others required enslaved labour. Many South Asian and African nations built their whole economies around the export of primary commodities, the production of which was monopolised by European traders who profited from this international commerce. These key commodities continue to be the main source of income for many postcolonial nations. What does it mean to comprehend the modern world through these historical processes? European governments and traders developed strategic perspectives on the regions of the world they wished to conquer and settle. In order to rationalise the emergence of the slave trade, the plantation system, and colonial control, Europeans classified a large number of non-Europeans as primitive peoples in need of European dominance to advance civilization. This kind of prejudice still exists in modern ideas of backwardness that are attributed to the world's poorer regions and populations. The colonial system was actually a worldwide mechanism used by European governments and traders to syphon off riches from various regions of the world. Local merchants were forced out of business and local competition was outlawed while European traders carefully maintained control over these extremely profitable trading practices. The lingering effects of this system may still be seen in the Euro-American dominance of world commerce. It is not because certain nations are "backward" and others put in more effort than others if the world appears to be split between rich and poor. The reason for this is because the global system was established on types of inequality that still exist now.