Working the Waters

, Fiddlesticks

Although not occurring until midway through the body of supporting evidence, a definition of the “standard Eurocentric assumption” clarifies ­­­the purpose of the author’s defensive stance: “…all backward countries can enjoy the fruits of modernity so long as they follow the Western recipe for modernization” (Hobson 88). Other than this, there is no mention of exactly what the “Eurocentric” argument is, although the author repeatedly uses it as an abstract subject to base his claims against. While criticism of the author’s use of this abstract element may be valid, the consideration of whether the author’s argument is relevant to the definition given.

The argument seems to apply to “backward” countries specifically. In the present day, the Rostow argument (defined as the “standard Eurocentric assumption) would therefore more pertain to “third-world” or “developing” countries, not China or Japan. In this case, the Rostow argument is much more defensible: efforts by the current Euro-American hegemony and institutions such as the World Bank have practically insisted that developing nations “buy in” to the global economy through prescribed models and means to do so, in the form of loans and investments. This is, in essence, an assumption that these countries would not succeed through their own means without the models of the most economically powerful countries. In consideration of current-day economics, Rostow’s suggestion is quite credible.

            Proving that China, Japan, and other Southeast-Asian countries were not as isolated as they have seemed is a valid common denominator amongst those countries, but there are more important elements having to do with their role in the global economy that should be considered. For example, some of these countries were introduced to the global economy through colonization, such as India, and others were not. China and Japan had their own distinct systems which played far different roles in the world economy did than, say India and its role in Britain’s movement from a feudal economy to a world hegemonic power. The isolation of China and Japan is very interesting yet may not be congruent to the supposed isolation of India and other Southeast-Asian countries. Hobson employs their connection to refute the “Eurocentric” ideals, but does not consider the unique way in which each country did or did not participate in the cultivation of a Eurocentric global economy.

[benlemmond]