Natalie Mettler
Anth 63-01
September 12, 2000

Class Discussion

Blaut, The Colonizer's Model of the World, Chapter 1

Presentation on the reading by Mirei:

Blaut's main argument in chapter one of The Colonizer's Model of the World, is that Eurocentric ideology, and moreover history, are spread by diffusionism. The two ways this is perpetrated are the conception of the world as having an Inside and an Outside (or a Center and a Periphery) and the belief that diffusionism is scientifically sound. Diffusionism is the process by which inventions and innovations, allegedly all Greater Western (from the Inside) in origin, spread to the Outside, or non-Western world. Blaut argues that diffusionism is merely an idea, of strong beliefs transformed into facts, that lacks verification. In general, knowledge (especially in the social sciences) is created as a function of the social, cultural, and political environment. Believers of diffusionism maintain that progress is good and natural, and that ideas from the Inside are a gift to the rest of the world. Blaut asserts that there are two main problems with the acceptance of diffusionism as valid: 1) the "facts" that justify it are not merely beliefs but are also Eurocentric, and that the "history" used to illustrate the process of diffusionism is in fact the ethnohistory of Europe and thus reflective of cultural values rather than empirical data; and 2) the concept of diffusionism itself assumes the inequalities between the Inside and the Outside to be natural, that European superiority is inherent, and that modernization wrought by diffusionism is beneficial to and desirable for the Outside.

Based upon this reading, Mirei formulated the following two questions to put to our class:
1) How does diffusionism fit into the discussion of the coloniser's model of development?
2) How can we critique development using Blaut's ideas?

Diffusionism and development:

In response to the first question, James stated that diffusionism, if it is the fundamental understanding of the way the world works, provides the ethics of colonialism and leads to the modernizing mission underway today. Indeed, the difference between historical colonialism and contemporary neocolonialism is marginal, in that colonies have been given up in the formal, political sense, but remain economically influenced, perhaps even controlled, in varying degrees by the colonising nations. Takara added that all developmental works done today are based on the idea of diffusionism. Mirei observed (later in the class discussion) that diffusion as the prevailing system is so dominant as a result of its usefulness in justifying the West's activities (in its self-interest) and because it was easy to believe when Europeans were ignorant of the outside world.

Unresolved issues:
o How are developmental works shaped by the ideas of diffusionism?

When did the concept of diffusionism come into existence?

In the examination of the relation between diffusionism and development, Bequi asked whether the notion of diffusionism existed prior to colonialism or was created to fulfill the purposes of colonisation. Diana replied that diffusionism was present before the period of colonisation (starting in 1492), but was different because of the West's ignorance of the outside world. Josh countered this, saying that Eurocentrism, stemming from the aforementioned ignorance, was present in the years preceding 1492 while a theory of diffusionism was not as the latter implies movement between different parts of the world (movement from the Inside to the Outside). Diffusionism, he continued, was invented to justify colonialism when the Europeans began to learn more about the outside world. James presented a different answer to Bequi's question: the original ideas of diffusionism were taken from the Old Testament, a text that credits Greater Europe (this geographic term includes the Middle East) with the earliest inventions and thus as being the center of humanity. In relation to this, Armen suggested that the idea of conquest (for colonisation purposes) is believed to be supported by the Old Testament, but upon closer examination, this support cannot be found in the text. She stated that this was an example of the tailoring of an influential text for practicality and an illustration of the contradictions within belief systems, symbolised in this case by the Bible. James added that the concept of diffusionism born of the Old Testament evolved in the colonial era with the appearance of the "myth of emptiness" that justified the removal of resources from the New World.

Unresolved issues:
o The relation between the "myth of emptiness" and the theory of diffusionism.
o Historical basis of idea of world as having an Inside and an Outside.

Information on European history to place the origins of the concept of diffusionism in context:

In order to facilitate a clearer understanding of the origins of the concept of diffusionism, Professor Guneratne discussed the prevailing mentality in Europe prior to 1492. In the Middle Ages, Europe was behind in progress in comparison to Asia. Indeed, European society had no idea nor expectation of progress. This is well illustrated by popular depictions of the Christ family in art. Until the 16th century, painters showed Christ and other characters from Biblical stories in contemporaneous clothing, thus placing their subjects in their time. The idea of progress appeared during the Enlightenment (17th-18th century), a period of intellectual struggle that pushed science and rationality to the forefront. The human being came to be considered perfectible and human history began to be seen as a record of human progress. The German philosopher Hegel saw progress as the unfolding of reason, making it possible to place human societies on a continuum that measured the rationality of a civilisation and thus of its progress. The Enlightenment coincided with the European Age of Exploration, and as Europeans encountered new peoples in the New World and parts of Asia, progress became a way to explain the human condition around the world. This was the social and historical context in which the concept of diffusionism developed ­ as a justification for the appropriation of other peoples.

Tunnel history:

Blaut states that history is the way a society shapes the mind of its children so as to function in that society. As is evidenced by history textbooks, societies tend to present as desirable as possible a version of its history. This is an important part of what Blaut calls tunnel history ­ the understanding of the world solely from the Inside perspective. A related point made earlier in class by Takara addressed the problem of scholarship based on history, since the notion of diffusionism is important in creating so many historical "facts." These inaccuracies, she continued, carry on to the modern day as diffusionism is still a prevailing historical paradigm.

Continuing his lecture, Professor Guneratne reminded us of a point Blaut makes ­ that tunnel history traces human progress in a northwest direction across Greater Europe. This Eurocentric framework continues today, as can be seen, for example, in books on art history that focus largely on Western art and the disproportionate representation of Westerners in Time magazine's feature on the hundred most influential individuals of the past millennium. Tunnel history illustrates how the "theory" of diffusionism is, rather, a belief system. Professor Guneratne asked us to reflect on why such ideas as diffusionism can achieve hegemony if they are not objectively true. Moreover, how does one argue against implicit beliefs?

Unresolved issues:
o Knowledge as created within a certain context; knowledge as belief.

Arguing against implicit beliefs:

To argue against implicit beliefs, the class first tried to identify some in society today. James suggested as implicit beliefs the process of advancement of human culture and the acceptance of whatever is done contemporarily as "better" than what was done in the past. I proposed that individual human rights are an indication of the advancement of societies. In line with the idea of advancement, Josh brought up learning and stated that an individual and/or civilisation learns from its history. He also pointed out that since we think of learning as natural, it is an implicit belief. What, though, does advancement mean? James defined advancement as a mirroring of the process of learning that school gives us; the idea that if an innovation works, it must be an advancement. He also included in his definition the introduction of new ideas and events that occur naturally over time, facilitating a technical fix.

Unresolved issues:
o The function of implicit beliefs in creating knowledge.

Development as progress of values:

Professor Guneratne stressed that progress can be thought of in many different ways, not just the material advancements that we had been discussing. Development is also about the progress of values. Abby declared that globalisation has made it difficult to talk about advancement linearly. There are many different ways to advance and thus to define progress; the idea of advancement is culturally bound and globalisation has brought new perspectives, other than that of Eurocentrism, into play. In response, Professor Guneratne suggested we keep in mind the relation between values and development, and the dilemma of deciding which culture is preferable and whether one can be objective in choosing a perspective with which to view the development.

Another issue to contemplate, because class time did not permit extensive discussion, is the social context of power relations in which knowledge is produced, especially in the case of academics who are not separable from their institutional context.