This book re-evaluates 'international knowledge' in light of recent scholarship in the fields of hermeneutics, ethnography, and historiography regarding the 'non-West', the past, and the present of international society. It offers a view of the present in the form of a critique of Euro-centrism and occidentalist views of the postwar order.

Eurocentrism influences virtually all established historical writing. With the rise of Prussia and, by extension, Europe, eurocentrism became the dominant paradigm for world history. Employing the approaches of Gramsci and Foucault, Peter Gran proposes a reconceptualization of world history. He challenges the traditional convention of relying on totalitarian or democratic functions of a particular state to explain and understand relationships of authority and resistance in a number of national contexts. Gran maintains that there is no single developmental model but diverse forms of hegemony that emerged out of the political crisis following the penetration of capitalism into each nation. In making comparisons between seemingly disparate and distinctive nations and by questioning established canons of comparative inquiry, Gran encourages people to recognize the similarities between the West and non-West nations.

Eurocentrism remains a prevailing feature of Western-dominated social scientific perspectives, tending to ignore alternative views originating outside the West and thus maintaining a form of scholarly hegemony. As such, there is an urgent need to reconsider Eurocentrism in social science, to ask whether it constitutes an obstacle to understanding social problems and whether it is possible to go beyond Eurocentrism in the construction of reliable, more universal knowledge. At the same time, certain questions persist, particularly with regard to the extent to which recent revisionist challenges have really contributed to the surmounting of Eurocentric domination, and whether the constant repetition of the concept serves to reinforce it. This book engages with the central problems of Eurocentrism in the social sciences, bringing together the work of scholars from around the world to offer a critique of this perspective from both European and non-European positions, thus shedding light on the binaries that often come into being in debates in this field. Thematically organised and addressing a range of questions, including Eurocentrism in historical studies, in the understanding of religion and civilisation and in the study of international relations, as well as in the institutionalisation and professionalisation of research and discourses on modernisation in the Middle East, Eurocentrism at the Margins will appeal to scholars with interests in knowledge production and circulation, and Eurocentrism and post-colonialism in the social sciences.

In this remarkable work, Dr. Ediho Lokanga, the author of the bestselling book, Digital Physics: The Meaning of the Holographic Universe and Its Implications Beyond Theoretical Physics, presents a synopsis of mathematical activities in Africa over the last few centuries. Relying on several historical works and direct knowledge of various academic sources, combined with his mathematical background, the author draws a rich picture of mathematical activity in Africa, stressing the critical and fundamental contributions made by ancient Africans in the field of mathematics. Beyond Eurocentrism: The African Origins of Mathematics and Writing fills a gap in the current literature focusing on Africa, a continent rarely explored by scholars in academia.

Postmodernism and Japan is a coherent yet diverse study of the dynamics of postmodernism, as described by Lyotard, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Guatarri, from the often startling perspective of a society bent on transforming itself into the image of Western “enlightenment” wealth and power. This work provides a unique view of a society in transition and confronting, like its models in the West, the problems induced by the introduction of new forms of knowledge, modes of production, and social relationships.

Reveals international theory as embedded within Eurocentrism such that its purpose is to celebrate/defend the idea of Western civilization.

The European social sciences tend to absorb criticism that has been passed on the European approach and re-label it as a part of what the critique opposes; criticism of European social sciences by “subaltern” social sciences, their “talking back”, has become a frequent line of reflection in European social sciences. The re-labelling of the critique of the European approach to social sciences towards a critique from “Southern” social sciences of “Western” social sciences has somehow turned “Southern” as well as “Western” social sciences into competing contributors to the same “globalizing” social sciences. Both are no longer arguing about the European approach to social sciences but about which social thought from which part of the globe prevails. If the critique becomes a part of what it opposes, one might conclude that the European social sciences are very adaptable and capable of learning. One might, however, also raise the question whether there is anything wrong with the criticism of the European social sciences; or, for that matter, whether there is anything wrong with the European social sciences themselves. The contributions in this book discuss these questions from different angles: They revisit the mainstream critique of the European social sciences, and they suggest new arguments criticizing social science theories that may be found as often in the “Western” as in the “Southern” discourse.

This 2007 study explores how modern scholars came to write Greek history from a Eurocentric perspective and challenges orthodox readings of Greek history as part of the history of the West. Since the Greeks lacked a national state or a unified society, economy or culture, the polis has helped to create a homogenising national narrative. This book re-examines old polarities such as those between the Greek poleis and Eastern monarchies, or between the ancient consumer and the modern producer city, in order to show the fallacies of standard approaches. It argues for the relevance of Aristotle's concept of the polis, which is interpreted in an intriguing manner. Finally, it proposes an alternative way of looking at Greek history as part of a Mediterranean world-system. This interdisciplinary study engages with debates on globalisation, nationalism, Orientalism and history writing, while also debating developments in classical studies.

The book presents a possible way of reading and re-writing the Eurocentrism of International Relations. The method proposed to re-write histories of the manifestations and criticisms of Eurocentrism is through ‘connected histories’. The first section of the book focuses on manifestations of Eurocentrism in and through disciplinary formations and geopolitical contexts. This section explores the ‘field of IR’ as a problematic unit that already assumes a coloniality of power. It questions the existence of ‘fields of study’ and the borders between them by examining the permeability between history and IR, and highlighting how Eurocentric assumptions about world politics are reproduced in the different ‘fields’. The second section of the book focuses on criticisms of Eurocentrism in and through disciplines and geopolitical contexts. This setion explores the different ways in which theoretical strategies criticizing Eurocentrism were formulated in conversation with each other across disciplines and geopolitical contexts.