After User:Sean Heron stated that the "Western world" as such does not exist (or more precisely that the term has some very different meanings), he and User:Jcchat66 discussed the definition of Western civilisation in history and as a contemporary term.
In this context User:Jcchat66 made clear that he strongly believes that the "Western world" is a real entity, seperate from other civilizations. Upon being asked he gave a detailed definition of "civilisation" (in short: this being a common economic system and moral code that multiple cultures/nations share; this is according to Carroll Quigley's "Evolution of Civilizations"). He also described a number of civilisations and there interrelations to exemplify the concept. User:Sean Heron conceded that the "Western world" existed in the past, and both came to agree that in their opinion the "Western world" now encompassed the whole globe.
As a conclusion to this discussion User:Sean Heron asserted that the article does not reflect what the two of them agreed upon, and that a substantial reorganisation/rewrite was necessary. He proposed to discuss the structure and content of how the article was to look in a new section.
Hello, I've recently posted a (somewhat harsh? - I'm sorry) criticism of the Western World article on its talk page. I'll post a few comments here. I'm glad both of you agree that the term has reached a plateau of confusion in the modern world. I disagree that we should outright say that some sort of entity called "the west" existed in the past. Terms like "west", "occident", "orient", etc. are, fundamentally constructions (and at that, European constructions). This is not to say that there aren't some general qualities which attempt to define them - such as those pointed out above - but that these qualities are more transient and complicated than a term like "the west" would suggest. Though there are definite similarities, for example, within the nations of Western Europe, there is no clear border where these similarities end and just what these similarities are. Usually, when trying to group people, similarities are exaggerated and differences ignored; for comparisons between civilizations, differences are exaggerated and similarities ignored. Perhaps the only meaningful definition of "the west" came in describing the Catholic/Orthodox schism, but even then the status of some buffer states becomes problematic. Such a construction becomes even more problematic when applied to other civilizations. For example, the "Muslim civilization" can easily be subdivided by the Shia/Sunni split (much like an original usage of "west" divided Catholic and Orthodox nations), or split into vague ethnic groups - Turks, Arabs, Persians, Kurds etc. The problem is, these two categories cannot be overlapped - some Arabs are Sunnis, some are Shias, etc.
By calling it a construction, what I mean is that it is essentially a categorical framework (a box, so to speak) by which certain people and qualities can be lumped together, offering a convenient, but simplistic view of how human civilization is organized. In being so simplistic, it paints an erroneous history where certain attributes (such as democracy, technology, etc.) are given clear 'homes' and other civilizations are left in the dark (despite, for example, ancient India having a republic system very similar to that of the ancient Greeks, and China being technologically superior to European nations until the mid-1600s). The terms Occident and Orient, or West and East, fundamentally come down to a viewpoint best characterized by a section in Sam Huntington's ridiculous "Clash of Civilizations" article - it becomes easy to pit "The West versus the Rest".
-- Skyesepp ( talk) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't responded in a few days. Been rather busy. Now, to the point:
For a good article, I definitely think we have to gather together all the elements that have traditionally been classified with the West, but a problem becomes differentiating the Western World article from the Western Culture or the History of Western Culture articles. Now, looking at those articles, they seem to be pretty poorly organized, and I wouldn't even be opposed to merging them with this article, but that's a different battle. What we should maybe focus more on is the geography of the "Western World". To do so definitely requires some sorting of the various similarities and differences found in the West, but we should also closely examine these in a worldwide context. Unfortunately, I'm rather poorly versed in the history of legal institutions, so I can't fully debate the subject. But I will ask you, what you mean exactly by "western thought relies heavily on the notion of free will"? Are you implying that non-western thought is somehow fatalistic?
Here, I'll try and outline how I think this article should be structured, with a geography bent :
For the historical divisions part, I copied more or less the same format the article has now. I don't have my good sources here right now, so I can't look up whether they're entirely accurate, but they do constitute at least major "shifts' of how the term was used, and what countries were being referred to. The real difference between the two articles is that this one wouldn't treat the "west" as a set entity, so we wouldn't say things like "Western nations, as comparatively rich, well-armed, and culturally powerful states, still wield a large degree of influence throughout the world.". Rather, it would treat it as a term loosely grouping a (changing) set of nation-states based on perceived similarities versus perceived differences -- now, some of these sim. and dif. might be very real, the point is that they aren't always, and they usually require cherry-picking a few "key" attributes and ignoring other, conflicting ones (for example, saying that Western states are "culturally powerful" is really just singling out the American cultural influence. Very few people would cite Canadian or Belgian culture as "powerful".)
--
Skyesepp (
talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
After User:Sean Heron stated that the "Western world" as such does not exist (or more precisely that the term has some very different meanings), he and User:Jcchat66 discussed the definition of Western civilisation in history and as a contemporary term.
In this context User:Jcchat66 made clear that he strongly believes that the "Western world" is a real entity, seperate from other civilizations. Upon being asked he gave a detailed definition of "civilisation" (in short: this being a common economic system and moral code that multiple cultures/nations share; this is according to Carroll Quigley's "Evolution of Civilizations"). He also described a number of civilisations and there interrelations to exemplify the concept. User:Sean Heron conceded that the "Western world" existed in the past, and both came to agree that in their opinion the "Western world" now encompassed the whole globe.
As a conclusion to this discussion User:Sean Heron asserted that the article does not reflect what the two of them agreed upon, and that a substantial reorganisation/rewrite was necessary. He proposed to discuss the structure and content of how the article was to look in a new section.
Hello, I've recently posted a (somewhat harsh? - I'm sorry) criticism of the Western World article on its talk page. I'll post a few comments here. I'm glad both of you agree that the term has reached a plateau of confusion in the modern world. I disagree that we should outright say that some sort of entity called "the west" existed in the past. Terms like "west", "occident", "orient", etc. are, fundamentally constructions (and at that, European constructions). This is not to say that there aren't some general qualities which attempt to define them - such as those pointed out above - but that these qualities are more transient and complicated than a term like "the west" would suggest. Though there are definite similarities, for example, within the nations of Western Europe, there is no clear border where these similarities end and just what these similarities are. Usually, when trying to group people, similarities are exaggerated and differences ignored; for comparisons between civilizations, differences are exaggerated and similarities ignored. Perhaps the only meaningful definition of "the west" came in describing the Catholic/Orthodox schism, but even then the status of some buffer states becomes problematic. Such a construction becomes even more problematic when applied to other civilizations. For example, the "Muslim civilization" can easily be subdivided by the Shia/Sunni split (much like an original usage of "west" divided Catholic and Orthodox nations), or split into vague ethnic groups - Turks, Arabs, Persians, Kurds etc. The problem is, these two categories cannot be overlapped - some Arabs are Sunnis, some are Shias, etc.
By calling it a construction, what I mean is that it is essentially a categorical framework (a box, so to speak) by which certain people and qualities can be lumped together, offering a convenient, but simplistic view of how human civilization is organized. In being so simplistic, it paints an erroneous history where certain attributes (such as democracy, technology, etc.) are given clear 'homes' and other civilizations are left in the dark (despite, for example, ancient India having a republic system very similar to that of the ancient Greeks, and China being technologically superior to European nations until the mid-1600s). The terms Occident and Orient, or West and East, fundamentally come down to a viewpoint best characterized by a section in Sam Huntington's ridiculous "Clash of Civilizations" article - it becomes easy to pit "The West versus the Rest".
-- Skyesepp ( talk) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't responded in a few days. Been rather busy. Now, to the point:
For a good article, I definitely think we have to gather together all the elements that have traditionally been classified with the West, but a problem becomes differentiating the Western World article from the Western Culture or the History of Western Culture articles. Now, looking at those articles, they seem to be pretty poorly organized, and I wouldn't even be opposed to merging them with this article, but that's a different battle. What we should maybe focus more on is the geography of the "Western World". To do so definitely requires some sorting of the various similarities and differences found in the West, but we should also closely examine these in a worldwide context. Unfortunately, I'm rather poorly versed in the history of legal institutions, so I can't fully debate the subject. But I will ask you, what you mean exactly by "western thought relies heavily on the notion of free will"? Are you implying that non-western thought is somehow fatalistic?
Here, I'll try and outline how I think this article should be structured, with a geography bent :
For the historical divisions part, I copied more or less the same format the article has now. I don't have my good sources here right now, so I can't look up whether they're entirely accurate, but they do constitute at least major "shifts' of how the term was used, and what countries were being referred to. The real difference between the two articles is that this one wouldn't treat the "west" as a set entity, so we wouldn't say things like "Western nations, as comparatively rich, well-armed, and culturally powerful states, still wield a large degree of influence throughout the world.". Rather, it would treat it as a term loosely grouping a (changing) set of nation-states based on perceived similarities versus perceived differences -- now, some of these sim. and dif. might be very real, the point is that they aren't always, and they usually require cherry-picking a few "key" attributes and ignoring other, conflicting ones (for example, saying that Western states are "culturally powerful" is really just singling out the American cultural influence. Very few people would cite Canadian or Belgian culture as "powerful".)
--
Skyesepp (
talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)