C C Consultants
Conceptualizing THE WEST
Confusion results if one approaches THE WEST without reflecting on how to define it. Basically, two
quite different kinds of concept might be employed. The more traditional one is derived ultimately from
Aristotle; the more modern one inspired by Ludwg Wittgenstein (1889-1951). The differences are
visible at once from the following two maps of a region in Central Asia.
Aristotle VERSUS Wittgenstein
The political map on the left allots each country a uniform and distinctive color, implying a national
unity shared by all citizens. The ethnic map on the right shows complex populations in all countries,
implying only relative majorities in any given case. In an Aristotelian concept., the first impulse for most
westerners, all members in a category must seem to be equally so, all sharing certain defining
characteristics that lead to their being classified as members.
A Wittgenstein category sees members as related by "family resemblances." That is, different
members share variable traits (some share noses, others height). Also it presumes centrality: certain
members appear as central and others seem relatively peripheral while still remaining members of
the family. In addition, centrality may easily shift over time. In Western Civilization candidate
way-stations include Greece to Rome to Charlemagne's empire to Italy to France and England to the
USA. Under this kind of conception Latin America and Russia may appear as relative outliers but
nonetheless they remain recognizable as relatives. Then there will be boundary zones where other
cultural complexes progressively exert their influence: grounds for extended arguments about
transitional regions.
Much wasted energy might be put to more constructive uses if we were willing to modernize our
sense of how categories work, now more than half a century since Wittgenstein offered his insights.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |