What is your role at the European Institute, and how does your role relate to the Beyond Eurocentrism programme?
I’m both Head of Department and Professor of European Philosophy. Both roles have a connection to the BE programme – the former as a result of the latter. As someone who has been exploring themes in the Philosophy of Europe for nearly two decades now, I have been struck how the formation of Europe’s self-understanding has been informed by a profoundly Eurocentric conception of human world history: it’s a conception of the history of humanity that is represented as beginning in ‘primitive and savage’ conditions, slowly evolving into more ‘rational and civilised’ ones – with Europe at the head of this development. This picture of human history is often conceived as one which represents European humanity as the best example of humanity on its path away from its natural condition. Europe is then conceived, primarily, in terms of its achievements. However, this picture of human history can be conceived, and is perhaps increasingly regularly conceived, in an anti-Eurocentric mirror: one which represents European humanity as the worst example of humanity on its path away from its natural condition. Europe is then conceived, primarily, in terms of its crimes. I am not content with either of these views. However, since it remains the dominant one, I think it is best to foreground criticism of Eurocentrism in Europe. Nevertheless, for me going ‘beyond Eurocentrism’ really involves going beyond both Eurocentrism and its anti-Eurocentric mirror in Europe. We shouldn’t forget that.
What do you think about the EI's commitment to going beyond Eurocentrism?
I think this commitment is extremely important. And it’s why, two years ago, I initiated a new event series in the European Institute on this theme. I am glad that this series took off so successfully, and delighted that it is now growing into a whole programme of events and activities.
Do you have any highlights from your time at the EI that relate to the focus of the Beyond Eurocentrism programme?
I was in a flipped lecture last year, discussing Eurocentrism with students. My colleague Cristóbal Garibay-Petersen was also there. One of the students suddenly suggested that Cristóbal and I might have very different views on this topic: that while I highlight the conceptual symmetry between Eurocentrism and anti-Eurocentrism, Cristóbal highlights the contrast between them – and is perhaps not critical of anti-Eurocentrism either. Cristóbal was unsure what to say to this. I have a probably unnecessary desire to present a united front to our students, or at least a desire not to undermine a colleague’s position in public. Perhaps that was what was worrying Cristóbal too. Anyway, it suddenly struck me that anti-Eurocentrism is not one thing, and is strikingly differently expressed in different parts of the world. In Europe, however, it seems to me that its conceptual shape is that of a mirror to European Eurocentrism. Elsewhere it is not – and is not, for that reason, so problematic. I used that point to map out the relationship between the things I was saying and the things Cristóbal was saying. It seemed to work! So when I speak about ‘going beyond both Eurocentrism and anti-Eurocentrism’ it’s important always to note that I add: ‘in Europe’. And when I say this I don’t just mean that this ‘going beyond’ needs to happen in Europe, though it certainly does – but that what I have in view here is a distinctively European conception of Eurocentrism and of anti-Eurocentrism. Anyway, Cristóbal seemed to like my answer too – and we ended up writing a paper together on this theme.
What parts of the Beyond Eurocentrism programme do you find the most exciting?
In my view it is important to understand that the BE programme has two basic aspects. The first is the one I have been highlighting, what one might call its normative aspect: Eurocentrism is a view which regards European culture as superior to other world cultures. Going ‘beyond Eurocentrism’ means challenging that sense of superiority (and, you can now see, I would also want to challenge the opposite too, in its distinctively European formation). The second aspect is more methodological: Eurocentrism is a view which regards it as acceptable to study Europe in isolation, in an inward looking way. In the European Institute, going ‘beyond Eurocentrism’ does not mean that we no longer focus on Europe – but that this focus has its eyes open to Europe as part of a global geopolitical totality. Our studies of Europe are, one might say, internationalised or globalised. You can see this in our programme titles, and in our ambition, overall, to “Study Europe and Understand the World”.