This blog post examines how modern historiography has reproduced Western-centricism through the concepts of linear progress and a historicist conception of time, while exploring the possibility of a new historical consciousness where diverse civilizations and heterogeneous temporalities coexist.
Imperialism plundered not only the territories of colonies but also their cultures and minds through Western-centric ideologies. These ideologies were disseminated in the form of ‘scientific’ knowledge during the process of colonial domination, and the field of historiography was no exception. So-called modern historiography functioned as a tool to legitimize colonial rule, disseminating discourses produced based on Western historical experience through modern educational institutions in the colonies. Consequently, not only the construction of colonial history but the very way history was perceived became dominated by Western-centric thought.
However, as critiques emerged regarding the mental scars left by imperialism, the recognition gradually spread that Western history is not the ‘center’ of world history, but merely one part of the whole. Non-Western civilizations are emphasized as possessing equal value to Western civilization, and the fact that various elements of Western civilization were themselves transmitted from non-Western regions is being newly highlighted. Nevertheless, it is difficult to say that Western-centered thinking has been fundamentally overcome by this shift in perception alone. Therefore, alongside reflection on the discourse of civilization as a whole, a fundamental reexamination is needed of the historical mode of thinking centered on the concepts of ‘modernity’ and ‘progress’ that accompany that discourse.
At the core of modern historiography lies a historicist mode of thinking. The central concept of historicism is ‘progress,’ and the recognition that the process of progress requires a certain amount of time. That is, history progresses with time. According to this historicist perspective, time is understood as ‘homogeneous and empty time’ waiting to be filled with historical progress. Modern historiography, building upon this concept of time, restructured diverse historical phenomena from different regions into a technique capable of positioning them on a homogeneous temporal axis through the strategy of ‘temporalizing space’. It then linked the time of ‘before’ (pre-modern) and the time of ‘now’ (modern) through the concept of ‘progress’, placing non-Western history and Western history respectively along that temporal axis. Ultimately, the imperialist ‘civilizing mission’—the notion that Western societies must transform non-Western societies into civilized states—was predicated on a historicist mode of thinking. This assumed that both Western and non-Western societies follow the same linear historical progression of progress along a unidirectional timeline.
This hierarchical structure of historical time reproduced ‘uneven development’ not only between the West and non-Western societies but also within individual nations and societies, among groups living in the physically identical ‘present’ moment. For instance, groups like colonial peasants during the imperialist era were defined as lagging behind modern development, deemed pre-modern entities, and consequently marginalized and excluded—despite existing within the same society. Simultaneously, they were constantly forced to be incorporated into modern time. This mechanism remains deeply connected to the structure of uneven development, which continues to be discussed across institutions, policies, education, and knowledge systems today. Thus, the legacy of historicism remains a challenge that must still be overcome.
So how can we overcome Western-centric modern historiography? Merely emphasizing that non-Western spaces also possess unique cultures, or suggesting they can follow identical socio-economic progress trajectories as the West, does not constitute a fundamental solution. Above all, it is crucial to recognize that distinct, heterogeneous, and ‘irreducible’ historical times coexist ‘now and together’. Here, the histories existing ‘now and together’ refer to those that cannot be simply incorporated into modern narratives and power relations—histories possessing a heterogeneous temporality that cannot be subsumed into the modern temporal system. Therefore, it is necessary to actively acknowledge and embrace the heterogeneity capable of cracking the modern claims of universality and homogeneity. This approach moves beyond the narrative of linear progress, revealing that diverse civilizations, regions, and groups possess distinct temporalities and unique historical experiences, thereby enabling a richer, more multi-layered understanding of history itself.
Ultimately, reexamining the fundamental premises of modern historiography and acknowledging the pluralistic structure of world history—where heterogeneous times coexist, collide, and intersect—will be the starting point for transcending Eurocentrism. Only through this shift in perception can historical research move beyond the hierarchies and frameworks of exclusion left by modernity, advancing toward a more inclusive and realistic system of thought.
