There is an important distinction between “centricity” and “centrism,” and that distinction hinges on the difference between the suffixes “-ity” and “-ism.” The former simply denotes the quality or state of being of something; the latter has a very specific connotation: It points to a very specific ideology or doctrine, often in a negative way. It follows that Eurocentricity and Eurocentrism, which are often used interchangeably, are, in fact, quite different. The former simply tells us that the center of Europe is in Europe, which goes without saying; the latter suggests an ideology according to which Europe is at the center of the world, and therefore superior to all other regions of the world.

Eurocentrism turned into West-centrism when the world was divided into West and non-West. For our purposes, we can use the terms Eurocentrism and West-centrism interchangeably.

In your paper, explain in your own words how you understand the difference between Eurocentricity and Eurocentrism, and, more generally, between “-ity” and “-ism.” Think, for example, of “nationality” versus “nationalism,” or any other such pair, and reflect on the difference between them as well as on what each of those two terms entails. Then explain why a world centered around Europe or the West (or any other region, for that matter) is problematic, to say the least, and how that makes it impossible for a true and sustainable form of globalization (which you may want to define) to arise. Use examples from our readings (especially from the Chomsky & Vltchek book and/or from The Amartya Sen book) to illustrate the damage that has been done through 500 hundred years of colonization. Use examples of specific countries to show how they were robbed of their ‘center’ and therefore of their identity.


Books are

1.Amartya Sen_ Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny

2.Chomsky, Noam, and Andre Vltchek. _On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare_



We have an Answer from Expert
Buy this answer $20 Place Order