Eurocentrism

What is Eurocentrism?

Eurocentrism refers to an attitude and mode of thinking that places European or broadly “Western” ways of living, thinking, acting, and knowing at the center — treating them as the universal standard. European norms and values are presented as advanced while other ways of life are considered less advanced or sometimes “barbaric.” Eurocentrism does not simply describe the fact that all individuals are shaped by their cultural contexts. Rather, it describes an active and globally reproduced process and power dynamic that constructs non-European peoples as “others,” devalues them, and simultaneously elevates European experience as superior and normative. (7)

Tip: Click to open each card. Close it before moving to the next.

▶Eurocentrism as Power

As a form of ethnocentrism, Eurocentrism is not primarily concerned with understanding different cultures on their own terms. Instead, it functions to legitimize and maintain hierarchies between Europe and the rest of the world. European or Western norms claim worldwide validity not because they are inherently universal, but because of Europe’s historical position of power — deeply rooted in colonial history and its enduring consequences, which continue to shape global relations, institutions, and systems of knowledge today. (8)

▶Historical Roots

A foundational contribution to the study of Eurocentrism was made by Samir Amin in his 1988 book Eurocentrism. He argued that Eurocentrism historically resulted in the intertwined development of colonialism and capitalism, emerging alongside the crystallization of European society and Europe’s conquest of the world (9). Eurocentrism presents European development as an internally generated process while obscuring the decisive role of colonial expansion, exploitation, and global domination in producing European modernity. (10)

▶Knowledge & Hierarchies

European narratives increasingly positioned Europe as the center of the world and of modern “civilization,” defined by science and “universal reason.” The rest of the world was constructed as Europe’s periphery, depicted as incapable of achieving modernity on its own terms. One example of such Eurocentric belief is the geopolitical and educational practice of referring to the west side of Asia as the “Middle East” — a reference point centered on Great Britain. (11)

▶Eurocentrism & Racism

In the nineteenth century, Eurocentric social science naturalized distinctions between “scientific universalism” and supposedly particular or traditional forms of knowledge (12). These distinctions became central to the reproduction of modernity itself — defining what counted as valid knowledge, who could produce it, and whose experiences were rendered marginal or invisible.(13)

European and Non-European Categorization (Comment from Aldi: fix the text below H5P which should be nicely after the H5P)

Non-European peoples are repeatedly categorized as inferior and described through terms such as “savage,” “primitive,” “backward,” or “underdeveloped” (14) These hierarchies are further organized along racial and gendered lines, ranking populations from superior to inferior according to Eurocentric criteria (15). Humanity is divided into “advanced,” modern societies on the one hand, and “traditional,” non-modern societies on the other (16).

Eurocentric narratives continue to frame Europe as uniquely dynamic and “historical,” while casting non-European societies as stagnant and “ahistorical.”(17) Scholars such as Blaut and Hobson have shown how these assumptions portray the “European mind” as inherently creative, rational, ethical, and progressive, while depicting non-Europeans as irrational, passive, backward, and incapable of autonomous development(18).

Eurocentrism and Global Knowledge (comment from Aldi: I tried to do this but still looks not the best, maybe you can fix Linos)

Tip: Click each blank to reveal the words .

Historically, Europe was also a borrower rather than an originator of many scientific and technological advances.
The all emerged outside Europe. Technologies such as , , , , , and were developed in Asia. Even European maritime expansion relied on technologies adapted from Arab dhow designs. Beyond these examples, non-European societies developed sophisticated bodies of knowledge in fields such as ,, , , and .

These histories challenge Eurocentric claims of European exceptionalism and underscore the interdependence of global knowledge systems. (19)

The consequences of Eurocentrism: (Comment from Aldi: Maybe make them as boxes )

Eurocentrism fundamentally restructured the global distribution of wealth and power, concentrating resources in Europe while systematically impoverishing colonized regions (20). Rather than acknowledging exploitation as the basis of this inequality, Eurocentric narratives reframe Europe’s material advantage as the natural result of internal superiority, progress, and rational development. The Global North retains a dominant position in political, economic, and cultural decision-making, while patterns of labor exploitation and resource extraction disproportionately affect the Global “South”. Eurocentrism plays a crucial ideological role in legitimizing this order by obscuring its violent historical foundations and presenting global inequality as an outcome of differential development rather than structural dispossession (21,22).

One major political consequence of Eurocentrism is its function as a mechanism of norm-setting (23). The Global North occupies a privileged position in defining what counts as “modern,” “developed,” or “rational,” as well as which political systems and economic policies are considered legitimate. Western liberal democracy and capitalist political economies are treated as universal models of human progress, while non-Western political systems are framed as incomplete, deficient, or transitional.

Eurocentrism also shapes international law and global governance by producing unequal forms of sovereignty (24). Western states are generally treated as fully rational, autonomous, and capable political actors, while non-Western states are frequently depicted as corrupt, unstable, or incapable of self-governance. This hierarchy of sovereignty legitimizes external intervention, political conditionality, economic oversight, and restrictions on policy autonomy imposed on non-Western states (25). Under this framework, intervention is framed as assistance or stabilization rather than as an extension of imperial power.

Another central consequence of Eurocentrism is its role in naturalizing inequality. Structural disparities are reframed as problems of “developmental delay,” “lack of capacity,” or “poor governance,” rather than as outcomes of historical and ongoing power relations. This narrative presents inequality as a temporary or technical problem that can be solved through reform, aid, or modernization, while leaving global hierarchies fundamentally intact (26). In doing so, Eurocentrism transforms political and economic domination into seemingly neutral differences in progress.

Comment from Aldi (highlight this one somehow) : Failing to address this history and one’s own positional advantage is therefore not a neutral act of ignorance, but an interest-driven practice that contributes to the reproduction of global hierarchies (27).

Eurocentrism in the Refugee and People-on-the-Move Context: (comment from Aldi: I will make this slides)

Eurocentrism plays a central role in shaping how refugees and people on the move are perceived, governed, and represented within Europe. In the context of forced migration, Eurocentrism operates not only as a historical legacy of colonial power, but as a contemporary framework that structures political discourse, media narratives, and policy practices. Refugees are frequently constructed in relation to Europe’s self-image, its identity anxieties, and its claims to moral and political superiority, rather than being addressed as rights-bearing subjects within a global system of inequality (28)

Eurocentrism, EU Identity, and the Construction of the “Refugee Crisis”

Eurocentrism in the refugee context is a part of the “geoculture of the modern world,” in which European civilization is presented as more advanced, rational, and universal than others (29). Within this framework, the so-called “refugee crisis” of 2015 is not merely a humanitarian emergency, but also a moment in which European identity is defined against racialized and culturalized “others” arriving from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (30).

Through discourse analysis of different European media coverage shows that refugees are predominantly framed through a Eurocentric lens that centers Europe’s stability, security, and values. Terms such as “migrants,” “crisis,” and “influx” appear far more frequently than references to refugee rights or protection, indicating a shift from a rights-based frame to a securitized and Europe-centered narrative (31). This framing constructs migration primarily as a problem for Europe, rather than as a consequence of global conflict, colonial legacies, or structural inequality.

At the same time, appeals to “European values” and humanism function ambivalently. While they appear to promote compassion, they often reinforce a hierarchy in which Europe is positioned as the moral subject that decides whether, when, and how to help, while refugees are portrayed as passive victims or potential threats (32). In this way, Eurocentrism sustains an asymmetrical relationship between a rational, civilized Europe and a dependent, problematized non-European other.

Otherness, Fear, and the Racialized Gaze

Eurocentrism in the refugee context is closely linked to the production of fear and otherness. Psychoanalytic and postcolonial theory show how refugees become projections of Europe’s anxieties about instability, loss of control, and cultural difference. Jung’s concept of the “shadow” is used to explain how European societies externalize repressed fears onto racialized others, particularly Arabs and Africans, who come to symbolize disorder and threat (33).

Frantz Fanon’s critique of colonial racism further illuminates this process. Fanon describes how European civilization constructs non-European subjects as carriers of primitive instincts and violence, an image that reappears in contemporary associations between refugees, criminality, and terrorism (34). These representations are reinforced through post-9/11 security discourses, which legitimize the criminalization of migration and the portrayal of asylum seekers as potential security risks rather than as individuals fleeing persecution.

Cioban shows that international and European policy frameworks have contributed to this securitization. United Nations and EU resolutions linking asylum to counter-terrorism have legitimized stricter border controls, detention practices, and surveillance regimes. As a result, Muslim refugees in particular are disproportionately associated with terrorism in public discourse, despite empirical research demonstrating no greater propensity toward violence or extremism (35).

Surveillance, Camps, and the Governance of Refugees

Eurocentrism also manifests in the governance of refugees through systems of control, containment, and surveillance. Drawing on Foucault, Cioban argues that refugee camps resemble disciplinary spaces in which refugees are monitored, immobilized, and rendered visible to authority while remaining politically invisible. The logic of protection is intertwined with practices of control, producing refugees as objects of management rather than as political subjects (36).

This mode of governance reflects a broader Eurocentric assumption that refugees represent a disruption to European order and must therefore be regulated, confined, or externalized. Refugees are simultaneously constructed as victims in need of help and as risks requiring control, a contradiction that reinforces their exclusion from full political and social membership.

Eurocentrism and the Externalization of Migration Control

Eurocentrism is not limited to discourse and representation, but is deeply embedded in EU migration policy, particularly through practices of externalization. De Soete defines externalization as the process through which the EU exports migration control and asylum responsibilities to non-member states by encouraging them to adopt EU policies and practices (37).

Classical theories of externalization conceptualize this process through a Eurocentric top-down perspective, in which the EU is treated as a hegemonic actor transferring rules and norms to passive non-European states. Non-member states are framed as peripheral tools that implement European migration agendas in exchange for aid, trade, or political cooperation (38). This mirrors broader Eurocentric assumptions about Europe as the source of legitimate governance and “best practices,” and the Global South as a space of implementation rather than agency.

Using the case of EU–Morocco migration cooperation, De Soete demonstrates that this Eurocentric framing is analytically flawed. While Morocco is often portrayed as a mere buffer zone or border guard for Europe, empirical evidence shows that it actively negotiates, delays, and selectively implements EU demands. Morocco resists readmission agreements, reshapes border cooperation, and leverages its strategic position to constrain EU ambitions (39).

To capture this complexity, De Soete proposes conceptualizing EU–non-member state relations as a “dynamical dialectical process.” In this process, the EU attempts to project its migration agenda outward, while non-European states contest, negotiate, and reshape these policies over time. The outcome is never a simple realization of European objectives, but a constantly shifting equilibrium that exposes the limits of Eurocentric power (40).

Refugees, Europe, and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Taken together, these analyses show that Eurocentrism structures the refugee and migration context at multiple levels. At the discursive level, refugees are framed as threats or burdens to Europe, reinforcing an “us versus them” logic grounded in colonial hierarchies (41). At the policy level, Eurocentrism legitimizes the externalization of borders and the displacement of responsibility onto non-European states, while obscuring their agency and interests (42).

Crucially, Eurocentrism shifts attention away from the global conditions that force people to move, including war, economic exploitation, and historical imperialism, and instead recenters Europe as the primary subject of concern. Refugees appear as a problem that arrives from outside, rather than as individuals embedded in a global system shaped by Europe’s own historical and contemporary actions.

In this sense, Eurocentrism in the refugee context does not merely misrepresent reality. It actively reproduces inequality by legitimizing exclusion, securitization, and hierarchical governance, while presenting Europe as both the victim of migration and the arbiter of humanitarianism. Challenging Eurocentrism therefore requires not only changing language or media frames, but fundamentally rethinking how responsibility, agency, and universality are understood in relation to people on the move.

What Does This Mean for You and Your Work With People on the Move? (comment from Aldi: do the same format as in the previous ones )

Working with refugees and people on the move inevitably involves encounters with different ways of thinking and making sense of the world. These encounters often bring one’s own assumptions, values, and norms into sharper focus. Understanding Eurocentrism in this context is therefore not only an academic exercise, but a practical and ethical necessity.

It is important to begin by distinguishing between ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism. Any group can be ethnocentric in the sense that it interprets the world through the cultural lenses shaped by its own socialization. Seeing the world through one’s own cultural framework is neither inherently racist nor inherently harmful. However, Eurocentrism operates at the intersection of ethnocentrism, power and racism. Eurocentrism is deeply embedded in global institutions, education systems, humanitarian frameworks, and development discourses; Influencing people from both the Global North and the Global South, internalizing Eurocentric assumptions. There is no automatic immunity to Eurocentrism based on one’s background.

In the context of work with people on the move, this can manifest in subtle but impactful ways. Volunteers and even members of affected communities themselves may unconsciously assume that certain European approaches to organization, decision-making, family life, gender roles, or coping strategies are more advanced or more appropriate. These assumptions can shape how situations are interpreted, how support is offered, and whose knowledge is considered legitimate.

This is why the following points are important:

Reflect on your perspective and your evaluation of other people’s actions: During your work with people from other countries of origin and cultural backgrounds, you will probably find yourself in situations where people make decisions, act or react differently than you would have done. You may find this difficult to understand based on your upbringing and experiences. The important thing in these moments is to respect other approaches, decisions or actions, and don’t automatically put your own opinion and perspective above others.
Reflect your own eurocentric attitude: Try to recognise where and in what form you follow eurocentric thinking. The following questions may help you:
- How could the people I work with, my team members, but also the local population, perceive and judge certain situations considering their socialisation and cultural background?
- What do I assume about people and their behaviour? What norms and standards do I need to question?
- Are there ethical principles in your own world view that set limits to accepting the values and practices of other cultures?
Do not communicate in an instructive manner: The people you are or will be working with have different ways of life, experiences and often have had a traumatic flight. You may not be able to understand some of their choices or thoughts, because you may not understand their experiences, habits or preferences. Be careful not to put your opinions and decisions above theirs and never try to teach them.

Curriculum

Eurocentrism

Search

Login with your site account

Register a new account