Euro-centric view of human evolution needs a revisit
In modern times, there are certain critical points of change that get flagged. The French Revolution, the American War of Independence, and the Bolshevik Revolution stand out. Each of these defines a critical point in human history. Whether the list of the important events is complete or not is a matter of perception. That it espouses a euro-centric view of human evolution is obvious. There is nothing wrong in such a narrative, except for its incompleteness.
There are substantial parts of the world across which the European races spread. This covered the world from Latin America to Australia. The approach from the African world, Western Asia, South East Asia, East Asia, Australia – all went by default. Australia for example has had human habitation running into multiple centuries, almost from the Palaeolithic age onwards. Yet very little connected narrative is available about Australia before the Europeans arrived there.
The present dominance of the euro-centric view of learning perpetuates this approach. It has been institutionalised through the curriculum of educational institutions. The trouble is deeper, as there is little or no institutional attempt to modify and evolve this perspective to completeness. The current international bodies of the United Nations and more only perpetuate this bias.
Newly emergent nations follow the Euro American pattern of curriculum planning and seek eminence through conformity. Through a serious study of anthropology and an extension of its approach much of this can be countered. Also, studying human evolution from the vantage point of identification and utilisation of energy resources may serve a purpose. The human evolution from using human muscle power for energy purposes to the present status of using atomic energy may help in settling right many of the aberrations in the periodization of human history. India has a narrative, of its present level of evolution, generally taken to be of about 15,000 years of antiquity. Evidence exists of human presence on this subcontinent even prior to those 15,000 years or so. It is just that the history of the times before that is not amenable to the tools used for writing the narrative of what is termed as ‘history’ in the current values of the academic world.
A gradualist approach would help. A general awareness has to emerge about recognition of the assumptions, governing action of the people whose history is being written. In India, for example, thinking about the so-called other world of spirituality and ‘abstraction’ is central from the Rig Vedic times. This kind of orientation is not present in many parts of the world such as Europe, Americas, etc.
What could work is talking of ‘alternate approach’ to human evolution and history. This ‘alternate approach’ need not require a negation of the present attempts of history writing. It would require emphasis on the elements which emphasise a spiritual or a more than material approach to human evolution.
The Indian approach is about the conventional mind that looks at plants, animals, nature and more. A cursory recall of the richas of Rig Veda or the writings of Kalidas reveal sensitivity in depiction of plants and animals, which is missing in the writing of the text of those times in European languages.
Steps need to be taken towards understanding the alternate assumptions of human actions in different parts of the globe for real understanding of the evolution of human species, which may set a more realistic direction to compass human development. It will be real, rooted in local traditions and helping to create a robust global future.
(The author is an internationally acclaimed management consultant)