[Lingtyp] Two terminological quandaries for the price of one: 'traditional' and 'non-Western' cultures

[JOO Ian]

Dear Juergen,

By ‘indigenous’, I mean pragmatically that the presence of the community in the area they inhabit is not an immediate result of European colonization.

Why European colonization specifically, and not colonization by other forces (such as the Han colonization of Taiwan)?

‘(Non-)Western cultures/societies’: By this I mean any cultures/societies of (non-)European origin/descent.

Why not just call them European?

From Otaru,
Ian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
朱　易安
JOO, IAN
准教授
Associate Professor
小樽商科大学
Otaru University of Commerce

🌐 ianjoo.github.io<http://ianjoo.github.io/>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

보낸 사람: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>이(가) 다음 사람 대신 보냄: Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
날짜: 금요일, 2025년 5월 30일 11:01
받는 사람: Lingtyp Linguistics Typology <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
주제: [Lingtyp] Two terminological quandaries for the price of one: 'traditional' and 'non-Western' cultures
Dear all – I really need your help with this! I’ve been struggling for quite some time now with the terms ‘traditional culture/society’ and ‘(non-)Western culture/society’. Both concepts play significant roles in my work, but both labels seem problematic. I’m looking for better alternatives. (If you want to call this query an exercise in political correctness, I would plead guilty to the charge. I do try to avoid offending people unintentionally.)

Let me briefly try to explicate the concepts that I have been using these labels for:

‘Traditional cultures/societies’: Small-scale indigenous communities practicing predominantly non-industrial (or pre-industrial) modes of production in non-urban settings. By ‘small-scale’, I mean that stratification is predominantly in terms of age and gender, division of labor is low, and offices of power are largely non-hereditary. By ‘indigenous’, I mean pragmatically that the presence of the community in the area they inhabit is not an immediate result of European colonization. And the concept needs to be flexible enough to allow for the fact that the overwhelming majority of such communities are part of larger majority societies, are in more or less intensive contact with them, are under pressure by them, etc.

I suspect that objections to the label ‘traditional’ may be the result of associating that label with Social Darwinism. At the same time, I find the label acceptable to the extent that one accepts that modes of production, while not following a strict developmental sequence, are not distributed randomly throughout human history either, particularly in the sense that industrialization did not take place prior to the Industrial Revolution. So what I’m looking for is a label that occupies the sweet spot between Social Darwinism and completely ahistoric and non-evolutionary perspectives of social organization.

The sexiest currently available alternative to ‘traditional’ is ‘non-WEIRD’, in the Heinrich-et-al.-(2010) sense of ‘WEIRD’ (Western educated industrialized rich democratic). I don’t personally mind using that term, but it is awfully vague. There are many developing nations that I would not consider WEIRD (they may check neither of the five definitional properties), but that do not globally fit the ‘traditional’ concept either.

‘(Non-)Western cultures/societies’: By this I mean any cultures/societies of (non-)European origin/descent. The problem with the label ‘Western’ is the very misleading geographic association with the Western hemisphere: the vast majority of Europe isn’t even part of the Western hemisphere, and there are ‘Western’ societies (societies of European descent) outside Europe *and* outside the Western hemisphere, *and* of course there are many ‘non-Western’ cultures in the Western hemisphere. I’m well aware that the etymology of this use of ‘Western’ has little to do with the model of the geographic hemispheres, but my sense is that people make the association whether it belongs there or not – I know I do.

I suspect the best solution to the second problem is to just talk about ‘cultures/societies of (non-)European origin/descent’. That’s a mouthful, but sooner or later somebody will coin a handy acronym. But I wanted to make sure I’m not missing anything.

Anyway, many thanks in advance for your help! – Juergen


Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
Professor, Department of Linguistics
University at Buffalo

Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
Phone: (716) 645 0127
Fax: (716) 645 3825
Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu<mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>
Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/

Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)

There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
(Leonard Cohen)
--

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20250530/9e95245b/attachment.htm>