Impact of Oriental despotism and the idea of otherness

Premium

A concept shaped and enriched by philosophers, political theorists, travellers, administrators and diplomats, Oriental despotism is an idea intertwined with European culture, greatly impacted by travel literature. The roots of the concept can be traced back to Greek thought, where terms like “despot” and “despotism” were used to establish Greek identity and superiority over “barbarous” nations, notably the Persians. Many Greek philosophers distinguished the Greeks from the Persians, believing that Persians were subordinate slaves, in contrast to the freedom-loving Greeks.

It was Aristotle who provided a clearer and more theoretical foundation for the concept in his book Politics. He regarded despotism as a legitimate and hereditary form of monarchy, particularly suitable for societies perceived as more barbarous, such as those in Persia, where the monarch wielded absolute power, due to people’s inclination towards subordination. However, this differed significantly from tyranny, which was illegitimate and against the wishes of the subjects.

Various interpretations of the concept

The limited understanding of Asiatic societies, shaped by a Eurocentric perspective, led to misconceptions about Asians, particularly the Persians, resulting in various interpretations of Oriental despotism. These preconceived notions about the Persians persisted through the Byzantine Empire and medieval European thought.

Medieval authors and theorists, influenced by Aristotle’s classification of governments, cited Oriental societies as examples of tyrannical governments to justify political struggles in their own countries. These works reinforced the idea of Oriental otherness, creating a separation between the so-called superior European societies and the inferior Asiatic societies.

By the 16th century, new connotations were attributed to the concepts. For instance, Florentine philosopher and diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli used it to distinguish between a state governed by citizens (republics) and a state governed by a single ruler, such as a prince (principalities). The Ottoman Empire, a centralised monarchical government, became the new example used to explain despotic rule, contrasting with the decentralised European monarchies.

French philosopher Jean Bodin further explained the concept. Using the term monarchie seigneuriale, he described a political system where the prince wields unlimited authority over his subjects, similar to the relationship between the master and the slave. This was contrasted with monarchie royale, where the king’s authority was limited by property rights and fundamental, divine, and natural laws of the state. With no private property rights, monarchie seigneuriale Bodin believed it was the most ancient form of monarchy, which was very different from tyranny, which was unstable and illegitimate.

By the late 17th and early 18th centuries, travellers’ accounts of Persian monarchies shaped the understanding of Oriental despotism. French physician François Bernier criticised the despotic government of the Mughal Empire he visited. He highlighted the stark wealth disparity between rich princes and poor subjects, attributing it to the lack of private ownership rights.

French jeweller and traveller Jean Chardin described the Persian Safavid monarchy’s despotism as due to historical and political factors, not the natural character of the people or Islam. Such a view helped challenge the uniform interpretation of Asiatic governments and emphasised the need for empirical experience in understanding political systems.

Oriental despotism and Enlightenment

During the Age of Enlightenment, theorists from countries such as France critiqued the authoritarian monarchy within their own nation. The concerns of the period are reflected in the fact that many drew parallels between Louis XIV’s rule and that of Eastern despots. The French philosopher Montesquieu analysed despotism as an autonomous form of government which was distinct from the Aristotelian monarchy. It was defined by concentrated authority and a principle of intimidation. He argued that Asia’s vast plains and political landscape, unlike Europe’s fragmented ones, were key factors behind the emergence of despotism. Montesquieu also examined the relationships between climate, religion, manners, economy, and laws, laying an empirical foundation for the concept.

Like Montesquieu’s emphasis on the role of religion in despotism, many other theories also linked it to theocracy. However, many also criticised Montesquieu’s limited understanding of the concept. French writer Voltaire, for instance, explained how Montesquieu’s argument did not hold when considering countries like Turkey. Other Orientalists critiqued the notion that limitless authority existed in Asia, citing examples of princely states in India.

Conversely, some, particularly from the Physiocratic school of thought, admired and promoted systems with central authority, like that in China, which managed economic and social laws. These perspectives, emphasising efficiency, portrayed the concept in a more positive light.

With the extensive colonisation of Asia by Europe, various perspectives about governance in Asian countries emerged due to increased interaction between the colonisers and the local populations. Detailed accounts about the East by diplomats and administrative staff aimed at ensuring the smooth functioning of authority, contributed to a more nuanced understanding of the East.

Role in the Asiatic mode of production

The concept took a new turn when German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel used it to understand the Asiatic mode of production. He viewed Oriental despotism as the initial stage of historical development, where individual autonomy was limited, and the universal spirit was concentrated in a single free person — the despot. Influenced by Hegel’s ideas, German philosopher and socialist Karl Marx, sought to explain the rationale behind such a system centred on a single ruler.

Marx argued that despotism persisted due to the absence of individual property rights in the Asiatic mode of production, where the sovereign alone owned the land and believed that the geography of Asiatic countries reinforced their political systems. For instance, strong and centralised authority was needed to manage essential agricultural watering systems. He then asserted that European colonialism was necessary to modernise and Westernise the stagnant production systems in these societies.

Later, German sociologist Max Weber explored the concept further to explain the differences between Mediterranean and Asiatic societies. He considered economic and geographical factors, arguing that the agrarian needs in Asian countries led to a more centralised system of power, rigid and concentrated on the ruler, while Mediterranean societies became more secular and capitalistic.

By the 20th century, theorists like Karl August Wittfogel revisited the concept and extended the argument about the despotic rule in Asian irrigation-based societies to criticise modern communist regimes as a new form of despotism. These regimes, he claimed, had similar features of despotism rule, such as people not having the right to own private property, and the government’s absolute control over society.

The concept of Oriental despotism evolved from its origins in Greek thought, through medieval adaptations and Enlightenment ideas, to explain power in agrarian societies across Asia. Although its theoretical relevance declined with the rise of post-colonial theories and global historical perspectives, its influence on European culture remains significant. The concept has shaped the modern European mind and its sense of civic identity and responsibility.

Contemporary analyses show how the stereotype of arbitrary Oriental power created a sense of otherness in European colonial and imperial ideologies, influencing how they ruled the colonised nations, especially in Asia. The persistent influence of Oriental despotism on European culture is seen in the complex interaction between ideas, experiences, historical views, and political attitudes toward Asian countries.