Parochialism of Western Academia in the Anthropocene: Why Eastern Wisdom Matters

Introduction

The Anthropocene has revealed a brutal truth: the frameworks of modern social science and economics are wholly inadequate to the planetary crisis. Built on assumptions of growth, mastery over nature, and linear progress, Western knowledge systems have given us extraordinary technical power but almost no ethical depth. And yet, when confronted with this existential crisis, the academy continues to ignore wisdom traditions outside its own narrow canon. The voices of Eastern philosophies—Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Daoist, Confucian—are sidelined, dismissed, or relegated to “religion” and “culture” rather than engaged as living systems of knowledge. This silence is not accidental; it is structural. It is also parochial.

The Myth of Universal Science

Western academia presents its disciplines as “universal.” Economics claims to be about human behavior everywhere. Political science purports to theorize governance across cultures. Sociology seeks general laws of society. But this universalism is a provincial project in disguise. Concepts like rational choice, individualism, progress, growth, and sovereignty all emerge from very specific Western—indeed Christian and Enlightenment—worldviews. Their supposed universality is actually a form of cultural imperialism, exporting European categories as if they were the measure of all societies.

Colonial Erasures and the Academic Canon

This universalist arrogance has roots in colonialism. When European empires expanded, they did not just conquer land; they conquered epistemologies. Indian philosophy, with its sophisticated schools of logic (Nyaya), epistemology (Pramana), and pluralism (Jain anekantavada), was dismissed as superstition. Daoist cosmology, Confucian ethics, and Buddhist teachings on dependent origination were excluded from the category of science. Colonized peoples were told their traditions were “religion,” while Europe alone had “reason.” Today, this colonial sorting persists: Adam Smith is taught in economics, but Kautilya’s Arthashastra is relegated to “history”; Mill is philosophy, but Nagarjuna is “religion.”

Gatekeeping and Academic Incentives

The structures of modern academia reinforce this exclusion. To publish in elite journals, scholars must cite Foucault, Marx, Weber, or Friedman—but never Shankara, Confucius, or the Buddha. Research grants reward conformity to Western frameworks. A scholar who brings dharmic concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), aparigraha (non-possession), or lokasangraha (welfare of all) risks being seen as “romantic” or “unscientific.” Thus, many academics self-censor, reproducing the parochial canon in order to survive professionally.

The Anthropocene and the Cost of Parochialism

This parochialism is not merely a matter of representation; it is catastrophic. The Anthropocene demands philosophies of balance, humility, and restraint. Yet Western economics continues to idolize growth. Western finance glorifies accumulation. Western social sciences cling to secular universalism, denying the ethical and spiritual dimensions of human life. Meanwhile, Eastern wisdom traditions have for millennia developed practices of ecological interdependence (Daoism), non-violence (Jainism, Buddhism), and stewardship without ownership (Hindu and Vedic philosophies). By excluding these, the academy cripples humanity’s ability to imagine a livable future.

Dharmic Alternatives: A Pluralist Epistemology

Dharmic traditions offer precisely what the Anthropocene requires:

• Interdependence (Pratītyasamutpāda in Buddhism, Daoist cosmology, and Gaia theory) challenges the Western illusion of autonomy.
• Pluralism (Jain anekantavada) teaches that truth is many-sided, undermining universalist absolutism.
• Ethics of restraint (Aparigraha, simplicity, Daoist wu-wei) counter the obsession with accumulation.
• Seva and Lokasangraha root economics in service and collective welfare, not individual profit.

These are not exotic cultural ornaments; they are living epistemologies that can guide planetary survival.

Conclusion: Parochialism as Irresponsibility

To ignore Eastern wisdom is not neutrality—it is parochialism. Worse, it is epistemic violence, a refusal to listen at precisely the moment when humanity must listen most broadly. The Anthropocene is a civilizational reckoning, and Western academia cannot continue its provincial masquerade of universality. It must either embrace plurality and humility or remain complicit in planetary destruction.

The choice is stark: either cling to the thin frameworks of Western economics and social science, or embrace the deep reservoirs of global wisdom traditions. To do the former is not only parochial but also irresponsible. To do the latter is to begin the work of planetary renewal.