The Decline of Western Centrality: Inevitable End or the Beginning of a Multipolar World?

Has the idea of the “West” truly reached its last breaths, as the current international discourses suggest? Perhaps the answer requires further observation and contemplation, but it is certain that recent global developments have placed the notion of “Western centrality”—a concept that has long stirred controversy—under rigorous scrutiny, possibly heralding a more balanced and inclusive world.

Earlier this year, the Munich Security Conference marked a pivotal moment; a wave of European sorrow described by the media as the “funeral of the West” was triggered, with some headlines suggesting that the speech of the American leader there signified “a sign of the collapse of the transatlantic alliance.”

The historical rift that is widening has become increasingly apparent, both in terms of practical interests and values. The gap between Europe and the United States is now clear, and it is not expected to be easily bridged. Separation, in some form, seems inevitable. Europe—the less independent party in the Western alliance—is today referred to as the first victim of the West’s decline, indicating the end of an era lasting eighty years, during which the United States has been the undisputed leader of the Western system.

From an Eastern perspective, there is no justification for gloating over the fragmentation of the West, but the decline of Western centrality is seen as a positive development in the context of building a fairer global order. The shifts in transatlantic relations may have complex global ramifications, but they ultimately weaken Western centrality, which carries progressive historical significance. If the traditional Western system is indeed on the path to extinction, then “Western centrality” is inevitably heading towards the same fate, possibly as one unintended consequence of the policies aimed at “making America great again.”

Western centrality, as a modern intellectual current, was only formulated in the last century, yet it is based on the historical reality that Europe and North America were the first to achieve the industrial revolution, followed by global capitalist expansion. For centuries, what is known as the geographical West began to occupy the center of the global economic system, playing a pivotal role in leading humanity towards industrial civilization and modernity, albeit under the shadows of bloody and dark colonialism.

Since ancient times, civilizations and societies have tended to consider themselves the center of the world, based on their own experiences, but these perceptions often remained confined to internal social awareness, without crystallizing into a “centrality” based on assumed superiority. The rise of the West—despite its brief duration—has allowed the ideology later known as “Western centrality” to impose its dominant narrative in the name of “superior industrial civilization,” setting standards by which progress and backwardness, civilization and barbarism, are measured globally.

However, in recent years, this trajectory has started to reverse; between 1750 and 1900, the West’s share of global industrial production jumped from less than a quarter to more than four-fifths, solidifying its status as the center of the global economy. Today, according to 2023 data from the International Monetary Fund, the share of emerging and developing economies in global output has reached 58.9%, an increase of 7.6% from 2008, the year that marked the first time that economies of developing countries surpassed those of advanced nations.

The allure of the Western modernization model—long promoted as a global paradigm—has faded, lacking both appeal and persuasiveness. In this context, the current economic and trade policies of the U.S. administration represent a clear acknowledgment of the failure of the American development model and the governance crisis for which the rest of the world is expected to pay the price. If the rise of the “Global South” signifies the West’s retreat from the center of the global economy, then the collapse of the “Washington Consensus” signals the complete downfall of Western centrality.

The binary divide between “the West” and “the non-West” is at the heart of Western centrality, as this perspective places the West in a superior position, viewing the rest of the world merely as an inferior “Other.” This perception has long served as an ideological tool to justify the “Westernization” of the world, but this centrality—as noted by Egyptian thinker and political economist Samir Amin—has led humanity into a deep impasse, and the international community has a collective responsibility to break free from its mental and cognitive shackles.

Clinging to Western centrality in a changing world is philosophically regressive, practically unwise, and realistically unfeasible; this does not necessarily mean it should be replaced with “Eastern centrality” or a new hegemony. Rather, the correct approach is to embrace integration and civilizational coexistence through equitable exchange and mutual learning, a process that has become unstoppable.

The exit of Western centrality from the historical stage should be viewed as an opportunity to open new horizons for human progress, but will the world truly move towards a system of multiculturalism, multipolarity, and diverse active players, as some observers anticipate? This remains contingent on future developments, but it is a hope worth watching.