Oriental despotism

Oriental despotism refers to the Western view of Asian societies as politically or morally more susceptible to despotic rule, and therefore different from the democratic West. This view is often pejorative. The term is often associated with Karl August Wittfogel's 1957 book Oriental Despotism, although this work primarily focusses on hydraulic empires.

First articulated explicitly by Aristotle, who contrasted the perceived natural freedom of Greeks with the alleged servitude of Persians and other "barbarian" peoples, the concept was developed extensively in European thought during the Enlightenment. Notably, Montesquieu, in his influential Spirit of the Laws (1748), defined Oriental despotism as a distinct type of governance based on absolute power concentrated in the hands of a single ruler, maintained through fear rather than law or tradition.

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the idea of Oriental despotism served both as a theoretical explanation of supposed Eastern political stagnation and as a rhetorical justification for Western colonial and imperial ventures. It evolved further within Marxist thought as part of the "Asiatic mode of production," depicting Asian civilizations as economically stagnant due to centralized control over land and irrigation. In the mid-20th century, Karl Wittfogel's book Oriental Despotism (1957) controversially revived the concept, applying it critically to communist states like the USSR and China, describing their centralized bureaucratic control as modern forms of ancient despotic governance.

Today, the term "Oriental despotism" is widely recognized as problematic and Eurocentric, largely discredited by contemporary scholarship that emphasizes its ideological underpinnings rooted in colonialism and Orientalist stereotypes. Nevertheless, the concept remains historically significant for understanding Western perceptions of Eastern political institutions, and continues to influence debates about authoritarian governance, East-West distinctions, and post-colonial critiques of historical narratives.