The Needham Question, Dialogism Versus Eurocentrism and Neo-Eurocentrism, and the Need to Transcend Dialogism

The Needham Question was first raised in the late 1940s when the essentialist Eurocentric view was completely dominant. Subsequently, a non-Eurocentric view, since referred to as the dialogical perspective or dialogism, emerged. By the mid-2000s, a relatively strong case for dialogism had been established. Eurocentric scholars responded by resorting to both conventional Eurocentric arguments, and, since the early 2010s, what have been called neo-Eurocentric arguments. Dialogism has, firstly, not directly tackled the conventional Eurocentric responses, and, secondly, been unable to respond to neo-Eurocentric arguments. Thus, since the 2010s, the debate between Eurocentrism/neo-Eurocentrism and dialogism has been standing at a stalemate, with the former enjoying a slight but obvious edge. Dialogism’s above failures are due to its limitations as a perspective in theoretical and methodological terms; hence, to resolve the Needham Question satisfactorily on a non-essentialist basis and decisively rebut Eurocentrism/neo-Eurocentrism, it is necessary to transcend dialogism.