Western analytical-based societies, with their emphasis on achieving ‘useful’ knowledge, became masters of nature, with the perspective of active domination over other civilizations.
While in the integration-based societies knowledge came from studying the classics, the wise, and the kings of old, the analysis-based West started to categorize and deconstruct nature and all things. Periodism, for example, is characteristically related to Western rationalism, as opposed to non-event related dynasties named after Chinese emperors, so is categorization as a method to acquire new knowledge ad infinitum. Western societies dress themselves in the mantle of knowledge, and knowledge is linked to power, which has been the very source of European predominance:
We should admit […] that power produces knowledge […] that power and knowledge directly imply one another […] that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge. (Michel Foucault, 1977)
The concept of power in the integration-based East, however, is sheer might in numbers, uniformity, and thus consistency. This spiritual ‘moral power’ drove out the Imperialists in the first half of the twentieth century:
The truest test of civilization, culture and dignity is character, not clothing. (Mahatma Gandhi, 1938)
To sum up, Western power in my taxonomy is related to analytically-based deductive knowledge, whereas Eastern power is related to integration-based inductive knowledge. The former has the historical function of a dangerous, yet creative force; the latter has the historical function of a tranquil, yet moral force.
The Theory of Power and to Whom It Belongs
Pattberg, Thorsten (2013), The East-West Dichotomy, Foreign Language Press, Beijing