Give a suitable, alluring with literary jargon and compact sub-heading in five six words                                      
                        While it may be tempting to believe that we are living in an era of globalization, characterised by rapid technological advancements, intensified cross-cultural exchanges, and the proliferation of knowledge systems, contemporary societies are still deeply rooted in Eurocentric frameworks of thinking. The long-lasting impact of colonialism, imperialism, and global power asymmetries continue to shape the cognitive, cultural, and social domains of academia, politics, and media. These influences propagate various orientalist stereotypes, oppressive binaries, and discriminatory practices that impede the development of a genuinely pluralistic and egalitarian world. Eurocentrism can be defined as an epistemological framework that situates European culture, history, and values as the defining center of the world, while at the same time disregarding or belittling the contributions of other cultures and civilisations. This ethnocentric positioning perceives the Europe or West as a paragon of universal values and cultural superiority, leading to a systematic undervaluation and misrepresentation of non-European cultures. Central to the Eurocentric paradigm is the construction of a dichotomy between the West and the so-called “non-West,” which is characterized by essentialist and often discriminatory distinctions between these two spheres. As noted by Edward Said (1979), this binary opposition manifests itself in various forms of discourse, such as history, literature, music and art, where non-European societies are stereotypically depicted as exotic, inferior, irrational, fanatic and backward in comparison to the civilised, rational, and progressive European model. European culture, according to him gains “strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self.” (3) In other words, the Orient functions as a mirror to the West in that the West relies heavily on its counterpart, the Orient, for its own sense of superiority. (Sandy and Ouardi, 2019, p. 129) This paradigm, therefore, not only consolidates the stature of the West, but also perpetuates the subordination of non-European societies within global power structures, and the spheres of knowledge and influence. Said’s work on Orientalism provides a seminal critique of this discourse, demonstrating how its utilization has justified colonization, exploitation, and violence against Eastern civilizations.
	The Knowledge production or the representation of the Orient in Western narratives is not a recent development; it has existed since the earliest times. Edward Said traces the development of these knowledge-producing mechanisms, which Foucault referred to as “regimes of truths,” as far back as ancient Greece, with particular reference to two plays by Aeschylus. The early portrayals of the Orient as a “hostile other,” “a world beyond the seas” have evolved and expanded alongside colonial endeavours, with literary works often serving as propaganda tools to spread false images of the colonized territories. As Said writes, 
The “Orient was created -or, as I call it, “Orientalized”- and to believe that such things happen simply as a necessity of the imagination is to be disingenuous… The Orient was Orientalized not only because it was discovered to be “Oriental” in all those ways considered commonplace by an average nineteenth-century European, but also because it could be -that is, submitted to being- made Oriental.” (5-6)
Said also highlights the power imbalance between the West and the Orient as a critical factor in shaping these universalized images, which reinforce Western dominance. Essentially, the Orientalist discourse is contingent upon a distinct power dynamic that enables the West to create and maintain reductive images of the East. Exercising control over the Orient’s representation, the West situates itself as the observer, imbued with the power to discipline by defining what the East is and is not. The “power/knowledge” nexus – the notion that the production, dissemination, and control of knowledge serve as primary agents of power is reminiscent of the Panopticon, wherein the West becomes the observer, the bearer of the power-laden gaze, determining the Eastern identity, norms, morals and interests. This gaze reifies a grid of intelligibility that legitimates specific research as objective knowledge.