Author: Gunder Frank, University of Toronto Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:49:38 -0500
P.C. Emmer of the Institute for the History of European Expansion (IGEER) [Emmer@Rullet.LeidenUniv.NL], writing in the International Institute of Asian Studies (Leiden) Newsletter No. 9, 1996:5, asks:
"Has the concept of 'the expansion of Europe and the reactions to it' lost its scientific basis? Should we accept the fact that 'World History' is the new name of the game or is it a name for a new game and does 'the expansion of Europe' still constitute a field of study in its own right?"
Emmer's answer is Yes, it does; though he makes less than clear what the relative "scientific" and "institutional" shares are in his answer. My answer is "Good - or at least God - speed to his Institute, less to his 'science.'
To begin with, "World History' MAY be a new name, but it is for an OLD, not for a new, game. Indeed I am sure, Emmer and his Institute will agree that we are not really talking about a 'game' at all, but about serious business, the very history of humankind in the world. Regarding that, as [even!] two European historians have rightly observed "il n'y a pas d'histoire de l'Europe, il y a un histoire du monde" [March Bloc] and "es gibt keine Geschichte ausser universelle Geschichte... [which we must write] wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" [Leopold von Ranke].
Of course, if there is only 'universal' history 'of the world,' it would be ludicrous to suggest that it started in - let alone with - Europe, rather than in AfroEurasia [more properly AfroAsia] in and of which Europe was no more than a very minor geographical and historical marginal outpost for almost all of that history. Even the 'tunnel history' that "begins' in Egypt and Mesopotamia [which then drop out of the historical record], and then passes through Greece and Rome and medieval Western Europe to modern times has scarce 'scientific basis' and is no more than the ideological product of a latterday Eurocentric perspective.
The Universal history of the world was and remained preponderantly AfroAsian, however it may be separately measured demographically, economically, technologically, politically, socially, culturally and a fortiori all put together. And this AfroAsian and particularly East Asian Chinese and South Asian Indian but also Southeast Asian, West Asian and even Central Asian preponderance continued to dominate universal world history until at least 1800. Even the 'idea' of a 'European centered' world history was only 'invented' by nineteenth century Europeans AFTER they began industrializing and colonizing the world around 1800.
Europe had tried to get closer to the historical - and economic!
Therefore, the Institute for the History of European Expansion needs God - and indeed good! - speed 'to constitute a field of study in its own right.' However, its members and other Europeans and Westerners need [to maintain? or is it rather hurry to acquire?] a bit of universal world historical perspective in the 'new' name of the game. From that perspective, of course, the Institute has not 'lost its scientific basis' -- since its Eurocentrism never had any to begin with. The Institute and others could however aspire to some scientific [rather than only ideological and political] basis by contextualizing their work on European 'expansion' within universal history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist: An 'expansion' of the perviously marginal Europe INTO the stream of ongoing history in the world at large.
Then they might see not only that Europe and the West were no more than a Johnny Come Lately on the Stage of World History. They might also observe that their role has not had nearly as much star 'character' as some have been [mis!]led to believe. And they might find that after an only relatively brief stage presence in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the "Rise of the West" has passed its peak while the "center" of world history is already moving back to Asia, where preponderantly it has been throughout universal world history.
I'm confused by Gunder Frank's comments on P.C. Emmer's suggestion that the history of European Expansion constitutes a discipline in its own right, different than world history. Or, at least, that's how I thought Frank characterized Emmer's statements-- it's hard to tell from Frank's brief summary, and I think most readers of H-World are going to need more detail than that. Not many of us have access to IGEER's newsletter. I don't, and I subscribe to ITINERARIO, their journal, which is not all that easily available in the US. Are you, then, saying that the Institute is either at risk of becoming foolishly insular or jingoistic? I'm going to ignore the seemingly snide suggestion that members of the Institute are currently unaware of world history as it affects areas other than Europe. I think the IGEER's focus and emphasis on the history of colonialism and imperialism and their lasting impact is both clear and sufficiently broad to be worthy of separate study and emphasis, and that this subject is indeed an aspect of world history.
Further, if Frank is seriously suggesting that the members of IGEER are out of touch with people studying world history I can only say that the year I spent in Leiden and The Hague doing research gave me no evidence of this. Scholars associated with the IGEER come from all over the world. I met students from India, Japan, and Malaysia and had the opportunity to meet older historians from England, Sweden, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, New Zealand, and the People's Republic of China, not to mention US and Dutch historians. While it is true that most of the people I met were working on some problem related to colonialism or imperialism, this is only natural considering the vast quantities of archival and library resources on these topics available at the Algemeen Rijksarchief and the Royal Library for Linguistics and Anthropology in Leiden. Of course, perhaps I am out of touch with constitutes a true familiarity with non-Eurocentric world history, since my own experience of studying comparative history since 1400 has shown me time and again how difficult it is to create and substitute new narratives and methodologies. I am, perhaps, less interested in ideological purity in history writing than in having an institute that welcomes women and men from all over the world and provides them with practical resources like access to desks, phones, libraries, and colleagues who share my interests.
Well, I guess I DID respond to the suggestion that IGEER's members aren't aware of world history writing.
Author: Gunder Frank, University of Toronto Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 09:47:41 -0500
I regret any confusion I may have sown and I apologize for any impression [a fortiri possible cause] I may have given/left that is "snide". I cast NO aspersion on the Institute and explicitly wish/ed it good fortune. I also did not [intend to] imply that its members are in any way isolated. The very newsletter I cited brings ample evidence of their broad and deep connections. I took issue with EMMER's argument about HOW the History of European expansion is a field in its own right. I recognize the importance of studying European colonialism and imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, and after all have written quite a few books about that myself.
The ISSUE I took and posed were others: When did European expansion begin and WHO/WHAT DROVE OR ATTRACTED IT. My suggestion was that until 1800 if not later European "expansion" was not so muuch driven outward from Europe by Europeans as it was attracted inward into Asia by Asians [even the voyages to Africa and the Americas were a function of the Asian "magnet"]. The "habit" of looking for the "dynamic" for this "expansion" in and out of Europe has a recent [since the 19th century] European/centric origin and distorts or even obscures the WORLD HISTORY/ical dynamic, that really drove the Europeans. We cannot adequately understand and "appreciate" what the Europeans did apart from how they were influenced BY the World [History] until very recently far more than the very marginal influence or impact that Europeans themselves had on that world [history]. The issue is not whether or not there were relations between Europe [and its "expansion"] and world history, but WHAT these relations really were and WHERE emanated from and how. Europe did no more "expand" out of itself into or to conquer the world after 1500 as so often alleged than it pulled itself- and then the world- up by its own bootstraps, as also so often alleged in tandem with the Eurocentric perspective on "European expansion".
There is no snide aspersion here on the good institute.
regards
gunder frank
Author: David Kalivas, Northeastern University Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:52:26 -0500
The notion of European "expansion" raises questions of causation,
motivation for West European--or should I say West-Eurasian--expansion
into the wider world. This usually leads to discussions of West African
gold, avoidance of Ottoman, Venetian and other middlemen in the Levant,
costly and increasingly risky "silk road" trade routes, the need for
the
secularizing and centralizing monarchies of "Europe" to find new
revenues, and for the emerging need for luxury commodities that had
been
coming to Europe since the eleventh century. Of course, regardless if
it
is the need for new trade routes or escaping costly middlemen,
etc...the
initial dynamic of expansion is not in western Europe but in the wider
world. After all, when Vasco da Gama ventured around the Cape of Good
Hope and sailed into the trading cities along the Swahili Coast he
found
an established--ancient--Indian Ocean trade network and hired a
navigational pilot in the Swahili city-state of Malindi to find his way
into the rich trading of the Indian Ocean world--da Gama found a
dynamic
economy in full swing.(George Hourani,<>) As the Western
Europeans ventured into the wider world in the fifteenth century, they
did so because of economic need --motivation-- but the dynamic which
set
off European expansion was clearly in the "worlds" beyond the
monarchies
of Christendom. It seems that it was the dynamic of economic activity
and resources available in Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East and in
the Americas that caused "European Expansion" as well as the great
economic boom of the great capitalist take-off during the early modern
period.
Both Gunder Frank and David Kalivas are emphasizing the attractions of
Asia and the Indian Ocean in drawing Europe into world trade. That
seems
perfectly legitimate. But does that mean we should minimize European
initiative in reaching out to seize/exploit the opportunity? When gold
was discovered in California, the 49ers hurried to dig it up. The gold
was the attraction; the 49ers seized the initiative. Is this
appropriate
reasoning by analogy?
David Kalivas said:
>>>
As the Western
Europeans ventured into the wider world in the fifteenth century, they
did so because of economic need --motivation-- but the dynamic which
set
off European expansion was clearly in the "worlds" beyond the
monarchies
of Christendom. It seems that it was the dynamic of economic activity
and resources available in Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East and in
the Americas that caused "European Expansion" as well as the great
economic boom of the great capitalist take-off during the early modern
period.
>>>
I think this is too simple. At all times, according to some
scholarship,
central Eurasia and the Indian Ocean were more dynamic than pre-modern
Europe. Yet only at some times do we see "European expansion." I
would
say that there had to be dynamic elements indigeneous to the society of
the "expanders" before they would be able to take advantage of dynamic
economies centered elsewhere.
Author: David Kalivas, Northeastern University Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:00:08 -0500
Steve Muhlberger wrote:
> I think this is too simple. At all times, according to some
scholarship,
> central Eurasia and the Indian Ocean were more dynamic than
pre-modern
> Europe. Yet only at some times do we see "European expansion." I
would
> say that there had to be dynamic elements indigeneous to the society
of
> the "expanders" before they would be able to take advantage of
dynamic
> economies centered elsewhere.
Thank you for your response.
Making reference to the dynamics of Indian Ocean trade networks and the
Eurasian and African participants in that world is not to deny the
indigenous dynamics which readied Western Europe for its "take-off."
However, we would have to place the indigenous dynamics of "European
expansion" within the context of the Mediterranean World and all of its
connections to non-western knowledge, and technologies that came east
to
west. So, yes there are internal dynamics that ready s society for
this
or that function, but they usually don't happen in a vacuum.
I think is is too narrow to state the existence of internal dynamics in
Western Europe without raising the role of the Mediterranean and Indian
Ocean worlds in re-connecting the "international economy" with emerging
markets in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. This point is well made
in
Harry A. Miskimin's work on <> as well as Alan K. Smith's <>
Author: Gunder Frank, University of Toronto Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 14:04:55 -0500
Thanks for you comments on my commnet. Here is my retrurn comment-- briefly. Yes the 49rs and gold is ok as an analogy so long as BOTH are embedded in WORLD history -- why gold, why people who want to go get it, etc. Incidentally, the excellent PBS serires on THE WEST had part of one program on the Calif gold rush, which was also very good.
Why at one time and not another Steve M asks. That is also a WORLD
historical question, which requires a WORLD historical answer. Mine
in brief/est: Asia had been where the action was for ages. West
Europe was semi-marginal and got much more marginalized [often
called "feudalism"] after the fall of Rome, and Europe did not much
participate in the mid first millennium world expansion. But Europe
DID participate min the renewed world exapansion after 1000 AD,
which was centered in Song China. The European result was the
Crusades to larch on to the action in West Asia. 13th cent still
saw attempts togo around Africa. But the 13th-14th cent WORLD
crisis put most out of business, including Europe. 1400 began a new
world expansion - beginning in East, Southeast, and South Asia, and
arriving in Europe around 1450. Europe started attempts at
"expansion" again in Spain, the Atlantic, around Africa, and to
Cathay, etc. - as PART AND PARCEL of this WORLD ECONOMIC
EXPANSION. True, as Steve M says, something happened in Europe,
but THAT [European initiative then and there] also was for WORLD
historical reasons,including the growing bullioin famine at a time of
world
economic expansion. THAT is what "sent" = drew the Europeans out! -
then!! rather than just any ol' time. Sorry my "short" answer got
a bit long-ish. Just "incidentaly" the 49ers gold rush ALSO was at
the time of the beginning of a new period of WORLD economic
expansion! and not just any ol' time!!
Of course, I agree with David Kalivas's reply to Steve Muhlberger, and/but
In re the recommendation of CREATING A WORLD ECONOMY by Alan Smith,
from which I stronly demurr.
gunder frank
Thus Eurocentrism still marks and limits even the severest critics of received Eurocentric social theory and those who argue persuasively that the wider world played a much greater role in "the rise of the west" than this theory allows. Alan Smith (1991) provides another vivid example. Chapter 1 begins with charges that Weber and the usual recent suspects from North and Tomas, Rostow, and Jones to Wolf, Wallerstein, and Frank ignore, truncate or abuse the role of "the wider world" outside Europe in Creating a World Economy. Alas after taking the first modest step in his Chapter 2 on the history of the wider world, Smith immediately turns around once again to begin his own analysis in Chapter 3 with medieval Europe and arrives at 1500 AD with "lineal trends" in society and polity that led to "steady progress" [ibid:67] thanks to "technology that made continuing growth possible" [ibid:5 and also 67] - all in and from Europe! The entire remainder of the book is dedicated to "Europe in Transition: Capitalism" [Chpt.5] and its "Overseas Expansion" [Chpt. 4] into the "Peripheries and Dependencies in the World Economy" [Chpts. 6 7 7]. By again returning to seek the "creation of the world economy" and the birth and spread of "capitalism" in and from Europe, of course
many of the areas of the world still remained external to the
new system. Eastern Africa, India, Ceylon, Indonesia,
southeast Asia, China, Japan and the Middle East are all
included in this category... [because] participation in
commercial relations was discretionary and ... seems to have
had little lasting impact on the structrures of the respective
social formations.... One should not overestimate the role of
international trade in forging linkages of substance between
distant lands.... Only in Europe were ... [social process of
integration] carried to fruition (Smith 1991:7,11).
With this same old Eurocentric litany of course, we will never find any of the structures, processes, or forces that were "Creating a World Economy," once again to use Smith's apt title. For of course like all those he criticized for their shortcomings, this Professor Smith still looks no further in 1991 than what the dim European streetlight illuminates for him since it was put up in the nineteenth century. By contrast in 1776, his namesake had taken the Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations very much further afield -- and, as we will see especially in Chapter 6 below, showed us vastly more of "wie es eignetlich gewesen ist."
[an error occurred while processing this directive]