Commentary1

In this book, Europe is shown to increase steadily from the thirteenth century to the sixteenth century economically through trade. After the fall of Rome in Europe, Asia and the Middle East are the dominating or hegemonic forces for trade. Europe started to regain their economic standing in the world after the fall of Rome, and at this time they were underdeveloped or periphery. As Europe moves from periphery to developed, core or dominating, the Middle East and Asia fall behind. The Middle East and Asia are having independent problems that creates them to fall behind Europe allowing Europe to become the dominate power of trade. The Pax Mongolica is the prime trade route through Europe, Asia, Middle East, and India. Since Europe was just starting to rise the book brings up the point that there actually were no dominating forces during this time. This all leads up to how the present day developed and used the knowledge of the trade system in thirteen century Europe.

I learned some interesting facts as to how Europe rose above their hardships and how the hardships of other countries influenced their downfall in such a short time. Also I found it interesting how similar the trade of the thirteen century Pax Mongolica is to our own.

In class the slide that gives a quote from the book and then poses the question, “So do they Matter?” The trade and economic systems of the past are the foundation of the future. Without this system the future is in danger of slower development or worse no development at all. Today’s globalization is the direct result of trial and error from the knowledge from the past starting with one of the earliest trade routes like Pax Mongolica.

Before the West Won

Abu-Loghod stated that the thesis of her book was “that there was no inherent historical necessity that shifted the system to favor the West rather than the East, nor was there any inherent historical necessity that would have prevented cultures in the eastern region from becoming the progenitors of a modern world system” (12). And she certainly makes a strong case to argue that statement. Between 1250 and 1350 CE, Europe was still recovering from the fall of the Roman empire and the former unification of Charlemagne’s reign. Europe certainly had important trading centers and played a key role in the so-called “world system”, but was in no way superior to Middle Eastern or Mongolian culture.

            What I thought to be extremely interesting was Abu-Lughod’s juxtaposition of Roger and Francis Bacon. This very clearly illustrated the changing attitudes of Europeans towards eastern cultures. The fact that Roger Bacon was preoccupied with gaining knowledge from the “higher” civilizations (21) of the Muslim world was telling. This shows that during his lifespan, the East had a good chance of becoming a world power, rather than Europe overtaking the Middle East and China. But three centuries later, Francis Bacon thought nothing of the East; he “believed that little could be gained from others” (24).  So why did admiration of “the East” evaporate in “the West”? And where did the nationalistic arrogance that developed in Europe come from?

            As Americans, fond of our “Dogma of Otherness”, we would never suppose that “the West” was inherently superior, hence its rise to power. Rather, a more diplomatic explanation is that Europe was simply lucky, so to speak. To put it better, the circumstances that Europe found itself in during the 14^th century were favorable to their rise to a more hegemonic status, although these circumstances were due to external, uncontrollable factors.  I won’t repeat the details that we’re all familiar with, but Europe cannot take credit for its rise to dominance due to factors such as the Black Death, their favorable location, China’s decision to isolate itself, etc. China easily could have been the dominant power, I believe, had it not gone into isolation. World history as we know it would have been immensely different, because in many ways the Mongolian empire had advantages over Europe. They had possession of vast amounts of natural resources, a formidable population, and the advantage of being unified, whereas Europe was severely fractured into miniscule kingdoms.

            One thing that I could really like a more clear explanation of was what the political atmosphere was in Europe in the 13^th and 14^th centuries. Could someone sum up what the basic organization was? Was it mainly feudal systems or small kingdoms? Thanks.

Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350 by Janet L. Abu-Lughod
9/9 – 9/11 Readings pp. 4-101

In this text, Abu-Lughod attempts to explain the complex world system of the thirteenth century and examine how it came to be the way it was as well as what it became. She analyzes the international connections between the East and West in a variety of ways including trade, art, knowledge, and technology. During the time frame in which Abu-Lughod presented, the international trade economy first developed, connected Northwest Europe to China which foreshadowed the future of modern capitalism. Europe was the newest addition to this world system since many other Eastern powers already established world economies. This new shift led to a great international growth in some European cities. Europe had a very similar world economy to the China and the East Orient, and where they contrast, Europe was inferior to the East. At the beginning of the 13th century, Europe was behind the East in a number of ways but by the 16th century, Europe pulled ahead. As international trade in this world system developed, land and sea routes developed that merchants traveled to transport goods and markets increased. But by the end of this era, the city market declined since the trade system outgrew them, political turmoil disintegrated them, and new improvements in transportation made them unnecessary stops.

One point that this book has caused me to reflect on was this Eurocentric view of history as well as the modern world. Throughout this history, I’ve certainly learned everything with Eurocentricity and only studied the Far East and North Africa as marginal areas or if they interacted directly with Europe. Another point was the fact that all nations have a tendency to study history and the world as if they were the center and that certainly rings true for us in America. In this situation, it was particularly interesting because Abu-Lughod didn’t take this typical Eurocentric approach and now I’ve stepped back and looked at my knowledge to this point of the matter, and am really shocked. In classes, I’ve always been taught about Europe and its prestige. At this point all that mattered was that Europe was in the Dark Age and would soon emerge with the Italian Renaissance. This was all that seemed to matter, when in fact the East was thriving and advancing. Perhaps here and there as periphery information, I’d learn Europeans picked up a certain technology from Muslims, but it was very rare and completely marginal. I’m just really surprised that there was so much world development during this time and the foundations of the modern Old World were laid during this period when high school courses didn’t even touch on this fact.

This discovery led me to wonder one thing. If a completely unbiased person, like maybe an alien, were to analyze this entire world system, what would he consider to be the center?

DB

Janet Abu-Lughod's Before European Hegemony

Janet Abu-Lughod's book, Before European Hegemony, describes a reinterpretation of the global economic evolution which led to the rise of the banking system, money chargers, and using credit. This book puts together information from many different regions about the economic system. Abu-Lughod argued that the modern world economy had its roots not in the sixteenth century economy, but in the thirteenth century economy. This thirteenth century economy greatly differed from the European world system, however the thirteenth century economy is responsible for sculpting the European world system today. Before European Hegemony gives an understanding of how the world systems came about and traces back to the rise of these systems. The book covers from northwest Europe all the way to China (Pax Mongolica). Abu-Lughod also provides reasons for the decline of the systems. Europe, the Middle East, and China were starting to come together during the thirteenth century into a world system by means of trade. These areas were beginning to explore the banking system as well as a developed economic system. Abu-Lughod traces the ride of this world system back to its roots (starting in the thirteenth century, not the sixteenth century as it seems to be thought of as that), and provides examples of how these systems developed into the world system carried out now.

I found the second part of the reading extremely interesting, as Abu-Lughod explores deeper into how the economic system really got started. In less populated areas, merchants brought the goods to the customers at 'regular intervals' and followed a circuit to many other places. These merchants set up small stands that the people could go to and shop. Because of the success, this led to larger markets opening with greater variety of goods. When larger merchants began to come with their goods, the need for currency shot up and the need for a money charger became present. This could have given rise to the start of an early banking system and an institution of credit began. For example, if a merchant did not have a good that a buyer wanted, the merchant promised to bring it next time, and the buyer would give credit for the item in advance, or the buyer received credit from the merchant in advance. This led to what is now called, a down payment and even further, mortgage (borrowing against). With the banking system under way, the need for an enforcement system that guaranteed easy, secure transactions surfaced. This all led to the systems we use today. Cloth, 'the heart of the economy' was the main item exchanged by foreign merchants, and the presence of bankers and money chargers was essential in making sure everything was done fairly and properly.

--Gabby Szlachta-McGinn

Ever Changing World System

Upon the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the emerging world system is defined by lack of one or group of dominating powers. This time consisted of many countries such as: China, Rome, Mongolia, England, India and more stretching from Northwestern Europe to China. Although they are well known as prominent influences, throughout history none of them serve to be a hegemonic power, or superior influence. This period of time is described by Abu-Lugbod, as a “turning point in world history.” The world system that is created, in part due to Mongol unification of a major trade route in Northern China, links the known the world. Arguably, the known world at this time is linked in eight different trading routes. The fall of the Roman Empire takes place during this time, their former glorious empire is scattered into proto-feudal territories. Eastern Europe such as China as its own self-sustaining core started out with an advantage over the lagging West, yet eventually the world system favored the West in the end. Why was this possible?

A possible account is the downfall of China in the 15th century. China in the 15th century became recluse and shut themselves off from the remainder of the world, if they had not they probably would have been the core for many centuries. This is in part due to a couple factors. The first factor that I took notice of is the Mongolian loss of Northern China. This separated the once easily traversed trading route through upper China. This route was commonly used to attend the cities of the Champagne Fairs(Troyes, Provins, Bar-sur-Aube, and Lagny). After the fragmentation of Mongolia, into I believe three separate parts, there became need for another route to transport goods. Secondly, the Black Death had a huge role in decreasing East’s population and economy. The specific effects of the Black Death are not discussed in detail. Some 60 percent of the world’s population is devastated by the plague.

A second explanation for the switch of favor from the switch in favor from West to the East is the advancement in technology, mainly transportation, textiles. Technology that was previously retained by China for decades is now flourishing in the 12th and 13th centuries. Once the Mongol Empire ceased their became a need for a new route to cross with goods, primarily spices. The answer to this was a new ship created for the need to advance and cut costs. The advancement in transportation allowed civilizations the ability to by-pass previous land trade routes, and as well the “middle man.”.

The third possible reason for the switch in favor is nothing more than location. Abu-Lugbod makes reference that a city or territory is heavily involved in trade by geography. Italy is a great example of this. Italy even during the worst of times, the Black Death, continued to trade and make profit. Ironically, this was also why Italy was struck so hard by disease. Italy revived along with many other key cities that were geographically linked to key sea and land routes, such as Bagdad that is both. Eastern Europe is not located in key meeting destinations, of world trade. This lessened their lead that they once had among the other countries and allowed in my opinion the favor of the world system to shift to the east. The one point that is portrayed is any country or side of the world can have the World system favor them, in essence it is ever changing

The reasons that are mention are my own interpretation of how the West came to be the superior in the world system. I’m always open for criticism and feedback. Also, if anyone knows what they steps to recover from Black Death were used?

BEH: Commentary 1

This week the discussion of Abu-Lughod’s examination of the origins of the world system and the factors and characteristics of existence before the period of European hegemony began. Many perspectives are briefly mentioned, but in general the book takes the perspective that rather than being some unique positive characteristics of “the West,” the ascension of Europe to a hegemonic status is more of a result of problems in the Levant and the Far East.

Despite the notion that there were and are striking differences between the two extremes of the world system in the Middle Ages, the similarities are more compelling than the differences. Things like money and credit, group investments, and merchant wealth and supremacy spanned largely across the entire world system of that time. The fact that there are so many similarities is the main support for the idea that instead of Europe pulling forward, the Levant and Far East fell behind.

The examination of the pre-European dominance era begins with Europe itself. The early markets were called periodic as they followed a cyclic pattern that allowed merchants and traders to move along a predetermined route that allowed them to work many markets efficiently. These types of markets dominated as the population was sparse, there was little development and poor transportation mediums. These markets often started off small and grew as “bigger” merchants frequented them. These markets were the precursors to the world market and monetized system that later developed. Slowly elements like security, exchange currencies, and strategically placed markets allowed some cities to become major trading sites, like the Fairs of Champagne and later Bruges and Ghent.

However these places also eventually lost their significance and uniqueness. The factors that once made these cities the favored place for trade by merchants slowly faded. Examples include loss of security, political interference and development and industrialization in different places. The point of dependency on the Counts and raw materials also proved detrimental to both the Fairs of Champagne and the cities in Flanders, respectively.

I found it very surprising, yet compelling that many elements of present trade and modern day capitalism existed and dominated trade even during the Middle Ages. I knew that before capitalism, mercantilism dominated people and countries’ economic and political endeavors, but before reading Abu-Lughod’s rendition, I did not realize how seamlessly the two ideas work together. With so many examples, to me it is strange that is should be questioned whether these markets were capitalistic. I also found it interesting that the subsystems of the world during the Middle Ages were more self-sufficient than the subsystems today. It sounds counterintuitive at first glance, but when it is really contemplated the restrictions on transportation essentially made it necessary that these subsystems could survive independently; otherwise no real development would have occurred as everything would be limited by the speed and efficiency of the rudimentary transportation of that time.

Abu-Lughod states that there was no hegemonic power in the early world system as each benefited from the system but not through detriments to others (pg. 37). To me this does not make sense as it said repeatedly in the first week’s readings that the Italians came to different markets and through their expertise and better connections to the Levant and the Far East displaced local merchants and essentially dominated the trade. If, as Abu-Lughod does, the Italians are marked as a reason for Bruges and Ghent’s downfall, how can the mutual benefit without harm statement be true?

-Ragini Grace Gupta

The World System- A.D. 1250-1350

In the first two chapters of Abu-Lughod’s “Before European Hegemony” she talks about the World System of trade from 1200-1300. In this trade most goods were exchanged from Periphery countries to the Core countries. She talks about the different levels of countries and how they interact with each other. The Core countries were the ones that were most developed and that had already attained domination status over other countries. The semi-periphery level was made up of the countries in the middle that are not the most powerful but that did have some power over other countries. The lowest level was made up of the periphery countries. They were generally undeveloped and had high rates of exportation. This system was also called the Pax Mongolica and the major participants were India, China, Middle East and Europe. However, this trade was before Europe claimed all of its glory and had years of domination. Instead of talking about all of Europe’s accomplishments like most historians and writers Abu-Lughod started before the European era. In fact, at this time Europe was still a baby player in the trading game. Abu-Lughod describes to us that unlike now there were no strong dominating forces in the World Trading system.

I think an interesting comparison can be made with the World trading system we have to day and the Pax Mongolica system used in the 1200-1300 hundreds with the types of merchandise that was traded. Now we trade things that are fast and easy to make and that generally serve a productive purpose of some kind. In the twenty first century I think that the most successful traders are ones that can deliver fast. Where as, the items that were traded in the Pax Mongolica system were mostly superficial like beautiful rugs and tapestries, incense, gold, etc. Not only were the actual items different but the attitude was too. Speed was not the main concern; sometimes it took years for deals to be made in this time. At that time it was quality over speed. And considering the rate of time each transaction took I am impressed with the success system of trade. Even though compared to now this trade was rather small, without it we would have suffered. This trade made the initial connections and established relationships and trade routes.

I would have liked Abu-Lughod to go deeper into the issues surrounding the Black Death. She stated that the main problem was that it changed the way things were exchanged but it seems to me that there must have been much more serious problems. And if there was not if she could explain why. Was it because Europe was not a dominating player yet and one of the places that suffered the most and therefore it did not have a lasting effect on the actual trade? It makes sense to me that technology advancements were a factor in the end of the pax Monglolica trading system because any country would be left in the dust that did not conform. But I would think that the Black Death would also have played a major role.

--Dorothy "Bunny" Smith, drs@pitt.edu

The World System

At first glance, the network of exchange during the thirteenth century seems rather mediocre, consisting mainly of agricultural products like spices, but the expansion of this world system includes a series of important concepts to grasp. First and foremost, contrary to many beliefs, European hegemony was not always present. When it came to capitalism, much of what Europe had built up was similar to that of many other countries. Paper money was already being used in China since the ninth century, and the idea of credit was already well developed in the Middle East and Asia. The Middle East already had partnerships and a certain percentage of returns for merchants. Also, merchant wealth thrived in Asian, Arab, and Western forms of capitalism because merchants at this time were independent from the various forms of government.

Clearly during the thirteenth century Europe was no better off than other countries around the world, but then questions arise when Europe considerably pulls ahead during the sixteenth century. Abu-Lughod explains why the fragmentation of trade route regions that had once been unified by Genghis Khan play a role in the significant change throughout networks of trade, but I am still unsure of the reasons why. I also would appreciate a more elaborate analysis of the Black Death because the significant population drop must have had a greater impact on the world other than simply just changing “terms of exchange ” temporarily. I was thoroughly surprised by how the Black Death hardly changed trade in the long run in countries such as Italy, where the mortality rate was rather sizeable.

I did find one comparison of Europe in the thirteenth and sixteenth century very enticing. Abu-Lughod depicts Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon as two representations of this change (more specifically in England) over time. Roger lived during the thirteenth century, Francis during the sixteenth, and both were philosophers who possessed a commitment to the natural sciences, appealed to authority, and faced disgrace eventually. There sharp differences, however, portray the change in an exceptionally vivid manner. Roger had sacred beliefs and thus appealed to the pope, but Francis had secular beliefs and thus appealed to the monarchy. Directly related to the world system, Roger saw knowledge in the East, and of course a few centuries later Francis believed knowledge was right in front of them and had to be newly achieved. This made the alteration in European motives a bit more clear.

Also, I became more aware of how Italy (specifically the trade centers at Genoa and Venice) mediated foreign trade and determined what investments would be made. Establishment in the Middle East also began early for Italy around the Black Sea, coast of Palestine, and Egypt, although slightly more constrained, through beachheads. This is just one of the many examples of how elaborate the world system already was, even without the advanced technology that we know so well today. If anyone can help me better interpret Abu-Lughod’s interpretation of the effect of fragmentation and the Black Death on the change in trade networks, I would greatly appreciate it.

Before European Hegemony

By:Melissa Nadeau

In Before European Hegemony, Janet Abu-Lughod attempts to explain how Europe rebuilt after the fall of the Roman Empire into the dominant power of today. Europe regained its former economic glory starting in the sixteenth century however the thirteenth century played a crucual role in them returning to the world stage as an economic power. Up until the thirteenth century Europe was plagued with the "fall of Rome" and subsequently the invasion of foreign forces and unstable government leadership. Meanwhile the Middle East and Orient were experiencing good economic fortune through their trade routes. At the turn of the thirteenth century most invading forces had either been forced back into their homelands or were now integrated in their new homelands; allowing European cities to start expanding once again. Once cities started expanding new trade routes were opened up throughout Europe, the ones mentioned being Champagnes, Italy, and cities in Flanders. These trade routes helped to establish the first worldwide trade network, or what the world consisted of during the time period. While Europe was regaining their footing in the economic world, other powers started to lose thiers. The Middle East and Orient started to decline partially due to the Black Death, which was a detriment to the sea ports along these trade routes. The first part of the novel mostly dealt with Europe starting to regain its former glory but highlighting key cities and places where trade was prosperous. People from all over Europe, as well as people from countries as far away as Cyprus came to check out the trade fairs. During the thirteenth century Europe became a central trading market, while becoming more economically secure. Throughout the novel Abu-Lughod will explain in more detail how the other trade centers started declining while Europe made a comeback.

An abundance of new information was presented to me in the first part of the novel. It was interesting to learn about economic powers and ideas of the past. What became interesting to me was how Europe overcame the loss of an empire and rebuilt themselves from the ground up. Europe dealt with invaders from other countries and cities being ruled unfairly. Once cities started growing the progression was slow and steady back to their former glory. I also started to learn more about European cities and places around during the thirteenth century that are no longer around today. Also the principle of credit and borrowing of funds came up and I found it interesting how a complicated matter was handled during the times.

One aspect not really elaborated on was how other areas of Europe were affected during th thirteenth century. Going over every part of Europe would have been a tedious procedure, however only three areas were explained. Were these three areas the only major trade cities or were they the only ones discusswed? Also, hopefully more about how the three systems became interconnected will be explained later, because most of part one dealt with Europe and how they rose up and not about the relationship between all three.

European Hegemony

I think Janet L. Abu-Lughod brings up a lot of interesting points in explaining the history and facts that lead to Europe hegemony. She does a great job making clear that she will not argue, but will inform us with why certain historical changes influenced global outcomes economically, religiously, and superiorly. She knows that the amount of trade going on during the 12th and 13th century is nothing compared to today, but when compared to other times around those centuries something had to occur that lead to increase in globalization. Abu begins describing some similarities and differences that lead to such conclusions. One similarity that Abu points out is the invention or backing of money and credit by the city-states and wealthy merchants. This is a large step for any society to take, and Abu’s second point helps push this with the advent of mechanisms, instruments, and means for accruing capital while being able to understand the risks. One of the differences she explains how the Orient fell behind simply because of the loss of control by peace keepers. Also, the spread of the Black Death by sea ports is a tremendous influence in dividing the east and the west. Finally, Abu points out an important part of this with religion and the Crusades.
I believe it is hard for Abu to go into great detail yet, but I hope some of the interesting points that will elaborated will be the how societies locally and globally accepted and trusted a form of currency. I do not know much about the origins of currency and credit and it is something that interests me. It seems like it would be very difficult to employ a system that is still questioned today. Especially, when the transactions of goods and services could take months, years, or even decades. I would find it very hard for me to invest in a shipping industry when I would have no idea for months if the goods or services have reached customers or if it is lying on the bottom of the ocean. I guess at some point something had to occur in order for the trust to be gained. I would also like Abu to discuss more about the Age of Discovery and who gained the advantages and who fell behind. I feel the Age of Discovery is a very influential time period as Abu describes the loss of belief in the church and scriptures as science and math begin to discredit the church. From this new areas were explored, ideas were spread, and inventions lead to part of the exponential growth that was about to happen.
One question Abu asks is if there was an increase in trade in the 13th century, did it unite the large amount of developing areas? I wonder if it was the uniting of the areas that increased trade, or if it was the increase in trade that united the areas. It seems they come hand and hand and in order to have one you have to have the other. This is an interesting argument because it always makes me think about pirates and how we still have them today. How can a global economy thrive if areas are scared to transport their goods and services because of the fear of loss to the repressed tyrants? Abu brings up the loss of Genghis Khan’s protection over trade route regions to subdivisions which disrupted many sea and land routes. I feel like events like this are reasons why no world system is global and until we can gain control with trust and protection of all areas and people, we will never have a true world system. I just wonder if it could ever happen during my lifetime. "Gotta get that silk road"

Brin, Globalization and Capitalism

1.)The idea of Brin’s four worldviews states that the world is always keeping the enemy at bay and is always in attack mode for whatever harm may come their way. It also stresses the idea of “patriotism” in the sense that Brin believes that the world sees tradition as an important worldwide view and that one should never turn their cheek to their brother. Another view stressed in Brin’s theory covers the fact that without authority and boundaries, the world would be destructive; therefore one should obey the cultural limitations set by their higher powers. And although deviance is seen as a flight against authority, Brin recognizes that each century will see a group of individuals who will question authority and go against the “rules” laid down by cultural societies. These four worldviews hold true to a lot of American ideals and many other countries.
In Before European Hegemony, Abu-Lughod takes the idea of worldviews and places them into a means of trade in the thirteenth century. “No world system is global, in the sense that all parts articulate evenly with one another…” (32) Abu- Lughod answers our class’s question perfectly. Even now not all countries cohort with each other within the trade community, but during the thirteenth century the Mongol Empire was as worldwide as the time allowed. In the thirteenth century, means of transportation was not as developed as it is today causing trade to be limited to areas within closer proximities. However, the Mongol Empire was global within the confines its area; spanning from Asia to Europe.
2.)The trade that was made between the countries show a major form of capitalism, in the fact that luxuries were the main necessities in trades, because many of the countries (China mainly) could sustain the necessities needed to live by their own means and did not require the need of the other countries. Much like trade today, many of the “items” being imported and exported through countries are mainly for improving the living styles of the world. As Abu-Lughod stated economic integration and cultural discoveries furthered development in countries in the thirteenth century and are also developing our world today. However, in my own opinion many of the world today has changed the concept of the luxury trade and has made the technological advances, that were once luxuries to the traders of the Mongol Empire, into necessities. Many forms of transportation that are being traded between many core countries are items that many of the population would believe to be necessities in their lives. While this statement may seem very obvious to most, I find the growing differences between the centuries’ ideals fascinating.
3.) A point in Brin’s four worldviews that I think that needs pointed out is the fact that “Dogma of Otherness” is an important factor in the world; people need to question authority in order for authority to grow and develop. Many of the population find these “miscreants” to be deviant, but looking throughout history many of these individuals have shaped and changed our culture and society.

Before European Hegemony Commentary-1

Nell Ross
Commentary 1

Abu-Lughod writes Before European Hegemony to communicate his analysis of the formation of European’s dominance within the world economic system. He first seeks agreement with his readers on a logical date for the start of European hegemony. On page nine, the author emphasizes the lack of concurrence about this beginning by additionally noting Karl Marx’s uncertainty, an established social theorist of the world economy. Ultimately, Abu-Lughod finds the sixteenth century to be an appropriate estimation for the start of European’s supremacy.

After this was decided, Abu-Lughod aimed to explain why Europe became a world power in the sixteenth century by looking at its history. Going back to the Jurassic Era or earlier would be a tedious task although potentially insightful. Instead, the author chose to use the thirteenth century as a baseline of comparison to the sixteenth century because of Europe’s highly contradictory shift in the global economy. Abu-Lughod does not deny the existence of world economies prior to the thirteenth century, but feels they were not globally sustained or developed and were very miniature in size. During the thirteenth century, where there was no primary hegemonic power, an international trade economy was conceived. This began the trade from Western Europe to China connecting most large cities in between. By the sixteenth century Europe became a leader in the world’s economy, a shift that Abu-Lughod and many historians still seek to figure out.

European’s dominance in our modern world sometimes blinds us to the history of world capitalism. The Middle East, India, and China, once the economic forerunners of the world core, now are in the semi-periphery of our global system. European’s slow rise to the top by the sixteenth century is surprising to me because of its current high status; more curious is the reasoning for its dominance over the former core powers from the east. What caused the decline in the Middle East, India, and China? Did Europe’s rise have the greatest effect or was the East’s shift from core to semi-periphery due to internal economic and political affairs?

McNeill, and His Revolutionary Reasonings (Or Lack Thereof)

In his essay The Triumph of Nationalism, McNeill looks at the "revolutions" that occurred in two powerhouse nations of the era, namely; The United States, Get Britain, and the strikingly less powerful France and Ireland. However, he fails to mention what exactly leads to the differences in the nations rise in nationalism.
He explains the civil strife and the discontent of the youth, that the rising generation was "a more volatile class" (41.) This is surely the reason behind any revolution. But why, then, did America and France make their feelings known through violent political upheaval while Great Britain simply expanded industrially and Ireland shifted agricultural efforts from shepardry to grain production?
I believe the answers lie in the stake of the majority, what was to be lost or gained by the working middle class. As Marx observed, it is the middle class constantly shifting the social strata, continuously trading places with the upper crust of society. Seeing as none of these four countries are Communist, we accept that the same is true for them. In France and America, there was little distinction between the impoverished and the middle class, with conditions only worsening as the political climate thickened and repression worsened. Therefore there was little to lose in total dedication to revolution. Violence was an ends to justify the means, and the means neccesry were freedom. England and Ireland on the other hand, were experienceing problems more domestically relative. Ireland's climate could no longer provide the pasturing lands needed for profitable sheparding, but that same weather made the change to grain farming simple. The middle class had only to lose their sheeep. Finally in England, nationalism found it's niche in expansion. The rise of imperialism (see "the white man's burden") and continental expansion of industry was the main revolution of the 18th century.
This is simply my reasoning. I welcome comments and challenges.

European Power and Conflict

The Global System that emerged during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was uniquely characterized by its lack of a hegemonic influence.  At this point, China and India can certainly said to be more advanced and powerful than the rest of the players (and the same can probably be said for various key ports along the Red Sea and Persian Gulf); yet no one city or nation or group held dominance.  This system quickly collapsed, particularly with the disintegration of the Mongol Empire and the conflict that erupted as various warlords attempted to carve out areas of control for themselves.  Europe emerged from this period (which it entered as a backwater) as the dominant force in the world.  However, Europe has, since the collapse of the Roman Empire, been a collection of various city-states, nations, principalities and other independent collections of power, and has nearly constantly seen war and strife.  Why is it that Europe emerges from this period stronger than before while the rest of the world struggles and eventually falls behind European powers?

            One potential explanation for the survival of European power is the very fragmentation that tore apart other empires such as the Mongols.  As Europe had, since Roman times, never been a unitary state, all of the progress that had already been made to that point had been done by various actors in various states, in the midst of the conflicts that were occurring around them.  With the near perpetual conflict in Europe, there was no break to the incremental progress that had been made allowing them to reach that point.  Whereas the Mongol Empire or the Chinese Empire had only been making progress after unified empires were formed, Europe’s unique geography created a system where wars were the “norm.”  Fareed Zakaria notes in The Future of Freedom that the geography of Europe sheltered small states, while Asian geography lent itself to large empires.  Of the small regions created by the mountains and rivers in Europe, he says, “they are hard to conquer, easy to cultivate, and their rivers and seas provide ready trade routes.” (36) Of Asia, he says it is, “full of vast flatlands…through which armies could march unhindered.” (36)

            Another potential explanation for Europe’s rise through the constant state of war is also related to the lack of a single unified empire, and that is their religion, and, in this pre-Reformation time, the unmatched power of the Catholic Church and the Pope.  When Constantine moved his capitol to Constantinople from Rome, he left the Bishop of Rome.  This separated the church’s power from the state’s.  This allowed the church to play an important role in the power struggles of the continent. (Zakaria)  As seen in the earlier time through the Crusades, the various nation-states in Europe could be rallied to a common purpose if the Pope told them to.  The power of the Pope throughout Europe in a pan-national sense meant that, unlike in other parts of the world, there was a source of power that was not tied to any particular nation or empire (as opposed to Asia, where long distance power was arranged around warlords and emperors), and therefore would survive any of the strife present.

            Another potential source is an idea mentioned peripherally by Abu-Lunghard is England’s role in Europe and the world pre and post Plague.  As Abu-Lunghard mentions England’s “die-off” rate was lower than many other populated areas of the world (19).  Unlike the Empires of India and the Middle East, which were decimated by the plague, Europe had an area that was left relatively alive.  This allowed, even with the constant around the world of wars and epidemic, Europe to have an area that was relatively intact (especially since the British Isles were not normally the scene of battles, rather, British armies often fought on the Continent or elsewhere).

            None of these reasons can be the definitive answer to Europe’s rise to hegemony over the world even with its wars, indeed, many reasons may be left out, or what was mentioned above may be wrong.  However, these are several possibilities.

The Nation Meme and the Evolution of Society

(1) David Brin’s discussion of memes reminded me of a Hegelian-like Zeitgeist -- a “society-spirit,” or a deus ex machina -- and I think Brin’s (and Dawkins’) meme and Hegel’s Zeitgeist are one and the same. In short summary, Brin outlines his four societal memes, or “ideas that live and ideas that spread;” they are Paranoia, Machismo, The East, and the Dogma of Otherness. But we’ve all read Brin’s article, so instead of summarizing it to death I’d like to move my discussion to another related topic and conclude with a few queries that I find in need of reconsideration.

(2) McNeill’s “Polyethnicity” briefly considered the evolution and development of society, which one could reasonably assume goes like this: the political unit grows from nomadic clan/troop/family to city-state and on to nation; the economic unit grows from petty domestic industry to monopolies and cartels (Abu-Lughod); and the division of labor, the demographic make-up of the polity, the multiplication of professions and trades, moves from homogeneity to heterogeneity (McNeill and Konieczny’s lecture). It is this move from homogeneity to heterogeneity that is the essence of McNeill’s idea of Polyethincity, as well as (a general) principle, albeit teleological, of evolution (see Spencer).

(3) However, if we accept the principles of Polyethnicity and societal evolution, it follows that we will inevitably end up with a system for rating societies based on their progress in achieving and promoting a heterogeneous and polyethnic culture. For example, we can easily purport that Plato’s Republic (the proposed nation-state) would perform terribly in our ratings because it is a closed society, expels poets(!), and is un-democratic. Just as easily we can dismiss nationalistic states like the ones McNeill noted in his lecture, as characteristic of the Machismo, East, and Paranoia memes.

Another example where we step into empirical hot water is when we look at the evolution of governmental systems. When we compare the world’s nations, it can reasonably be seen that the most highly developed nations are those that are representative-democracies, or at least those with capitalist† economic systems (it usually follows that rep.-dems. have capitalist† systems).* So, are we to come away from this information with objective knowledge that, objectively, the best national systems are those that are capitalist and democratic? Will the societal Zeitgeist and nation-meme eventually turn all nations into democracies and capitalist economies?

I think that this rhetorical (but, importantly, hypothetical) question is analogous to the debate on whether or not we can rate societies, as it seems Brin does when progressing his idea of the meme: Dogma of Otherness; as well as McNeill’s seemingly argument that polyethinc societies are de facto better. Is it all relative?, or can we reasonably rate societies? Is it the goal of sociology to empirically rate?, or to empirically discover?

* I used this data: Index of Economic Freedom (Heritage 2009), and quickly concluded that the higher on the list of 179 countries, the more democratic the country (North Korea, for instance, is ranked 179). See also note †.
† Keynesian might be a better replacement for the word “capitalist.”

- Stefan Larson