Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Letter

Letter To the Editor: In his review of Beyond Binary Histories: Reimagining Eurasia to c. 1830, Alan LeBaron acknowledged that this collection achieved its stated objective, namely to demonstrate that Eurasian societies in the early modern period experienced a range of "commonalities" that transcended a binary distinction between Europe and Asia. Yet at the same time, most curiously and with no apparent sense of contradiction, he claimed that the collection, which I edited, failed to deliver on "the promise of something different" (JWH 13:1, spring 2002, pp. 192­195). What historiography provided his yardstick? Four grand claims lie at the heart of this publication: (1) Societies in Burma, Siam, Vietnam, France, Russia, and Japan between c. 1400 and 1830 demonstrated remarkably synchronized linear-cum-cyclic movements toward territorial consolidation, administrative centralization, and cultural standardization. (2) In each realm integration drew strength from a fluid synergy involving domestic agricultural and commercial growth, expanding international trade (including New World and Japanese bullion flows), intensifying interstate competition, cumulative institutional expertise, and new cultural models. This is not to deny or minimize elements of European particularism, as the reviewer apparently expected the collection would do. Rather, it is to argue that the historiographic obsession with such http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of World History University of Hawai'I Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/letter-S6uiO1rNyb
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-8050
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To the Editor: In his review of Beyond Binary Histories: Reimagining Eurasia to c. 1830, Alan LeBaron acknowledged that this collection achieved its stated objective, namely to demonstrate that Eurasian societies in the early modern period experienced a range of "commonalities" that transcended a binary distinction between Europe and Asia. Yet at the same time, most curiously and with no apparent sense of contradiction, he claimed that the collection, which I edited, failed to deliver on "the promise of something different" (JWH 13:1, spring 2002, pp. 192­195). What historiography provided his yardstick? Four grand claims lie at the heart of this publication: (1) Societies in Burma, Siam, Vietnam, France, Russia, and Japan between c. 1400 and 1830 demonstrated remarkably synchronized linear-cum-cyclic movements toward territorial consolidation, administrative centralization, and cultural standardization. (2) In each realm integration drew strength from a fluid synergy involving domestic agricultural and commercial growth, expanding international trade (including New World and Japanese bullion flows), intensifying interstate competition, cumulative institutional expertise, and new cultural models. This is not to deny or minimize elements of European particularism, as the reviewer apparently expected the collection would do. Rather, it is to argue that the historiographic obsession with such

Journal

Journal of World HistoryUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Oct 2, 2003

There are no references for this article.