For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
EURASIA.
Term Paper ID:29664
Essay Subject:
Processes of change.... More...
9 Pages / 2025 Words
3 sources, 23 Citations,
APA Format
$36.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Processes of change. Modernization and political/state integration. Compares and contrasts approach of two writers on topic. Reasons for long term political, economic, social and cultural changes in Eurasia. State breakdown or political disintegration. Why different cultures faced state breakdowns and their coping strategies. Population growth.
Paper Introduction:
THEORIES OF CHANGE AND EARLY MODERNITY ACROSS EURASIA
This essay compares and contrasts the approaches taken by Victor Lieberman and Jack Goldstone in their cited books toward explaining early modern (c. 1000-c.1830) historical processes of change across Eurasia with particular reference to processes of political/state integration. It also discusses how their respective perspectives might be harmonized.
For the most part, the perspectives of these authors are similar or complimentary and, therefore, are reconcilable. Both authors reject the notion that Asian cultures were static and only European cultures dynamic during early modernity.
They both discovered common features in the makeup of the nationstates they studied, which overlapped only partially in time and space. However, their basic purposes were very
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
. Those taxes failed to produce sufficientrevenues for reasons relating primarily to population increases and itsimpact on agriculture and the social order. Likewise, theemergence of centralizing elites, who stood to gain from politicalintegration, such as the Confucian literati in Dai Viet and the lowersamurai in Japan, served as leaders of the movement toward nationalintegration. Consider Lieberman's discussion wherein hecites long-term population growth as an important factor in support ofpolitical integration, a conclusion directly contrary to that of Goldstone(p. Ann Arbor: UniversityMichigan Press. Beyond binary histories re-imagining Eurasia to c. And he noted that in Mughal India "culturaluniformity . But in . 67). 123). . . Hewould have been better off to have followed the example of Lieberman withrespect to Indonesia which he acknowledged was an exception to the rule. However, they gave different emphasesand weights to various causative factors, which in some but not allinstances can be reconciled. 99-1 ). There is no way to reconcile Goldstone's view that populationincreases were a, if not the, principal driving force behind statebreakdowns and Lieberman's finding that political integration and statecentralization were facilitated more by population decreases thanincreases. . 454). Goldstone, J. However, theirbasic purposes were very different, in Lieberman's case to ascertain whatlong term political, economic, social and cultural changes took place inEurasia and why and in Goldstone's case to explain why different culturesfaced state breakdowns and how they coped with the resulting crises. Interestingly, Goldstoneacknowledges that economic factors had a great deal to do with enablingEurope to avoid the adverse political effects of population increases inthe nineteenth century. However,most of his speculation concerning globalized stimuli lacks foundation.Berry chides Lieberman for overstating the significance of external factorsin shaping political integration in Tokugawa: "a Eurasian 'interdependency'is hard to claim" (p. He said: In the aftermath of the English and French revolutions, the legacy of the brief phases of repudiation of the past was to create symbols and ideologies that remained in contest with Old regime authority, and that continued to make claims for institutional change and liberty. E. Goldstone similarly disdainsbiased Western accounts that viewed political change in Asia "as merepeasant uprisings or dynastic changes" (p. A. Berkeley: University of California Press. He said flatly "theadvent of capitalism cannot be blamed for revolution" (p. Conclusion Lieberman and Goldstone approached aspects of politicalintegration/disintegration from different vantage points which accountedfor much of their apparent conflict. 145 to c. 183 (1 3-137). . 1 -c.183 ) historical processes of change across Eurasia withparticular reference to processes of political/state integration. Goldstonesays that nevertheless this demographic factor was the primary cause ofthat fall, not the challenge posed by Western interventions andtechnological superiority. However, Indonesia (Malaya-Java) failed to fit this pattern owingto the geographical configuration of the archipelago and British/Dutchinterventions (pp. Goldstone's Arguments. They accord different weights and emphases to various factors,such as economic considerations and cultural barriers to change but theyboth come together in their recognition that exceptions to their respectivetheses exist. arisen that, in seekinggeneralities, comparative history is disdainful of facts" (p. France and, to a lesser extent pre-Meiji Japan,is studied by them both. The credibilityof Lieberman's overriding conclusion, namely, that all across Eurasia thedominant feature of the period was "political and cultural integration" issomewhat undercut by his failure, except in passing, to study any of theless integrated regions of Europe, such as Germany, and the main centers ofAsian civilization, the Islamic world, Mughal India and Ming China. between asecularizing Westernizing literate nobility and the [more reactionary]enserfed peasantry" (p. However, A sinequa non was "a stable political center" which Lieberman said was "dependenton favorable geography and external security--that could coordinatepatronage, validate religious and linguistic norms and provide a focus ofidentity" (p. Was early modern Japan culturallyintegrated? He acknowledged that in most of Asia thecompetitive and politically integrative dynamic of the private market andprotection against interference by government were weaker (PP. 14-15.Goldstone's focus is narrower than Lieberman's. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.----------------------- 1 Goldstone acknowledges that politicalcollapses and regenerations of nationstates follow upon one another withregularity. (199 ). Herethey are in stark disagreement. Otherwise, the nationstates under glass differ(England, the Ottoman Empire and Ming China by Goldstone and Burma.Malaysia-Indonesia, Russia, Siam and Vietnam by Lieberman). . While Lieberman examined the processes ofpolitical integration, Goldstone addressed the phenomenon of politicaldisintegration or state breakdown. 476 ). 145 and 183 total output expandedwhile agricultural and craft production became more specialized andcommodified" (p. was modest" (p. Important differences exist in their approaches to the causation ofthe phenomena they observe, some of which are more readily reconcilablethan others. Ottoman Turkey, and China, the response to the seventeenth-century crises was to seek order by enforcing conformity ton traditional norms" (p. . Lieberman said that traditionally Western writers on Southeast Asia"tended to see indigenous civilizations as intensely conservative, if notstatic" and Western societies dynamic (p. However,he also acknowledged that "capitalism [which fomented industrialization]was the savior of the early modern economies from the pressures of economicgrowth" (p. Both Goldstone and Lieberman acknowledge the importance of culturaldifferences in explaining exceptions to their theses and in particular whyreform of institutional structures and reforming ideologies appeared tohave had more lasting impact in Europe than in Asia. 1). . Cultural integration followed fromunifying and expansionary government policies. As examples, neither Russia nor Dai Viet (Vietnam) couldachieve political integration until they ejected the Mongols and MingChinese, respectively. They also define the period under studydifferently.Both authors discuss earlier and later periods, but Lieberman concentrateson the period c. According to Lieberman, during the early modernperiod all across Eurasia "sustained, broadly synchronized movements[occurred] towards territorial consolidation, administrativecentralization, cultural/ethnic integration and commercial intensification"(p. Lieberman does not assign any onefactor as the cause of this trend, but rather cites the interaction of manyforces, political, economic, cultural and technological. 183 . 57). Lieberman expressed a similar view where he said thatEurope's "unique access to domestic coal and to New World resources . 353). was both a symptom and a cause of[political] integration" (p. There is nothing irreconcilable about their respective discussions ofcyclical patterns in history. And "different ideological legacies . His arguments re Japan are not persuasive. . (1999). 183 while Goldstone focuses on the two periodsof revolution and state breakdowns from roughly the late 15 s to about165 and from 177 to 185 . In Russia, Liebermanpointed that political integration was retarded by "a chasm . 42). 2 & p. 96). So, forexample, the crisis of the ancien regime which led to the French Revolutionfollowed up the fiscal crisis faced by the monarchy, in particular itsoverdependence on land taxes. 475). His book "examines thecauses of revolutions and major rebellions in the early modern world" (p.xxii). Another important and potentially irreconcilable difference is thatLieberman tends to emphasize the importance of non-ecological exogenousfactors as stimuli to political integration, such as war, infusions ofoutside firearms, technologies, crops and ideologies through internationaltrade and other cross-cultural infusions. had certain common characteristics, including a severe statefinancial crisis, severe intra-elite divisions and conflict between elitegroups and the state, readiness of popular groups to engage in anti-stateactivities and an increase in heterodox cultural and religious ideas. In all the nationstates he studied, Goldstone found that the singlemost important originating cause of state financial crises was rapidpopulation growth which in turn was correlated by lowered mortality rates.In the 15th century the incidence of plague in Eurasia diminished, due toessentially fortuitous causes. THEORIES OF CHANGE AND EARLY MODERNITY ACROSS EURASIA This essay compares and contrasts the approaches taken by VictorLieberman and Jack Goldstone in their cited books toward explaining earlymodern (c. 55-56). Are the Two Points of View Reconcilable? Likewise, Liebermanacknowledges that political collapses occur and reoccur, but stillmaintains that the long-term trend was toward integration which Goldstoneneither accepts nor disputes. Principal Findings and Explanations Lieberman's Theses. . Eachrecognizes that their subjects are only part of the whole picture. 61). Both authors reject thenotion that Asian cultures were static and only European cultures dynamicduring early modernity.They both discovered common features in the makeup of the nationstates theystudied, which overlapped only partially in time and space. Lieberman, V. Both of them seekto explain why the changes they studied occurred (Lieberman, pp. Goldstone found that political crises which led to revolutions, civilwars, etc. In Victor Lieberman (Ed.), Beyond binary historiesre-imagining Eurasia to c. (Ed.). Goldstone, on the other hand, tends to discountthe importance of economics, except when economic changes result fromecological factors such as disease remission and population growth. 63). He will accept Lieberman's more or less Hegelian concept ofrepeated cycles so long as his thesis that demographic changes are whatcause the cycles to change direction is accepted. In the case of Tokugawa Japan before its fall in the mid-19thcentury, the population was stable and agricultural prices fell. He developed this concept further in hisdiscussion of the inclination of the Ottoman Empire and Ming China, afterperiods of state breakdown and revolution, to limit the extent ofinstitutional reform. 126). Objectives and Focus Both authors strive to avoid an Eurocentric view of the early modernworld. He is constantly on the searchfor 'inter-connectedness' as a factor facilitating integration. Lieberman said "militarycompetition provided a powerful incentive to political integration" (p.7 ). through most of his book Goldstone is neutral oncapitalism as a driving force of regime breakdown. 54). For the most part, the perspectives of these authors are similar orcomplimentary and, therefore, are reconcilable. This spawned a series of interrelatedadverse consequences, including shortfalls of agricultural production,hyperinflation, especially increased costs of waging war, social unrest,intense competition and rivalry among elite groups and the spread of'subversive doctrines' such as Puritanism during the English Civil War inthe 164 s and various forms of Neo-Confucianism in Ming China before itsfall in 1644. 458). Goldstone agreed that cultural factors could retard efforts toameliorate the effects of state breakdown. (1999). . He said "rising literacypromoted standardization in all six societies" (p. References Berry, M. In the case ofJapan, Berry said that three large population centers "required productionand marketing organization across the country" (p. 56) And he found that "the widespread transition fromsubsistence to market production . Capitalism tookdifferent forms in Western Europe and Asia but Lieberman said "in everyarea under consideration between c. Wars, which were a recurring reality during this period, helpedgenerate national or ethnocentric solidarity. It alsodiscusses how their respective perspectives might be harmonized. .together encouraged a peculiar core-periphery relationship favorable toindustrialization" (p. Military needs dictated territorial expansion and consolidation.Economic factors, especially the expansion of trade and free markets,helped drive the process of political integration by bringing the core andperipheral areas closer together and by spreading new ideas. Revolution and rebellion in theearly modern world. 4). He said "there were criticaldifferences that affected the outcome [of politically disintegrativetrends] in each case," most of which were structural in the case of Europeand cultural in Asia (p. profoundly influenced the later divergence of East and West(p. They both agreed that after politicalcollapses, the trend toward political reintegration such as in seventeenthcentury tended to reassert itself. Lieberman on the other hand chronicles and explains processes ofpolitical and cultural integration. 7). Goldstone likened the deterioration of apolity to the accumulation of forces that cause an earthquake, graduallyincreasing until a breaking point is reached (pp. However, Goldstone clearly gives a great deal ofweight to demographic factors as the cause of political breakdowns. As noted above, Lieberman and Goldstone agree on a number of points.Both of them acknowledge that the causes of the phenomena they studied werecomplex and inter-related. Theywere looking at two facets of the same coin, Lieberman at politicalintegration, Goldstone at state breakdown or political disintegration. 15). 148-149). . AsGoldstone cautioned, "suspicions have . .
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject