What is the purpose of studying medieval western history? What does it explain about the modern world? And how does it fit into the history of the world?
At least one answer, in my teaching at least, has been that Western Europe achieved a degree of cultural dynamism, economic drive and technological innovation; that these qualities are directly explicable by the developments of the Middle Ages; and that it was these same attributes which enabled Europeans to establish the first universal world system, one characterised by a western hegemony, in the centuries after 1500, and with much great intensity after 1800. I do not claim that this hegemony was necessarily a good thing, but I do claim that it happened and deserves out attention.
This entire point of view is challenged by Andre Gunder Frank in his ReOrient : Global Economy in the Asian Age (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998). [For his preface to his own work see http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/archive/papers/gunder/prefreor.htm as well as a whole series of his publications at http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Frank.A_Gunder/index.html ] If I get him right, he things it misguided to account for the "Rise of the West" in "eurocentric" terms, but prefers to see it as part of a (temporary) fluctuation of a long term world system in which the crucial players have long been China and other Asian countries.
His ideas seem to be influential - indeed there was an entire panel devoted to them at the AHA, but I have seen little commentary by Medievalists.
Frankly, from my rapid survey he seems to operate by ignoring what I would regard as fundamentally important issues.
-- For instance, in discussing European trade in the post 1500 period, he
argues that the world of the time was still oriented around China, which
acted a sort of sink for the precious metal dug up in the Americas. "Apart
from the Americas, Europe would have remained marginal" he opines. But I
do not see how he can get away with "apart from the Americas"!
-- He seems to equate all levels of trade contacts. Thus medieval trade
levels, in which a rather small part of the total economy was involved in
long distance trade, are equated with mid 19ty century and later trade
levels, in which both absolute amounts of trade, and the percentage of the
total economy involved in trade, were so much higher quantativley that
surely a qualitative difference must be discerned?
Opinions?
Paul Halsall
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ReOCCIDENT - Andre Gunder Frank and Medieval Studies
From: MHoltgrefe@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:11:30 EST
Sender: owner-MEDIEV-L@listproc.cc.ukans.edu
My ever so efficient _Microsoft Internet Explorer_ would not allow me to access the first web site you mentioned, but was gracious enough to let me into the second for a short while. The only thing I could retrieve there was Frank and Gillis' "The 5000 Year World System: An Interdisciplinary Introduction" (1992) which may have been improved upon since then but probably still lies at the core of Frank's thinking.
With that qualification in mind, it appears that Frank is one of those people trying to paint the broadest possible strokes in order to get everything right (a workable historical framework in order to understand the future) but actually succeeds in getting nothing right.
Quite apart from a number of major inconsistencies in his presentations (one of which is excusing China from not exactly conforming to their ideas of universality while still holding it as the center of a world system: sounds sort of like a black hole absorbing everything rather than a blazing sun providing heat and light) the pre-conceived notions of what ancient or medieval history is all about are almost laughable. For example, if I read him correctly concerning medieval history, since two important non- medievalists (Marx and Weber) hold the middle ages as "dark ages", and surmises that Bloch concurs this must be the case. I also think that he believes that all or most medievalist are so parochial as to not see that there were connections through the Islamic world. What that is supposed to mean, as a matter of historical practice to someone interested in, let's say Alfred the Great, Frank and Gillis do not say except to imply that it is unimportant.
So, Paul it would appear that your notion that Europe held and controlled its own fate would be anathema to Frank. I'm not sure he could account for why Europe became a powerhouse other than a shift in technology and wealth from the east (if that is indeed his thinking since it is not explicitly stated here) and the "mountain of gold" found in the Americas, but Europe to him was surely not capable of controlling its own actions.
Where do I stand on this. I agree a host of technology and commercial savvy did move westward, but the Europeans showed a true talent for receiving, reorganizing and improvising upon those gifts. This talent was God given only to a point, the fact of the matter is (and here I agree with you) that Europeans had a much better history of technical accomplishments than Frank or his followers would give them credit. On the other hand, until the 1750-1800 period, there was no clear sign that A) Europeans were assured of a spot (let alone a long term existence) on top of the Sagarin power ratings or B) that Europe could accomplish any sort of economic dominance without the influx of external goods particularly from the east and thus the overwhelming importance (although not central as Frank would have it) of that region seems logical. The dramatic shift came with the industrialization of Europe, and the success of an independent European culture in the Americas. As I said before, however, all of this is probably beside the point to Frank, who is trying to anticipate the future. He likely sees the dominance of China and non-Europeans in general, even in European type settings such as the US (if not Europe itself), and feels that this is the normal course of human development and historical progress. IOW he is being teleological before reaching the end unlike the Europeans of the 19th and early 20th century who saw themselves as the pinnacle of creation in the midst of their imperialist heyday. The problem is he cutting too many corners and dismissing too much, not to mention that he has latched onto an idea and sees proof of it everywhere and at all times.
Well you wanted an opinion, there is one for what it is worth.
Mark