What do you think?
Rate this book
The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation
John Hobson challenges the ethnocentric bias of mainstream accounts of the "Rise of the West" that assume that Europeans have pioneered their own development, and that the East has been a passive by-stander. Describing the rise of what he calls the "Oriental West", Hobson argues that Europe first assimilated many Eastern inventions, and then appropriated Eastern resources through imperialism. Hobson's book thus propels the hitherto marginalized Eastern peoples to the forefront of the story of progressive world history.
394 pages, Paperback
First published June 3, 2004
25 people are currently reading
1028 people want to read
About the author
John M. Hobson
11 books17 followersJohn Montagu Hobson, FBA (born 27 December 1962) is a political scientist, international relations scholar and academic. Since 2005, he has been Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield. In 2015, Hobson was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, the United Kingdom's national academy for the humanities and social sciences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
Read
August 25, 2013This book promises much but fails to deliver.
Much of what's compelling isn't new - the works of Janet Abu-Lughod, Joseph Needham, Kenneth Pomeranz, Jack Goody, Andre Gunder Frank et al. are cited heavily and quoted at length - and little of what's new is compelling.
The chapters where Hobson summarizes the works of the above scholars serve as useful introductions to the 'rebalanced' literature on global patterns of economic and technological development, he deftly punctures the myth of a peaceful, lassiez-faire industrial Britain and his anti-Eurocentric broadsides are fired off with aplomb. Unfortunately, that's about as good as it gets.
This book aims to recast the rise of Western Europe as a contingent phenomenon facilitated almost entirely by earlier advances by other societies. An avowed opponent of Eurocentrist history, Hobson prosecutes this case with a great deal of rhetorical heft but little in the way of analytical acuity.
Readers interested in the hows and whys of Chinese/Islamic/Indian/Japanese scientifc discovery and entrepreneurial innovation will leave this book none the wiser: what's relevant to Hobson is which side of the Urals and Mediterranean the development happened, and then only if it headed west. This results in a tedious game of Huntingtonian civilisational dickwavery no more interesting or insightful for having inverted the conventional Eurocentric paradigm.
Anything that might complicate this one-way stream of Eastern ingenuity, such as the Qing court learning of the Earth's sphericity (established by Greek astronomers in the 3rd c. BC) from the Jesuits or the decline of Islamic science after the 13th century is omitted, or in the latter case brought up only to be skated over as a dastardly Eurocentrist debating trick, as opposed to, yanno, something that happened.
If only that was as disingenuous as this book got.
Hobson’s stated aim is to rescue the East from Eurocentric history, placing it back where it belongs - in the final chapters we learn that this is on a pedestal. Arab and North African slaving and plunder across the Atlantic coast was “cheeky”, the Ming are praised for their “benign forbearance” in not conquering the whole world in the 15th century while European powers are admonished for taking advantage of the gracious and willing hospitality of the Mughals in order to scheme and intrigue.
Note here that I am using the names of the relevant Chinese and Indian dynasties of the period - these are almost always omitted by Hobson, who instead refers throughout the book to 'Europe', 'the Islamic World', 'China', etc. Ironically, for someone so steeped in anti-Orientialist literature Hobson tends to view the easternmost of these big dumb civilisational blocs as almost entirely static, referring to 'Chinese civilisation' as a coherent, consistent, “benign”, phenomenon.
In a staggering passage in chapter thirteen we learn that this placid, eternal China “virtually” never engaged in imperialism, exploitation or cultural conversion, and that the hegemonic tendencies of Chinese culture were primarily defensive. Hobson goes on to lament that this benevolent nation was later subjected to “drug-pushing” European imperialism, leaving the reader totally unaware that this is the same Qing Dynasty that brought China to its greatest territorial extent in the 18th century through the conquest of Outer Mongolia, East Turkestan and Tibet.
Hobson’s analysis of European imperialism is similarly ahistorical. His efforts to expound on the defensiveness and insecurities behind the Spanish and Portuguese (European states can be disaggregated, Chinese and Japanese dynasties not so much) naval expeditions of the 15th and 16th century undermine his argument that the emergence of an aggressively anti-East racial and imperial ideology was an unreasonable development. This presentation of "Christendom besieged" as a myth is untenable the moment one realises that Hobson has left one of the greatest Asian gunpowder empires of the age entirely out of the picture.
Yes, in a blatant piece of deck-stacking Hobson discusses the origins of European imperialism without any reference to the Ottoman Empire. This is ironic, as the Ottomans are a perfect case in point for much of Hobson’s thesis – a dynamic, relatively tolerant Eastern empire with superior military organisation that competed on par with European states well into the 17th century – it’s just putting them in the picture makes it very difficult to paint early modern European xenophobia and imperialism as a wholly endogenous development.
To his credit, Hobson is upfront about the provocative goals of this book, but I just don't see the point of this polemic when so much of his thesis is equally hollow, never engaging with the complexities of the world system and ultimately offering nothing more than "they got lucky" as an explanation for the industrial and scientific revolutions that did take place in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. This just doesn't wash: why is European invention derivative and contingent and not Persian, Arabic and Japanese?
What were the mechanisms that insulated Chinese astronomy from Greek and Islamic innovations? How did the Song Dynasty come so close to an industrial breakthrough in the 12th century and why weren't those developments followed up by successor dynasties? Is geography a factor, or disruption?
Questions like these are why I read history, and why I found this book such a disappointment.
Much of what's compelling isn't new - the works of Janet Abu-Lughod, Joseph Needham, Kenneth Pomeranz, Jack Goody, Andre Gunder Frank et al. are cited heavily and quoted at length - and little of what's new is compelling.
The chapters where Hobson summarizes the works of the above scholars serve as useful introductions to the 'rebalanced' literature on global patterns of economic and technological development, he deftly punctures the myth of a peaceful, lassiez-faire industrial Britain and his anti-Eurocentric broadsides are fired off with aplomb. Unfortunately, that's about as good as it gets.
This book aims to recast the rise of Western Europe as a contingent phenomenon facilitated almost entirely by earlier advances by other societies. An avowed opponent of Eurocentrist history, Hobson prosecutes this case with a great deal of rhetorical heft but little in the way of analytical acuity.
Readers interested in the hows and whys of Chinese/Islamic/Indian/Japanese scientifc discovery and entrepreneurial innovation will leave this book none the wiser: what's relevant to Hobson is which side of the Urals and Mediterranean the development happened, and then only if it headed west. This results in a tedious game of Huntingtonian civilisational dickwavery no more interesting or insightful for having inverted the conventional Eurocentric paradigm.
Anything that might complicate this one-way stream of Eastern ingenuity, such as the Qing court learning of the Earth's sphericity (established by Greek astronomers in the 3rd c. BC) from the Jesuits or the decline of Islamic science after the 13th century is omitted, or in the latter case brought up only to be skated over as a dastardly Eurocentrist debating trick, as opposed to, yanno, something that happened.
If only that was as disingenuous as this book got.
Hobson’s stated aim is to rescue the East from Eurocentric history, placing it back where it belongs - in the final chapters we learn that this is on a pedestal. Arab and North African slaving and plunder across the Atlantic coast was “cheeky”, the Ming are praised for their “benign forbearance” in not conquering the whole world in the 15th century while European powers are admonished for taking advantage of the gracious and willing hospitality of the Mughals in order to scheme and intrigue.
Note here that I am using the names of the relevant Chinese and Indian dynasties of the period - these are almost always omitted by Hobson, who instead refers throughout the book to 'Europe', 'the Islamic World', 'China', etc. Ironically, for someone so steeped in anti-Orientialist literature Hobson tends to view the easternmost of these big dumb civilisational blocs as almost entirely static, referring to 'Chinese civilisation' as a coherent, consistent, “benign”, phenomenon.
In a staggering passage in chapter thirteen we learn that this placid, eternal China “virtually” never engaged in imperialism, exploitation or cultural conversion, and that the hegemonic tendencies of Chinese culture were primarily defensive. Hobson goes on to lament that this benevolent nation was later subjected to “drug-pushing” European imperialism, leaving the reader totally unaware that this is the same Qing Dynasty that brought China to its greatest territorial extent in the 18th century through the conquest of Outer Mongolia, East Turkestan and Tibet.
Hobson’s analysis of European imperialism is similarly ahistorical. His efforts to expound on the defensiveness and insecurities behind the Spanish and Portuguese (European states can be disaggregated, Chinese and Japanese dynasties not so much) naval expeditions of the 15th and 16th century undermine his argument that the emergence of an aggressively anti-East racial and imperial ideology was an unreasonable development. This presentation of "Christendom besieged" as a myth is untenable the moment one realises that Hobson has left one of the greatest Asian gunpowder empires of the age entirely out of the picture.
Yes, in a blatant piece of deck-stacking Hobson discusses the origins of European imperialism without any reference to the Ottoman Empire. This is ironic, as the Ottomans are a perfect case in point for much of Hobson’s thesis – a dynamic, relatively tolerant Eastern empire with superior military organisation that competed on par with European states well into the 17th century – it’s just putting them in the picture makes it very difficult to paint early modern European xenophobia and imperialism as a wholly endogenous development.
To his credit, Hobson is upfront about the provocative goals of this book, but I just don't see the point of this polemic when so much of his thesis is equally hollow, never engaging with the complexities of the world system and ultimately offering nothing more than "they got lucky" as an explanation for the industrial and scientific revolutions that did take place in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. This just doesn't wash: why is European invention derivative and contingent and not Persian, Arabic and Japanese?
What were the mechanisms that insulated Chinese astronomy from Greek and Islamic innovations? How did the Song Dynasty come so close to an industrial breakthrough in the 12th century and why weren't those developments followed up by successor dynasties? Is geography a factor, or disruption?
Questions like these are why I read history, and why I found this book such a disappointment.
December 4, 2018
يحاول هذا الكتاب تفنيد السردية التاريخية الأوروبية التي تتكلم عن " مركزية أوروبا "= بمعنى أن الغرب قد صنع نهضته بمعزل عن الشرق ، وقد ساعد على تدعيم هذه السردية في الوعي الأوروبي خطابات " كارل ماركس " و " ماكس فيبر" التي أصبحت متأصلة في ذلك الخطاب .
كان كارل ماركس يؤمن بأن الشرق لم يكن لديه أفق لتنمية ذاتية تقدمية ، وهنا يؤكد " هوبسون " أن نظرية ماركس للتاريخ ترديد لقصة ذاتية مركزية أوروبا ، بينما ماكس فيبر كان يرى أن نهضة الرأسمالية قدرًا محتومًا في الغرب بنفس القدر الذي به مستحيلة في الشرق ، ويرفض " هوبسون" هذه الحتمية زاعمًا أنه بدون مساعدة الشرق الأكثر تقدمًا في الفترة من ٥٠٠م - ١٨٠٠م [يؤكد على هيمنة المسلمين على إنتاج الحديد والفولاذ حتي القرن الثامن عشر ] لم يكن للغرب أن يتخطى الحدود إلى الحداثة ، فقد تخطى هذه الحدود كما يقول " هوبسون " بالاستيلاب [استيلاب أفكار+ استيلاب ثروات] .
في مجال استيلاب الأفكار يحاول " هوبسون " ان ينسف أي نهضة ذاتية للغرب ، مثلًا نظرية المركزية الأوروبية تعزي نهضة أوروبا إلى عصور الاستكشاف ، ومن هنا المؤلف ينسف أسطورة المكتشف البرتغالي " فاسكو دا جاما " الذي يتباهى الغرب بأنه أول رجل استطاع الدوران حول رأس الرجاء الصالح ، فيثبت " هوبسون " انه مسبوق في ذلك بالبحار الإسلامي " أحمد بن ماجد" ، ويثبت أن التقنيات الرئيسية التي حفّزت الثورة الصناعية والزراعية البريطانية انتشرت كلها عبر الصين .
فهو يحاجج أن الصين حققت معجزة صناعية توّجت بثورة سونج قبل دخول بريطانيا مرحلة التصنيع ب ٦٠٠ عام ، وإذا كان " فرانسيس بيكون " يقول أن اهم ثلاثة اكتشافات عالمية هي البارود والطباعة والبوصلة ، فإن المؤلف يؤكد أن هذه الثلاثة عرفتها الصين قبل أوروبا [ طالع في الكتاب نسف المؤلف لأسطورة جوهان جوتنبرج مخترع المطبعة] ، بل هو حتى يرفض السردية الأوروبية التي تزعم أن اليابان- يابان ميجي- تطوّرت لأنها أخذت بالوصفة الغربية للتحديث ، مؤكدًا أن اليابان كانت قد مهّدت لنفسها هذا الطريق خلال فترة " طوكوجاوا" وأنها كانت ستتحول لرأسمالية كاملة بشكل تلقائي ، ولا تتوقف الأساطير التي ينسفها المؤلف مثل نسفه لأسطورة ريادة الإيطاليين لكل أنواع الاختراعات التي دفعت بالرأسمالية الأوروبية إلى الأمام .
أما في مجال استيلاب الثروات يتكلم عن استيلاء الإمبريالية الأوروبية على الثروات الشرقية ، وفي هذا ينظر المؤلف إلى رحلات "فاسكو دا جاما " و " كريستوفر كولومبوس " بأنها جولة من حولات الحروب الصليبية ، وفي الحقيقة هذا منظور مهم جدًا ، فيؤكد أن هوية أوروبا الموحدة لم تتكون إلا باصطناع الآخر الشرير الوثني الهجمي ، ووجدوا في " الإسلام " -العدو التاريخي لهم- بغيتهم ، ومن ثم فإن هذه الرحلات تمت بعقلية الحروب الصليبية القديمة أكثر من كونها نتاج مجموعة من الأفكار الحديثة .
إن التهديد الإسلامي بعد فتح العثمانيين للقسطنطينية ثم أثينا حثَّ على إصدار عدة من المراسيم البابوية تُكرّس للإمبريالية البرتغالية ، فقد أعطى البابا نيكولاس سلطة روحية على كل المناطق التي يُخضِعها البرتغاليون ، ومن ثم فإن رحلات كولومبوس للبحث عن الذهب كانت ضرورية لتمويل استعادة الأرض المقدسة باعتبار تخلف أوروبا بالمقارنة بالعثمانيين، وهنا نقطة في منتهى الخطورة يسجلها المؤلف وهي أنه بدون امدادات الذهب والفضة إلى أوروبا لم يكن لنظام الصرف العالمي أن ينشأ ، بل لم يكن ممكنًا للأوروبيين أن يجدوا مصدرًا للسيولة لتسوية العجز التجاري الدائم مع أسيا .
هذه هي حقيقة الاستغلال الإمبريالي الذي قامت عليه النهضة ، من نهب الثروات واستغلال العبيد البشع في عمليات التصنيع [ طالع مثلًا دور العبيد في ازدهار الصناعة البريطانية ] ، وعن طريق القوة العسكرية صدّر البريطانيون الأفيون إلى الصين ومن ثم أنقذوا عجزهم التجاري ، وهي أشياء ليست دوافعها إمبريالية صرفة ، بل يؤكد الكتاب أنه تم خلق هوية عنصرية داخل الخطاب الإمبريالي ، وللمفارقة تفرعت عنها عنصرية أكثر تطرفًا وضعت البريطانيين في أعلى قمة التسلسل الهرمي ، وهذه العنصرية البريطانية لاشك أنها سبقت العنصرية النازية .
هناك نقاط في غاية الأهمية في الكتاب يجب استيعابها لفهم أسباب التخلف الراهن الشرقي ، أنه في الفترة التي ازدادت فيها قوة المجتمعات الشرقية قبل نهضة اوروبا لم تقم باستعمار أوروبا واستيعابهم داخل مدارهم الثقافي [ ربما لو فعل العثمانيون هذا إبان قوتهم لتغير التاريخ ] ، وسنجد أن الأوروبيين هم من سيفعلون هذا ، بل سيستفيدون بشكل كبير من عدم فتح المسلمين لأوروبا الغربية ، مع استيعابهم للثروات الشرقية بألة عسكرية همجية استعاروها من الشرق بعد تطوير طفيف .
هذا الكتاب يستحق الخمس نجوم عن جدارة ، فهو صدمة فكرية واقتصادية وتاريخية لكل المعتقدين بمركزية الغرب الأوروبي ، وهي السردية الاستشراقية التي تم نسفها هنا تمامًا .
كان كارل ماركس يؤمن بأن الشرق لم يكن لديه أفق لتنمية ذاتية تقدمية ، وهنا يؤكد " هوبسون " أن نظرية ماركس للتاريخ ترديد لقصة ذاتية مركزية أوروبا ، بينما ماكس فيبر كان يرى أن نهضة الرأسمالية قدرًا محتومًا في الغرب بنفس القدر الذي به مستحيلة في الشرق ، ويرفض " هوبسون" هذه الحتمية زاعمًا أنه بدون مساعدة الشرق الأكثر تقدمًا في الفترة من ٥٠٠م - ١٨٠٠م [يؤكد على هيمنة المسلمين على إنتاج الحديد والفولاذ حتي القرن الثامن عشر ] لم يكن للغرب أن يتخطى الحدود إلى الحداثة ، فقد تخطى هذه الحدود كما يقول " هوبسون " بالاستيلاب [استيلاب أفكار+ استيلاب ثروات] .
في مجال استيلاب الأفكار يحاول " هوبسون " ان ينسف أي نهضة ذاتية للغرب ، مثلًا نظرية المركزية الأوروبية تعزي نهضة أوروبا إلى عصور الاستكشاف ، ومن هنا المؤلف ينسف أسطورة المكتشف البرتغالي " فاسكو دا جاما " الذي يتباهى الغرب بأنه أول رجل استطاع الدوران حول رأس الرجاء الصالح ، فيثبت " هوبسون " انه مسبوق في ذلك بالبحار الإسلامي " أحمد بن ماجد" ، ويثبت أن التقنيات الرئيسية التي حفّزت الثورة الصناعية والزراعية البريطانية انتشرت كلها عبر الصين .
فهو يحاجج أن الصين حققت معجزة صناعية توّجت بثورة سونج قبل دخول بريطانيا مرحلة التصنيع ب ٦٠٠ عام ، وإذا كان " فرانسيس بيكون " يقول أن اهم ثلاثة اكتشافات عالمية هي البارود والطباعة والبوصلة ، فإن المؤلف يؤكد أن هذه الثلاثة عرفتها الصين قبل أوروبا [ طالع في الكتاب نسف المؤلف لأسطورة جوهان جوتنبرج مخترع المطبعة] ، بل هو حتى يرفض السردية الأوروبية التي تزعم أن اليابان- يابان ميجي- تطوّرت لأنها أخذت بالوصفة الغربية للتحديث ، مؤكدًا أن اليابان كانت قد مهّدت لنفسها هذا الطريق خلال فترة " طوكوجاوا" وأنها كانت ستتحول لرأسمالية كاملة بشكل تلقائي ، ولا تتوقف الأساطير التي ينسفها المؤلف مثل نسفه لأسطورة ريادة الإيطاليين لكل أنواع الاختراعات التي دفعت بالرأسمالية الأوروبية إلى الأمام .
أما في مجال استيلاب الثروات يتكلم عن استيلاء الإمبريالية الأوروبية على الثروات الشرقية ، وفي هذا ينظر المؤلف إلى رحلات "فاسكو دا جاما " و " كريستوفر كولومبوس " بأنها جولة من حولات الحروب الصليبية ، وفي الحقيقة هذا منظور مهم جدًا ، فيؤكد أن هوية أوروبا الموحدة لم تتكون إلا باصطناع الآخر الشرير الوثني الهجمي ، ووجدوا في " الإسلام " -العدو التاريخي لهم- بغيتهم ، ومن ثم فإن هذه الرحلات تمت بعقلية الحروب الصليبية القديمة أكثر من كونها نتاج مجموعة من الأفكار الحديثة .
إن التهديد الإسلامي بعد فتح العثمانيين للقسطنطينية ثم أثينا حثَّ على إصدار عدة من المراسيم البابوية تُكرّس للإمبريالية البرتغالية ، فقد أعطى البابا نيكولاس سلطة روحية على كل المناطق التي يُخضِعها البرتغاليون ، ومن ثم فإن رحلات كولومبوس للبحث عن الذهب كانت ضرورية لتمويل استعادة الأرض المقدسة باعتبار تخلف أوروبا بالمقارنة بالعثمانيين، وهنا نقطة في منتهى الخطورة يسجلها المؤلف وهي أنه بدون امدادات الذهب والفضة إلى أوروبا لم يكن لنظام الصرف العالمي أن ينشأ ، بل لم يكن ممكنًا للأوروبيين أن يجدوا مصدرًا للسيولة لتسوية العجز التجاري الدائم مع أسيا .
هذه هي حقيقة الاستغلال الإمبريالي الذي قامت عليه النهضة ، من نهب الثروات واستغلال العبيد البشع في عمليات التصنيع [ طالع مثلًا دور العبيد في ازدهار الصناعة البريطانية ] ، وعن طريق القوة العسكرية صدّر البريطانيون الأفيون إلى الصين ومن ثم أنقذوا عجزهم التجاري ، وهي أشياء ليست دوافعها إمبريالية صرفة ، بل يؤكد الكتاب أنه تم خلق هوية عنصرية داخل الخطاب الإمبريالي ، وللمفارقة تفرعت عنها عنصرية أكثر تطرفًا وضعت البريطانيين في أعلى قمة التسلسل الهرمي ، وهذه العنصرية البريطانية لاشك أنها سبقت العنصرية النازية .
هناك نقاط في غاية الأهمية في الكتاب يجب استيعابها لفهم أسباب التخلف الراهن الشرقي ، أنه في الفترة التي ازدادت فيها قوة المجتمعات الشرقية قبل نهضة اوروبا لم تقم باستعمار أوروبا واستيعابهم داخل مدارهم الثقافي [ ربما لو فعل العثمانيون هذا إبان قوتهم لتغير التاريخ ] ، وسنجد أن الأوروبيين هم من سيفعلون هذا ، بل سيستفيدون بشكل كبير من عدم فتح المسلمين لأوروبا الغربية ، مع استيعابهم للثروات الشرقية بألة عسكرية همجية استعاروها من الشرق بعد تطوير طفيف .
هذا الكتاب يستحق الخمس نجوم عن جدارة ، فهو صدمة فكرية واقتصادية وتاريخية لكل المعتقدين بمركزية الغرب الأوروبي ، وهي السردية الاستشراقية التي تم نسفها هنا تمامًا .
March 16, 2017
This is a very comprehensive review and summation of arguments that have been gathering for a long time. In one place Hobson very deftly shows how many of the claims discoveries, inventions, or advancement of "Western civilization" are actually borrowings from elsewhere. He adds his own original take in discussing identity and also in fitting various pieces of the puzzle together.
Certainly some of the claims and arguments may be somewhat disputable, i.e. that China entirely forsook imperialism, while other parts could have been further explored. Nevertheless, given that this book takes in a global tour over a couple of thousand years (though focusing mainly on the last thousand) it is able, while one can see the claim about China in a certain context (it didn't go beyond its land empire of "greater China" into a global imperialism which it could quite easily have done).
After this book, claims and histories of Western development, empire, civilization, and economic and industrials progress will need to be radically rethought and reshaped. As noted, there is not much here that is new (except the global vision and take) but rather than reading a dozen other books (but you'll probably want to delve into some of the deeper period or regional studies after this) the clear evidence and summary of contemporary global history is on display here.
Certainly some of the claims and arguments may be somewhat disputable, i.e. that China entirely forsook imperialism, while other parts could have been further explored. Nevertheless, given that this book takes in a global tour over a couple of thousand years (though focusing mainly on the last thousand) it is able, while one can see the claim about China in a certain context (it didn't go beyond its land empire of "greater China" into a global imperialism which it could quite easily have done).
After this book, claims and histories of Western development, empire, civilization, and economic and industrials progress will need to be radically rethought and reshaped. As noted, there is not much here that is new (except the global vision and take) but rather than reading a dozen other books (but you'll probably want to delve into some of the deeper period or regional studies after this) the clear evidence and summary of contemporary global history is on display here.
July 27, 2007
Best book I have read to explode the myths of Eurocentrism.
May 31, 2015
Very nice book i like it so much
July 15, 2022
Honestly, this book is quite bad. It reads more like a list of non-Western innovations and matter-of-fact statements about pre-1492 global trade routes as an "I-told-you-so" response to people who think the West is special, as opposed to a rigorous empirical account. Furthermore, Hobson reifies the concepts of East and West, ultimately failing to escape the very framework that he thinks he's critiquing. A much, MUCH better way to approach this general topic can be found in Kenneth Pomeranz's The Great Divergence. There, the concepts of east, west, and nation are not reified, and instead the focus is on how larger units are so internally diverse that we're better off comparing cities as nodes and their hinterlands and overseas trade routes as networks in a broader comparative project that is simply so much better. Hobson does nothing but offer a different, singular origin of a historical outcome that, undoubtedly, has manifold and complex origins. As such, the book is little more than an exercise in blindness, constrained almost completely by a ridiculous presumption that the 'Rise of the West' question is monocausal. It wasn't that cause, it was THIS cause! Waste of time.
To be clear, I'm very much against Eurocentric accounts of history. I'm not entirely sure that the East-West debate matters at all anymore in my discipline, though. Also his reading of Marx and Weber in chapter 1 are demonstratively false. For an argument against Marx's Eurocentrism, see Kevin Anderson's Marx at the Margins. For an argument against Hobson's claim that Weber's concept of patrimonialism is orientalist, read any sentence by Weber about it in Economy & Society. Patrimonial political organization is a Western thing, not a orientalist concept for historical Chinese bureaucracies. His discussion of Weber's concepts of rationality also seem to misunderstand Weber and the literature surrounding these concepts. Undoubtedly, the early sociologists and social theorists (as well as later!) suffered from a Eurocentric framework, but Hobson's argument on this point falls flat on its face.
To be clear, I'm very much against Eurocentric accounts of history. I'm not entirely sure that the East-West debate matters at all anymore in my discipline, though. Also his reading of Marx and Weber in chapter 1 are demonstratively false. For an argument against Marx's Eurocentrism, see Kevin Anderson's Marx at the Margins. For an argument against Hobson's claim that Weber's concept of patrimonialism is orientalist, read any sentence by Weber about it in Economy & Society. Patrimonial political organization is a Western thing, not a orientalist concept for historical Chinese bureaucracies. His discussion of Weber's concepts of rationality also seem to misunderstand Weber and the literature surrounding these concepts. Undoubtedly, the early sociologists and social theorists (as well as later!) suffered from a Eurocentric framework, but Hobson's argument on this point falls flat on its face.
June 5, 2018
What is civilisation? John M. Hobson bases his arguments on "Capitalism is civilization". He reveals the eastern origins of the tools that serve capitalism with numerous citations. Like an archaeologist. Then we witness that how the west imitated the east and why the west ignored the east. The book is very useful in this respect. However, Hobson is an academician. I've read a lot of academic work. I haven't seen certain judgments like "European barbarians" and "Great civilizations of the east". I know racism which was in British Industrial Revolution but we can't say "All of Europe is racist". Racism and barbarism exist in the east and west. On the other hand, Hobson mentions scientific superiority and cultural depth of the east rarely. He should have mentioned these more. Science and culture are real civilisations. Capitalism isn't. Also, he contradicts himself. At the end of the book, he shares Edward Said's sentence: "... we need scepticism." I agree with this view. This is the basis of science. There aren't certain judgments like "European barbarians" and "Great civilizations of the east" on the basis of science. Hobson gives nice information in the book but his style isn't nice.
December 12, 2020
A good critique of eurocentrism
June 27, 2008
When reading books purporting to "debunk myths" (guided by a politics I emphatically support), I often feel as if all that is accomplished is the accumulation of more facts to fill in small holes in a framework of alternative history already agreed upon between me and the author. That's all well and nice—these "facts" come in handy when I need to lash out at somebody, but such experiences are not especially satisfying or meaningful in any lasting way. But this book really did shift something for me, I'm just not sure what that is. At the very least, it made me more attentive of how much of my hazy sense of history still has its base in Eurocentrism, and that's a good enough lesson for me. The task now is to delve into the contours of this stubborn lingering. I remain in awe as to how the past is systematically silenced.
Hobson's book is accessible and very needed. Plus he writes with a bit of bite. I do wish he included a bibliography and provided more endnotes. These things are a bit nitpicky but when taking on such a large task, I get anxious about detractors need for proof. another reviewer said it was "kinda fluffy", I'd agree in a way, maybe it's just a matter of including more detailed research. I think I needed more meta-theory to go along with it. The problematic of "history", time and all that, continues to bewilder me but I really can't get into that in a goodreads review.
Hobson's book is accessible and very needed. Plus he writes with a bit of bite. I do wish he included a bibliography and provided more endnotes. These things are a bit nitpicky but when taking on such a large task, I get anxious about detractors need for proof. another reviewer said it was "kinda fluffy", I'd agree in a way, maybe it's just a matter of including more detailed research. I think I needed more meta-theory to go along with it. The problematic of "history", time and all that, continues to bewilder me but I really can't get into that in a goodreads review.
April 29, 2025
Provides a good inventory of Eastern inventions that influenced the West in its imperialist endeavours. It's funny how the US and European companies complain about contemporary intellectual property theft while a couple of centuries ago they did not only steal Eastern techniques but also invaded, ruined and enslaved their societies.
The book has given me many light-bulb moments:
"By the end of the fifteenth century, China probably published more books than all other countries combined." (p. 184) // "Kelly had brought four Chinese steel experts to Kentucky in 1845, from whom he had learned the principles of steel production used in China for over two thousand years previously." (p. 211) // "There were thousands of iron suspension bridges in China a millennium earlier. The first wrought iron suspension bridge actually appeared in China as early as 65 CE." (p. 215)
The book details how the British empire used tariff protections and forcefully destroyed the Indian textile and iron industry to promote its national industrial development:
"By levying high tariffs on Indian iron imports and later imposing free trade within India, the British were able to take the lead. Thus protecting the two key industries was essential if they were to have any chance of growing up in the face of the superior Eastern competition... By 1873, 40-45 per cent of all British cotton textile exports went to India. Thus having once exported cotton manufactures to Britain, by the mid-nineteenth century India had been transformed into a raw cotton supplier for the Lancashire industry." (p. 256, 264)
It’s unfortunate that, after all these exposés of racism, theft, and imperialist pillage, the author ends up praising global capitalism and calling for international collaboration as if imperialism no longer exists. Though it's understandable, because the book was written in 2004, when the Western academic circles were dizzy with globalisation.
The book has given me many light-bulb moments:
"By the end of the fifteenth century, China probably published more books than all other countries combined." (p. 184) // "Kelly had brought four Chinese steel experts to Kentucky in 1845, from whom he had learned the principles of steel production used in China for over two thousand years previously." (p. 211) // "There were thousands of iron suspension bridges in China a millennium earlier. The first wrought iron suspension bridge actually appeared in China as early as 65 CE." (p. 215)
The book details how the British empire used tariff protections and forcefully destroyed the Indian textile and iron industry to promote its national industrial development:
"By levying high tariffs on Indian iron imports and later imposing free trade within India, the British were able to take the lead. Thus protecting the two key industries was essential if they were to have any chance of growing up in the face of the superior Eastern competition... By 1873, 40-45 per cent of all British cotton textile exports went to India. Thus having once exported cotton manufactures to Britain, by the mid-nineteenth century India had been transformed into a raw cotton supplier for the Lancashire industry." (p. 256, 264)
It’s unfortunate that, after all these exposés of racism, theft, and imperialist pillage, the author ends up praising global capitalism and calling for international collaboration as if imperialism no longer exists. Though it's understandable, because the book was written in 2004, when the Western academic circles were dizzy with globalisation.
August 28, 2024
Enlightening as an introductory read against eurocentrism, but disappointing as a solid thesis to deepen about it and, even, to properly understand world dynamics in matters such as economy, cultural o technological breakthroughs.
Hobson manages well to provide the reader enough data as to underpin a big cause against eurocentrism and the myth of the East, pointing out how West is culturally indebted to african, islamic, indians and Chinese successes. Hobson algo argues well against the eighteenth century industrial miracle and the "purity" of propangadistic notions such as "free trade". Furthermore Hobson accurately draws from the lessons of Needham, Pomeranz or Goody, critizing those who still haven't assumed them.
On the other hand, though, this book would need further research, alongside with nuances. There are many oversimplifications in matters such as west versus east or the racist side of Christianity, and, what is worst, many forgetfulness: what about the European successes in matters such as astrology, philosophy, subjetivity or creativity (i.e. Universities, glasses for vision, heliocentrism...)? There are too many biases that do not help to take Hobson's contributions always seriously.
To sum up, the usefulness and value of this book depends heavily on the reader. If you need to understand how the traditional legend about the superiority of Europe is false, it is worth reading. If you know it already but need a review of main facts, go on reading! But
note that there are academic gaps in Hobson's logic.
P.D.: Anyway, this book should be translated into Spain again. The main reason is that many university teachers still aren't acquainted with most of the facts Hobson collects.
Hobson manages well to provide the reader enough data as to underpin a big cause against eurocentrism and the myth of the East, pointing out how West is culturally indebted to african, islamic, indians and Chinese successes. Hobson algo argues well against the eighteenth century industrial miracle and the "purity" of propangadistic notions such as "free trade". Furthermore Hobson accurately draws from the lessons of Needham, Pomeranz or Goody, critizing those who still haven't assumed them.
On the other hand, though, this book would need further research, alongside with nuances. There are many oversimplifications in matters such as west versus east or the racist side of Christianity, and, what is worst, many forgetfulness: what about the European successes in matters such as astrology, philosophy, subjetivity or creativity (i.e. Universities, glasses for vision, heliocentrism...)? There are too many biases that do not help to take Hobson's contributions always seriously.
To sum up, the usefulness and value of this book depends heavily on the reader. If you need to understand how the traditional legend about the superiority of Europe is false, it is worth reading. If you know it already but need a review of main facts, go on reading! But
note that there are academic gaps in Hobson's logic.
P.D.: Anyway, this book should be translated into Spain again. The main reason is that many university teachers still aren't acquainted with most of the facts Hobson collects.
June 14, 2025
The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation by John M. Hobson is a compelling and provocative reexamination of the traditional Eurocentric narrative of history. Hobson argues convincingly that many foundational elements of Western civilization: science, capitalism, and industrialization, owe much to earlier innovations from the East, particularly China, the Islamic world, and India. He challenges the idea of Western exceptionalism and offers a more interconnected, global view of history. This book is both eye-opening and intellectually enriching, making it essential reading for anyone interested in world history or the roots of modernity.
December 25, 2024
كتاب مهم جداً لكاتب غربي .. يبرهن بوضوح انبثاق الحضارة الغربية من لدن حضارة الشرق قديماً و حديثا
.. كما يوضح كيف تم استكمال بناء حضارة الغرب علي حساب دماء الشرق و نهب خيراته و ثرواته بأفكار مسيحية عنصرية متطرفة تدعي التحضر و الديمقراطية و هي تذبح الشعوب الفقيرة الطيبة .. و لكن سنة الله في الكون نافذة و علي الباغي تدور الدوائر .. و الله غالب علي أمره
.. كما يوضح كيف تم استكمال بناء حضارة الغرب علي حساب دماء الشرق و نهب خيراته و ثرواته بأفكار مسيحية عنصرية متطرفة تدعي التحضر و الديمقراطية و هي تذبح الشعوب الفقيرة الطيبة .. و لكن سنة الله في الكون نافذة و علي الباغي تدور الدوائر .. و الله غالب علي أمره
November 4, 2025
Would have enjoyed had the book not been so anti Europe and anti Britain. Author spent more time bad mouthing Europe and Britain instead of presenting the facts and letting them speak for themselves. The research and information was there but buried beneath the vitriolic hate of everything Western. Save politicking for running for office.
November 18, 2021
Me pareció un buen libro introductorio para conocer un poco más sobre oriente.
May 3, 2023
Surely, you must be joking Mr. Hobson.
June 9, 2025
social sciences are so bad when they are done wrong and so good when they are done right. no historian can be taken seriously if they haven't read this or something like it.
January 16, 2016
This was a really good book, but it was definitely not aimed at the general public. Fortunately, there isn't TOO much jargon, and virtually all of the argument is understandable without specialized knowledge.
The argument itself is beautiful and compelling. It has totally changed how I understand world history and the beginning of the "Industrial Revolution." It has also changed how I understand Western colonialism and imperialism.
I do have to admit that because this book is so strongly aimed at people within the field, many parts ended up more boring than I would've hoped. A good ways through the book, there were long-ish sections detailing a number of inventions and innovations in navigation, farming equipment, industry, etc., and those sections were difficult to stay engaged with. Other sections I wish he would've gone into greater detail about. I really wanted him to elaborate much more on the racist ideology of the West and the pragmatic-and-not-colonial ideology of China. And I wanted him to go into greater detail about when, where, and why Western powers were able to overpower Eastern and African powers, but that was outside the restricted thesis of the book.
Another thing that he made extremely passing reference to but he sadly never went into detail about were the Ancient Egyptian origins of Ancient Greek culture and the Ancient Greek common reference and reverence of Eastern civilizations. He was right when he says that the West tends to start its own history at Ancient Greece, but I wanted more information for this is not the correct way to look at history.
In short, the book argues its thesis against Eurocentrism extremely well, but it was not aimed at the general public and left me wanting more. That could be good or bad depending on how many interesting history books I read in the future on similar subjects.
The argument itself is beautiful and compelling. It has totally changed how I understand world history and the beginning of the "Industrial Revolution." It has also changed how I understand Western colonialism and imperialism.
I do have to admit that because this book is so strongly aimed at people within the field, many parts ended up more boring than I would've hoped. A good ways through the book, there were long-ish sections detailing a number of inventions and innovations in navigation, farming equipment, industry, etc., and those sections were difficult to stay engaged with. Other sections I wish he would've gone into greater detail about. I really wanted him to elaborate much more on the racist ideology of the West and the pragmatic-and-not-colonial ideology of China. And I wanted him to go into greater detail about when, where, and why Western powers were able to overpower Eastern and African powers, but that was outside the restricted thesis of the book.
Another thing that he made extremely passing reference to but he sadly never went into detail about were the Ancient Egyptian origins of Ancient Greek culture and the Ancient Greek common reference and reverence of Eastern civilizations. He was right when he says that the West tends to start its own history at Ancient Greece, but I wanted more information for this is not the correct way to look at history.
In short, the book argues its thesis against Eurocentrism extremely well, but it was not aimed at the general public and left me wanting more. That could be good or bad depending on how many interesting history books I read in the future on similar subjects.
February 14, 2015
John M. Hobson provides a different perspective to the rise of the West and is very much an eye-opener to the tendencies of most narratives regarding world history. Although his approach is more a series of rebuttals to the standard narrative than a linear exposition, this approach suffices to support his point: that the 'East' is often forgone and denied any agency or history, and in turn the West is glorified and deemed as possessing innate characteristics that led to its rise. Hobson's thesis aims to counter this trend by focusing on the West and characterizing its rise as instead being dependent on the appropriation Eastern innovations, African labour and American land and the conceptualization of Western identity on racist ideals.
Also, Hobson makes good use of economic and political data. Instead of singling out cultural factors as the cause of the rise of the West, Hobson uses the infant industry argument, arguing that, instead of utilizing liberal free-trade policies as often touted, western states instead took part in protectionism and imperialism to develop its industrial capacity and overtake the East. Also, Hobson does not deny the West any agency, but instead attributing its construction of western identity as a moral justification to enslave and colonize other subjects.
However, the text has a few shortcomings. It is bit heavy-handed at times and runs into a few instances of characterizing Eastern polities as singular entities. This isn't too glaring though, seeing as descriptions of the East are not its central focus. But other than that, I would suggest this as a good introduction to anti-Eurocentric discourse.
Also, Hobson makes good use of economic and political data. Instead of singling out cultural factors as the cause of the rise of the West, Hobson uses the infant industry argument, arguing that, instead of utilizing liberal free-trade policies as often touted, western states instead took part in protectionism and imperialism to develop its industrial capacity and overtake the East. Also, Hobson does not deny the West any agency, but instead attributing its construction of western identity as a moral justification to enslave and colonize other subjects.
However, the text has a few shortcomings. It is bit heavy-handed at times and runs into a few instances of characterizing Eastern polities as singular entities. This isn't too glaring though, seeing as descriptions of the East are not its central focus. But other than that, I would suggest this as a good introduction to anti-Eurocentric discourse.
Read
January 21, 2016The author's thesis is a provocative one to those who hold to the view that Western civilization developed in a vacuum, void of external influences, powered by an intrinsic motivation. John Hobson is ruthlessly unsparing in his analysis of the origins of the west. He backs his argument with very convincing historical evidence of how the Afro-Eurasian world, through technology, exploration, and economics set the foundation for Europe's rise to preeminence on the world stage. This is a very insightful and thought-provoking history of the past half millennium.
March 20, 2008
Some interesting info, but unfortunately kind of superficial and "pop-culture" analysis and explanation. He's right about a lot of stuff, but needs more rigorous explanations and WAY MORE EVIDENCE! Kinda fluffy.
December 22, 2019
Avrupa-merkezci tarihyazımına karşı önemli eleştirilerden biri... Hobson, gerek siyasi ve askeri gerek bilimsel ve kültürel olarak Avrupa'nın veya daha genel olarak Batı'nın medeniyetin başından beri Doğu'dan üstün olduğu fikrini önemli argümanlarla sorguluyor.
July 18, 2011
So far it confirms information I have obtained from dozens of other books I have read over the last 25 years.
March 30, 2017
This book has been on the backburner for some time. I've been wondering about, and somewhat skeptical of what Hobson describes as the Eurocentric view of history for some time. Hobson's book was a very good way to provide a relatively brief counterpoint to the typical Eurocentric view. I do not have the background knowledge to evaluate all the claims in the book, but what I have studied that relates did seem consistent with the arguments laid out here. I wouldn't take it entirely at face value. While I do think that there is much worth challenging in the conventional Eurocentric view, This book seems almost to push too far in the other direction, seemingly suggesting at times that nothing much original or terribly significant came from Europe prior to perhaps the Enlightenment (which, of course, was galvanized by developments in the East), and painting quite an innocent picture of the East (I am no expert in Chinese history with data to challenge his claim, but Being perhaps a bit cynical about power and how it corrupts, I tend to be a bit suspicious of Hobson's assertion that China chose to "forgo imperialism" during it's long history as perhaps the world's greatest power. But nevertheless, overall the material in the book is pretty compelling.
I see that some reviewers are critical of what they see as a lack of fine detail on his various points. This does not really bother me. I understand that point of this book was to provide an alternative perspective in world history to Eurocentrism. As expansive an undertaking as that is, I hardly expect it to get down into the minutia. The level of detail seems appropriate, and Hobson made sure cite to his sources for those who wanted to seek out more detail. My only criticism in this regard is the lack of a bibliography.
Of particular note to me was Hobson's theory about the use of the Muslim peoples on the eastern and southern margins of Europe as a boogieman by European leaders to consolidate their control over the populace of Europe, and the fact that Europe is largely a social invention, and how racism was implicitly a large part of the European identity from the beginning--something particularly relevant here in 2017, as conservative racism is a political factor in Europe (and the US).
All along as I read, I kept asking myself "why then, if the East had such great advantages over the West, how was the West eventually able to surpass the East to dominate the globe?" The book's ultimate answer, reframing the issue and then articulating the current situation not as a "victory" of the West, but as simply part of the ever swinging of the pendulum, was something challenging to our perspective on time, but which showed much merit. It matches nicely the idea of the world not as one of separate realms, East and West, set in stone, but as a world of constant, organic cultural exchange, where it would be impossible to claim some specific, concrete characteristic were the property of a given society, or some development uniquely and entirely internally generated. it's something I plan on considering more.
I was also very intrigued by the "The Dark Side of British Industrialization." In my experience, the rise of British as an industrial and commercial power has often been depicted by libertarian advocates as the archetypical example of the triumph of libertarian ideology. While this seemed questionable in my own minor information of the era, Hobson provides some significant data skewering the libertarian argument. It seemed a bit odd, inserted as what seemed like a bit of a peripheral issue within the book, but I still appreciated the information.
And that relates to why, despite the fact that I was overall rather impressed by the content, my rating for the book was not terribly high. The book is organized largely as a presentation of a series of rebuttals to various common points by the Eurocentric advocates. Not only that, But Hobson's presentation felt a bit ham-handed, explicitly stating at the beginning of each section what points he was going to address or make, often even mentioning what points he would be making in upcoming chapters, or restating what points he made previously. It didn't so much feel academic as amateur. I felt a real opportunity was missed to create a more subtle overall narrative which could encompass the points without making them all feel disjointed and isolated.
Despite that, the information is very thought-provoking, and worth reading.
I see that some reviewers are critical of what they see as a lack of fine detail on his various points. This does not really bother me. I understand that point of this book was to provide an alternative perspective in world history to Eurocentrism. As expansive an undertaking as that is, I hardly expect it to get down into the minutia. The level of detail seems appropriate, and Hobson made sure cite to his sources for those who wanted to seek out more detail. My only criticism in this regard is the lack of a bibliography.
Of particular note to me was Hobson's theory about the use of the Muslim peoples on the eastern and southern margins of Europe as a boogieman by European leaders to consolidate their control over the populace of Europe, and the fact that Europe is largely a social invention, and how racism was implicitly a large part of the European identity from the beginning--something particularly relevant here in 2017, as conservative racism is a political factor in Europe (and the US).
All along as I read, I kept asking myself "why then, if the East had such great advantages over the West, how was the West eventually able to surpass the East to dominate the globe?" The book's ultimate answer, reframing the issue and then articulating the current situation not as a "victory" of the West, but as simply part of the ever swinging of the pendulum, was something challenging to our perspective on time, but which showed much merit. It matches nicely the idea of the world not as one of separate realms, East and West, set in stone, but as a world of constant, organic cultural exchange, where it would be impossible to claim some specific, concrete characteristic were the property of a given society, or some development uniquely and entirely internally generated. it's something I plan on considering more.
I was also very intrigued by the "The Dark Side of British Industrialization." In my experience, the rise of British as an industrial and commercial power has often been depicted by libertarian advocates as the archetypical example of the triumph of libertarian ideology. While this seemed questionable in my own minor information of the era, Hobson provides some significant data skewering the libertarian argument. It seemed a bit odd, inserted as what seemed like a bit of a peripheral issue within the book, but I still appreciated the information.
And that relates to why, despite the fact that I was overall rather impressed by the content, my rating for the book was not terribly high. The book is organized largely as a presentation of a series of rebuttals to various common points by the Eurocentric advocates. Not only that, But Hobson's presentation felt a bit ham-handed, explicitly stating at the beginning of each section what points he was going to address or make, often even mentioning what points he would be making in upcoming chapters, or restating what points he made previously. It didn't so much feel academic as amateur. I felt a real opportunity was missed to create a more subtle overall narrative which could encompass the points without making them all feel disjointed and isolated.
Despite that, the information is very thought-provoking, and worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews