Historians Debate the Rise of the West

by Jonathan Daly

How and why did Europe rise to world pre-eminence? Providing an overview of this central historical conundrum of modern times, Historians Debate the Rise of the West enables students to grasp major scholars’ evaluations of the biggest picture of how Western civilization fits into modern world history. Most historians who write in this area subscribe to a combination of interpretations set forward by scholars of the field, like David Landes, Jared Diamond or Kenneth Pomeranz. But it is often difficult to understand the position they are coming from, and for readers to understand clearly how Europe made the transition from merely one of many developing civilizations to the world’s first industrial power. In this volume, Jonathan Daly introduces us to the main interpretations of Europe’s rise that have been proposed over the past half-century and presents the views of these historians and schools of scholarship, advocating for each point of view and letting each author speak for him or herself through the inclusion of brief textual selections. Also included are interesting biographical details for each scholar, as well as a list of further reading for each chapter and a collection of maps. An ideal introduction for students of world history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

200 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2014

Reviews

[Marc Lamot]

Jonathan Daly (University of Illinois, Chicago) perfectly describes the aim of this book: “My goal in writing this book has been to represent the views and arguments of a wide range of scholars seeking to explain the West’s ascendancy so faithfully that not even the most perceptive reader can discern my own views.”
And it is true; this book indeed provides a very accessible overview of publications from the last 50 years that shed light on the question of how and why the West became so dominant. I haven’t counted them, but around thirty authors are featured—historians and non-historians alike (with the latter in the majority). Daly summarizes their arguments succinctly, though he covers some in greater depth—Christopher Dawson, William H. McNeill, Immanuel Wallerstein, Jack Goody... truly a diverse group. Based on the authors I have read myself, it is safe to say that Daly accurately captures the spirit of their work.
I found it all particularly interesting and discovered a number of new authors and perspectives that I would like to explore further. In that sense, Daly has absolutely succeeded in his aim.
However, his strength is also his weakness. At times, you wish the author would show his hand a bit more—for instance, by indicating whether a particular thesis (such as the idea that the West’s rise is primarily explained by technological development osr by its legal concept of land ownership) holds water. Daly leaves it all somewhat open-ended, which is a pity.
But fear not: this is an absolutely indispensable book for anyone wishing to dive into the fascinating worlds of World History, Global History, and the “Great Divergence.” More on that in my history review on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
Rating 3.5 stars!

[Sense of History]

Almost fifteen years ago, I first encountered the historiographical movement known as "World History"—or "Global History." Apparently spurred by the economic, technological, institutional, and cultural globalization of the post-1990 world, historians began to examine this increasing global interconnectedness. Two questions took center stage: how and when did this globalization come about, and why was the West able to become so dominant within it? It is no coincidence that this latter question surfaced precisely when the rise of the BRICS nations—and China in particular—began to cause the first cracks in that dominance.
I must immediately add an important correction here: I wrote "historians," but it is a pertinent observation that it was primarily non-historians who began addressing this issue, putting forward numerous theses, each with its own perspective and explanation. This brings Jonathan Daly’s short book into focus. It takes stock (as of 2015) of the vast body of work published up to that point regarding globalization and the rise of the West.
Daly’s merit lies in his orderly summary of the field, presenting the views of some thirty prominent authors on the two questions I described above. As he notes, the sheer diversity of perspectives is striking; a very broad spectrum of potential explanations for the rise of the West is described. Daly identifies two overarching approaches. To begin with, there are authors who attribute Western dominance to factors inherent in Western culture and history itself (the lack of central authority, the extensive fragmentation, the drive for innovation and experimentation, the inherent curiosity, the institutional focus, the extreme individualism, and so on). Then there are others who point more to external factors, such as favorable geographical conditions, the influence of other cultures, and exchanges between regions and cultures—including exploitation and colonization. Marxist-inspired theories regarding the structures of dominance and imperialism developed by the West fall into this same category. Finally, there are authors who emphasize Western theft and the appropriation of achievements originally produced in other cultures.
When you lay all these perspectives side by side, it is truly dizzying. It seems as though all these authors are simultaneously right and wrong, and that all these elements play a role to some extent, without any single one being the decisive factor. In his conclusion, Daly asks himself: “Which of these interpretations make the most sense? Are mostly all of them mutually contradictory, as many indeed seem, or is it possible to combine at least several of them into more comprehensive and holistic explanations?” The latter proposition is certainly true, of course, but how do you actually go about doing that?
In any case, this little book has made one thing clear to me: you inevitably hit a dead end if you think history can be captured within a fixed framework—a specific theory where only one or a few factors are decisive. On the contrary: history is a tangle of tendencies, systems, and structures, involving so many variables that the outcome is always contingent—highly specific and temporary—and therefore, by definition, unpredictable. Or, to quote Isaiah Berlin: reality (including the reality of the past) is so ‘thick’ that one should never reduce it to a few obvious factors. Our Western tendency is to do exactly that, and—don’t get me wrong—there is merit in this; it can make reality more intelligible. At the same time, however, one must always realize that these are imperfect and provisional insights, and that—while we ourselves are caught in the maelstrom of history—new perspectives inevitably keep emerging. Frustrating, perhaps, but utterly fascinating!