What do you think?
Rate this book
Storia globale. Un'introduzione
La storia globale si è imposta negli ultimi anni come uno dei campi più importanti delle scienze storiche, anche in paesi con una forte tradizione storiografica di carattere prettamente nazionale. Ma che cosa si intende veramente con storia globale? La storia dell'intero pianeta? La storia della specie umana dal Big Bang ai giorni nostri? O si tratta piuttosto di una prospettiva nella quale si può scrivere anche la storia di un piccolo villaggio? Quali argomenti si lasciano affrontare meglio con un approccio di storia globale e quali relazioni vengono messe in luce più efficacemente? L'autore introduce il lettore a questo originale approccio alla ricerca storica e presenta i temi e le teorie centrali della storia globale insieme alle più importanti controversie da essa suscitate. Grazie al superamento dei confini nazionali e delle visioni eurocentriche, il libro si rivela uno strumento sia per l'analisi del passato sia per la comprensione del presente.
210 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
33 people are currently reading
535 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
Read
April 30, 2025This book definitely belongs to the must-reads for anyone who follows the evolution of the study of history and especially wants to know more about the current of Global History. This new branch of historical studies has been on the rise since the 1990s, not by coincidence together with the phenomenon of the globalization of the world itself. The German expert Sebastian Conrad nicely explains what Global History stands for and how it relates to related currents. World History, Transnational History, Postcolonial, Subaltern and Area Studies and various others are reviewed and Conrad knows how to distinguish them and to explain their strengths and weaknesses.
It is striking that Conrad offers a slightly different view on what Global History really is about. According to him, it is not just a look at historical phenomena in a more global, cross-border context (that’s rather obvious), and also not just a focus on the interconnectedness of things (the interactions, the transfers, the mobility of people, groups and things), but in particular a zooming in on the integrative aspect of those phenomena: what strengthens the connections in a structural way? "Effective global history needs to remain aware of the systemic dimension of the past, and the structured character of social change", he writes in a kind of mission statement. In doing so, he clearly indicates that there are indeed processes and structures that govern that integration and that can be viewed on a broader scale under the heading of globalization. Of course, it is not just about the globalization process of the last decades, nor only about the 19th or 16th century; no, it can also refer to integrative processes in other times and to other forms of connection.
Thus, to a certain extent Conrad offers a normative view, he indicates the direction in which Global History should work. But he is pragmatic enough to know that under the banner of Global History there is a great diversity of approaches, each with its own merits and weaknesses. Conrad is not afraid to warn his colleagues about the pitfalls of the global approach: it sometimes zooms in too much on connection and movement and thus loses sight of the more static aspects of historical phenomena; and alos: looking globally can also have a ‘flattening’ effect (from a great distance details are lost, and there is especially less room for human agency or for power relations): the described processes get an abstract flavor and thus also an aura of necessity and inevitability; and finally: Global History arose from a rejection of nationalist and Eurocentric historiography, but sometimes decays into the other extreme, ignoring the reality of the nation-state too much, or introducing a ‘nativist’ historiography that just puts another centrism in place.
In short, Conrad is critical for Global History, and rightly so. Between the lines you notice that he does not particularly like the Big History approach that falls too quickly into “history with the people left out” or a natural science approach that focuses on unadulterated 'fixed laws' in history. In my opinion that critic is only partly justified. Furthermore he’s also a bit unjust towards the late William McNeill: he agrees he was a a meritorious progenitor of World History, but at the same time he is portrayed as the epigone of Eurocentrism. With this, Conrad of course refers to the title of McNeill’s most important work The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community, but when you read this book, you can clearly see that McNeill is really doing justice to the full role of other civilizations and the phenomenon of interconnectedness; in that he still is an inspiring forebear of Global History.
Conrad not only gives criticism, but also assumes the defense of Global History against the post-colonial and subalterne allegations that Global History is just a kind of ‘ideology of the globalisation process’, just another face of capitalist imperialism in its neoliberalist phase. Conrad takes this criticism seriously, but rejects the alternatives resolutely (because they introduce new forms of centrism that pretend there has never been a real European dominance), and advocates a self-critical approach that also focuses on the negative aspects of globalization.
In short, this is a very important book about Global History, but at the same time a fairly theoretical approach. For a first introduction I would rather refer to Chloé Maurel Manuel d'histoire globale : Comprendre le « global turn » des sciences humaines (unfortunately only in French); Pierre-Yves Saunier Transnational History; and Pamela Kyle Crossley What is Global History?. Enjoy!
It is striking that Conrad offers a slightly different view on what Global History really is about. According to him, it is not just a look at historical phenomena in a more global, cross-border context (that’s rather obvious), and also not just a focus on the interconnectedness of things (the interactions, the transfers, the mobility of people, groups and things), but in particular a zooming in on the integrative aspect of those phenomena: what strengthens the connections in a structural way? "Effective global history needs to remain aware of the systemic dimension of the past, and the structured character of social change", he writes in a kind of mission statement. In doing so, he clearly indicates that there are indeed processes and structures that govern that integration and that can be viewed on a broader scale under the heading of globalization. Of course, it is not just about the globalization process of the last decades, nor only about the 19th or 16th century; no, it can also refer to integrative processes in other times and to other forms of connection.
Thus, to a certain extent Conrad offers a normative view, he indicates the direction in which Global History should work. But he is pragmatic enough to know that under the banner of Global History there is a great diversity of approaches, each with its own merits and weaknesses. Conrad is not afraid to warn his colleagues about the pitfalls of the global approach: it sometimes zooms in too much on connection and movement and thus loses sight of the more static aspects of historical phenomena; and alos: looking globally can also have a ‘flattening’ effect (from a great distance details are lost, and there is especially less room for human agency or for power relations): the described processes get an abstract flavor and thus also an aura of necessity and inevitability; and finally: Global History arose from a rejection of nationalist and Eurocentric historiography, but sometimes decays into the other extreme, ignoring the reality of the nation-state too much, or introducing a ‘nativist’ historiography that just puts another centrism in place.
In short, Conrad is critical for Global History, and rightly so. Between the lines you notice that he does not particularly like the Big History approach that falls too quickly into “history with the people left out” or a natural science approach that focuses on unadulterated 'fixed laws' in history. In my opinion that critic is only partly justified. Furthermore he’s also a bit unjust towards the late William McNeill: he agrees he was a a meritorious progenitor of World History, but at the same time he is portrayed as the epigone of Eurocentrism. With this, Conrad of course refers to the title of McNeill’s most important work The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community, but when you read this book, you can clearly see that McNeill is really doing justice to the full role of other civilizations and the phenomenon of interconnectedness; in that he still is an inspiring forebear of Global History.
Conrad not only gives criticism, but also assumes the defense of Global History against the post-colonial and subalterne allegations that Global History is just a kind of ‘ideology of the globalisation process’, just another face of capitalist imperialism in its neoliberalist phase. Conrad takes this criticism seriously, but rejects the alternatives resolutely (because they introduce new forms of centrism that pretend there has never been a real European dominance), and advocates a self-critical approach that also focuses on the negative aspects of globalization.
In short, this is a very important book about Global History, but at the same time a fairly theoretical approach. For a first introduction I would rather refer to Chloé Maurel Manuel d'histoire globale : Comprendre le « global turn » des sciences humaines (unfortunately only in French); Pierre-Yves Saunier Transnational History; and Pamela Kyle Crossley What is Global History?. Enjoy!
November 11, 2018
This book was more theoretical than I had expected. It certainly gives a good overview of the recent state of affairs in the Global History movement and related branches of historiography, which mainly focus on the connection of historical phenomena, viewed from a broader context. But at the same time it is primarily a thorough reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of that approach. Conrad defends Global History, and even narrows it down to research of structural integrative processes, but also underlines its pitfalls (like a to generalizing view, leaving no room for human agency or neglecting the hierarchy of power relations). The author offers a clever, very nuanced approach, with a provocative end: he predicts that global historiography as a systematic approach will eventually disappear, with which he actually means that it will become mainstream. See also my more elaborate review at my SenseofHistory account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
June 20, 2020
A great introduction to what has become a recent trend among the scholars. Conrad's book is not only a great literature review of the global history books of the last 20-30 years but also a reasonable critique of the most common mistakes and misunderstandings.
Conrad provides a lot of useful, enlightening classifications. One is the differentiation between the world history, an approach which tries to build an exhaustive account of the entire history of the human societies, and the global history, which focuses more on connections, influences, exchanges that go beyond the nation state which itself used to work as a methodological container for many historians so far.
Another is his suggestion of global history as something scalable from the level of products, individuals or institutions up to the global history of the humanity. This opens a lot of possibilities like Derluguian's Bourdieu's Secret Admirer in the Caucasus: A World-System Biography and Beckert's Empire of Cotton: A Global History or The Eastern Mediterranean and the Making of Global Radicalism, 1860-1914.
And finally Conrad's warnings against what has now become an academic cliche were really thought-provoking: Flows, connections, exchanges and transfers precipitated by "globalization" serve various political, economic agendas and they interrupt, impede, limit or destroy some other connections and exchanges that run against those agendas.
Very accessible, very good.
Conrad provides a lot of useful, enlightening classifications. One is the differentiation between the world history, an approach which tries to build an exhaustive account of the entire history of the human societies, and the global history, which focuses more on connections, influences, exchanges that go beyond the nation state which itself used to work as a methodological container for many historians so far.
Another is his suggestion of global history as something scalable from the level of products, individuals or institutions up to the global history of the humanity. This opens a lot of possibilities like Derluguian's Bourdieu's Secret Admirer in the Caucasus: A World-System Biography and Beckert's Empire of Cotton: A Global History or The Eastern Mediterranean and the Making of Global Radicalism, 1860-1914.
And finally Conrad's warnings against what has now become an academic cliche were really thought-provoking: Flows, connections, exchanges and transfers precipitated by "globalization" serve various political, economic agendas and they interrupt, impede, limit or destroy some other connections and exchanges that run against those agendas.
Very accessible, very good.
April 6, 2022
Un libro que se lee muy fácil, en verdad que es una excelente introducción para el tema de la historia global, tan importante hoy en día, dado el auge de esta corriente historiografica y además, que es inegable que vivimos en un siglo muy globalizado y conectado. Los capítulos son cortos y muy precisos.
En el primer capítulo Conrad, nos expone que en el mundo en que vivimos es uno globalizado en muchos aspectos y dimensiones, por ello resulta importante la historia global, la cual crítica también el discurso eurocentrico y centrado en la Estado nación que ha tenido la historia. Nos ofrece también una pequeña definición de historia global, nos muestra tren enfoques de la misma, desde una historia de todo, una de conexión y redes y otra de intercambios. Nos advierte también de los obstáculos que tiene esta.
El segundo capítulo, intenta hacer una aproximación histórica a la misma historiografía de la historia global, donde historiadores antiguos intentaron hablar sobre otros pueblos "bárbaros", con la conquista del nuevo mundo, se abarcó más en la historia, ya en el siglo XIX el relato global de la historia estuvo centrado en el triunfó de Europa y sus ideas en el mundo.
En el tercer capítulo, nos expone cinco contrincantes de la historia global, desglosa sus oportunidades así como sus principales críticas; tenemos la comparación buena cuando no hay mucha relación, pero que es contraproducente a veces por centrarse en las diferencias y semejanzas. Lo poscolonial, nos ayuda a mirar procesos culturales y a mirar el eurocentrismo en la modernidad, pero homogeniza los distintos tipos de colonialismo, y se centra mucho en lo cultural. La teoría sistema mundo, no deja de ser eurocentrica y se centra bastante en lo político y económico. Las modernidades múltiples, muestra de manera independiente varias modernidades, sin relacionarlas. Finalmente la historia trasnacional nos muestra como se solapan las sociedades, el como influye un país en otro.
En el cuarto capítulo, hay algo interesante y es que mirar los intercambios y relaciones no solo basta en la historia global, hay que enmarcalos en un contexto global, y también local, muchas veces se deja de lado las especificidades de cada lugar. No todo lugar recibe de la misma manera procesos globales, por ello hay que mirar su intensidad y continuidad.
En el quinto capítulo, siguiendo el anterior se debe prestar prestar atención al grado de integración que se tiene en los distintos lugares. También se menciona la cuestión de la globalización, y es que hay un problema con este concepto, es difícil ubicar su origen, y no es un proceso lineal progresistas, hay momentos de mayor integración y otros que no. Igual, hay diferentes formas de integración y asimilación.
El sexto capítulo, versa sobre el espacio en la historia global, está puede ir desde un lugar transnacional como los mares o regiones de mucha conexión. También se puede hacer seguimiento a ideas, objetos o personas. Por último, hay una historia total relacionado aspectos locales con globales y viceversa. Pero, no todo se enmarcar en lo global, hay muchos fenómenos que no tuvieron muchas conexiones globales.
El séptimo capítulo, sobre el tiempo, nos muestra una historia total que va desde el big bang, en el que usa las ciencias naturales, la cuestión está en que esté tipo de historia trata de plantear leyes universales. La simultaneidad está relacionada con fecha o periodos donde hubo un gran momento de conexión. El uso de la gran escala en la historia global, genera mucha contextualización al punto de dejar un poco de lado lo humano y lo local.
El octavo capítulo, sobre la posición desde el presente de la historia global, expone que si bien hay que criticar el eurocentrismo en la historia, tampoco hay que dejar de lado el papel importante que tuvieron Europa y Estados Unidos en el mundo, igualmente tampoco hay que caer en el sinocentrismo de darle mucha importancia a Asia. El uso de conceptos sociales europeos puede ser criticados, pero, estos siguen siendo importantes para un mejor entendimiento. Esta última idea es continuada en el noveno capítulo, donde muchas veces el uso alternativo de conceptos se puede quedar en el discurso.
En el último capítulo, se retoma muchas ideas de lo anterior escrito. Se le ha criticado a la historia global de servir de justificación para la globalización actual; no obstante, está en un herramientas que por el contrario la puede criticar, al ver los intereses que hubo en está, mirar que en las conexiones hay que mirar los aspectos positivos y negativos de esta. También se le ha concebido mucha importancia a la movilidad, dejando de lado lo estático, se deben seguir teniendo presente otros enfoques históricos y al propios ser humano, como sujeto.
Por último, es importante señalar que la historia global aún está centrada en algunos lugares de habla inglesa y en países desarrollados asiáticos, su interés está en el crecimiento de países como China. Aún falta que está historia sea más abierta a lugares como América Latina o África.
Aún falta mucho por que trabajar y aportar en la historia global. Un gran libro.
En el primer capítulo Conrad, nos expone que en el mundo en que vivimos es uno globalizado en muchos aspectos y dimensiones, por ello resulta importante la historia global, la cual crítica también el discurso eurocentrico y centrado en la Estado nación que ha tenido la historia. Nos ofrece también una pequeña definición de historia global, nos muestra tren enfoques de la misma, desde una historia de todo, una de conexión y redes y otra de intercambios. Nos advierte también de los obstáculos que tiene esta.
El segundo capítulo, intenta hacer una aproximación histórica a la misma historiografía de la historia global, donde historiadores antiguos intentaron hablar sobre otros pueblos "bárbaros", con la conquista del nuevo mundo, se abarcó más en la historia, ya en el siglo XIX el relato global de la historia estuvo centrado en el triunfó de Europa y sus ideas en el mundo.
En el tercer capítulo, nos expone cinco contrincantes de la historia global, desglosa sus oportunidades así como sus principales críticas; tenemos la comparación buena cuando no hay mucha relación, pero que es contraproducente a veces por centrarse en las diferencias y semejanzas. Lo poscolonial, nos ayuda a mirar procesos culturales y a mirar el eurocentrismo en la modernidad, pero homogeniza los distintos tipos de colonialismo, y se centra mucho en lo cultural. La teoría sistema mundo, no deja de ser eurocentrica y se centra bastante en lo político y económico. Las modernidades múltiples, muestra de manera independiente varias modernidades, sin relacionarlas. Finalmente la historia trasnacional nos muestra como se solapan las sociedades, el como influye un país en otro.
En el cuarto capítulo, hay algo interesante y es que mirar los intercambios y relaciones no solo basta en la historia global, hay que enmarcalos en un contexto global, y también local, muchas veces se deja de lado las especificidades de cada lugar. No todo lugar recibe de la misma manera procesos globales, por ello hay que mirar su intensidad y continuidad.
En el quinto capítulo, siguiendo el anterior se debe prestar prestar atención al grado de integración que se tiene en los distintos lugares. También se menciona la cuestión de la globalización, y es que hay un problema con este concepto, es difícil ubicar su origen, y no es un proceso lineal progresistas, hay momentos de mayor integración y otros que no. Igual, hay diferentes formas de integración y asimilación.
El sexto capítulo, versa sobre el espacio en la historia global, está puede ir desde un lugar transnacional como los mares o regiones de mucha conexión. También se puede hacer seguimiento a ideas, objetos o personas. Por último, hay una historia total relacionado aspectos locales con globales y viceversa. Pero, no todo se enmarcar en lo global, hay muchos fenómenos que no tuvieron muchas conexiones globales.
El séptimo capítulo, sobre el tiempo, nos muestra una historia total que va desde el big bang, en el que usa las ciencias naturales, la cuestión está en que esté tipo de historia trata de plantear leyes universales. La simultaneidad está relacionada con fecha o periodos donde hubo un gran momento de conexión. El uso de la gran escala en la historia global, genera mucha contextualización al punto de dejar un poco de lado lo humano y lo local.
El octavo capítulo, sobre la posición desde el presente de la historia global, expone que si bien hay que criticar el eurocentrismo en la historia, tampoco hay que dejar de lado el papel importante que tuvieron Europa y Estados Unidos en el mundo, igualmente tampoco hay que caer en el sinocentrismo de darle mucha importancia a Asia. El uso de conceptos sociales europeos puede ser criticados, pero, estos siguen siendo importantes para un mejor entendimiento. Esta última idea es continuada en el noveno capítulo, donde muchas veces el uso alternativo de conceptos se puede quedar en el discurso.
En el último capítulo, se retoma muchas ideas de lo anterior escrito. Se le ha criticado a la historia global de servir de justificación para la globalización actual; no obstante, está en un herramientas que por el contrario la puede criticar, al ver los intereses que hubo en está, mirar que en las conexiones hay que mirar los aspectos positivos y negativos de esta. También se le ha concebido mucha importancia a la movilidad, dejando de lado lo estático, se deben seguir teniendo presente otros enfoques históricos y al propios ser humano, como sujeto.
Por último, es importante señalar que la historia global aún está centrada en algunos lugares de habla inglesa y en países desarrollados asiáticos, su interés está en el crecimiento de países como China. Aún falta que está historia sea más abierta a lugares como América Latina o África.
Aún falta mucho por que trabajar y aportar en la historia global. Un gran libro.
January 10, 2019
Since the 1990s, "global history" has become a boom industry in the field of history. One can find so-called global histories of a particular commodity, of cities, of the spread of ideas, etc. Yet, often times even as one reads this burgeoning "global" literature, one is left with multiple questions: What exactly is global history? Is it synonymous with the history of globalization? How does this approach to history differ from other current historical approaches that transcend national borders, such as world history, big history, comparative history, transnational history, world system theory, postcolonial studies, and multiple modernities? These are the questions that Sebastian Conrad, a leading expert in the field of global history and professor at the Free University of Berlin, sets out to answer. While Conrad is far from the first historian to attempt a systemized account of the narratives and methodologies of global history, his account is by far one of the most accessible.
The book begins by distinguishing three overarching understandings of global history: global history as the history of everything, as the history of connections, and as the history of integration. According to the first approach, global history can be defined as the history of what happens worldwide. In practice, this understanding of global history has led to different strategies for tackling this scale. One approach, which he labels "all-in version of global history", can be seen in works that attempt to offer a large-scale synthesis of a particular time period, such as a global history of events of the nineteenth century. Still others, such as "Big History", have magnified the scale to include the span from the Big Bang to the present. Other histories of this approach have sought to trace the history of a particular idea across the globe and through the ages. What each of these approaches has in common is that the global means "planetary comprehensiveness."
The second paradigm in the field of global history emphasizes exchange and connections between societies. They highlight that no society exists in isolation. From its inception, human life has been characterized by mobility and interaction. Therefore history should not stop at the borders of specific containers, such as the nation, the empire, or the city-state. Both this approach and the all-in version of global history can be applied to all places and all times. The third approach narrows the time frame of study substantially. Like the second approach, it concentrates on exchange and connectivity; however unlike the second approach, it is only interested in exchanges that were regular and sustained. In short, connectivity does not suffice as a guiding principle, exchanges and interactions must be embedded in processes of structural transformation on a global scale.
The third approach is the one that the author believes the most promising and it is the one which is the focus of the book. However, before offering a detailed account of this approach, he outlines five other current approaches to history beyond the borders of the nation: comparative history, transnational history, world system theory, post-colonial studies, and the history of multiple modernities. For each approach, he identifies the strengths and weaknesses. For example, he traces the roots of histories that focus on multiple modernities back to civilizational narratives of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. In advancing the concept of multiple modernities, the late Israeli sociologist Shmuel Eisenstadt sought to build on the concept of modernization, while at the same time overcoming the concept's teleological structure. With this as his goal, Eisenstadt stressed "the need to recognize as valid multiple modes of historical development, a diversity of visions for the future, and the fundamental normative equality of different cultural and societal trajectories." By doing so, one could provide a cross-regional analysis of patterns of social order and integration, in which processes of modernization were not equated with processes of Westernization, i.e. advancement does not mean following a European path. Eisenstadt's approach also has the advantage of challenging a second pillar of Westernized notions of modernity, namely the axiom that modernization is dependent upon a society becoming secularized. Yet, according to Conrad, this approach is not without considerable shortcomings. First, the concept of multiple modernities, remains somewhat vague and its argumentation restricted to the field of culture. In evaluating different cultures, it is not always clear: What makes these diverse cultures modern? What are the unifying structures and if there are no unifying structures, does the concept of modernity become worthless, because it is all encompassing? Additionally, in positing "the civilization as a discrete unit of analysis defined by autonomous processes of cultural development", this approach often ignores the long history of interactions between "civilizations".
In presenting these competing approaches, Conrad is quick to acknowledge that there is much overlap between them as well as between them and global history. After all, no history is free of comparison; any reference to change implies a notion of difference from another period in time, social group, geographic locale, set of ideas, etc. Still, he maintains that global history as the history of global integration represents a distinct approach, which he defines in juxtaposition to the older approach of world history as well as the new fad of "Big History". Thus, unlike the former, global history is not concerned only with macro-perspectives. Many global histories seek to situate a specific event in history within a broader global context, e.g. discussions of the concept of culture in 1880s Bengal. Other features of this approach to global history are: 1) an openness to experimenting with alternative notions of spatiality, i.e. they do not take as their point of departure traditional containers of history, such as the nation or the empire 2) an emphasis on global history as relational history. In other words, no historical unit -- the nation, the family, the city -- develops in isolation, rather their development is influenced by events and processes that take place outside that unit 3) a rejection of the teleologies of modernization theory 4) an emphasis on the chronicity of history events and 5) self-reflexivity of the issue of Eurocentrism. Put differently, historians of global history are cognizant of the positionality of the historian, meaning as a historian one may write about places far and near, but one does so from a particular place and the dynamics of that place influence one's narrative. The author dedicates a chapter to each of these features, in which he also does not shy away from discussing challenges and concerns that the field of global history must address, including the limitations of the concept and the difficulties of overcoming Eurocentrism in global history, given both the dominance of past narrative of "the West and the Rest" and the leading role that Western historians have taken in developing this new field.
The clarity and openness with which the author tackles these issues make this book a must-read for anyone interested in global studies. The book's length also makes it a realistic addition for an advanced undergraduate or graduate class on historical methodology.
The book begins by distinguishing three overarching understandings of global history: global history as the history of everything, as the history of connections, and as the history of integration. According to the first approach, global history can be defined as the history of what happens worldwide. In practice, this understanding of global history has led to different strategies for tackling this scale. One approach, which he labels "all-in version of global history", can be seen in works that attempt to offer a large-scale synthesis of a particular time period, such as a global history of events of the nineteenth century. Still others, such as "Big History", have magnified the scale to include the span from the Big Bang to the present. Other histories of this approach have sought to trace the history of a particular idea across the globe and through the ages. What each of these approaches has in common is that the global means "planetary comprehensiveness."
The second paradigm in the field of global history emphasizes exchange and connections between societies. They highlight that no society exists in isolation. From its inception, human life has been characterized by mobility and interaction. Therefore history should not stop at the borders of specific containers, such as the nation, the empire, or the city-state. Both this approach and the all-in version of global history can be applied to all places and all times. The third approach narrows the time frame of study substantially. Like the second approach, it concentrates on exchange and connectivity; however unlike the second approach, it is only interested in exchanges that were regular and sustained. In short, connectivity does not suffice as a guiding principle, exchanges and interactions must be embedded in processes of structural transformation on a global scale.
The third approach is the one that the author believes the most promising and it is the one which is the focus of the book. However, before offering a detailed account of this approach, he outlines five other current approaches to history beyond the borders of the nation: comparative history, transnational history, world system theory, post-colonial studies, and the history of multiple modernities. For each approach, he identifies the strengths and weaknesses. For example, he traces the roots of histories that focus on multiple modernities back to civilizational narratives of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. In advancing the concept of multiple modernities, the late Israeli sociologist Shmuel Eisenstadt sought to build on the concept of modernization, while at the same time overcoming the concept's teleological structure. With this as his goal, Eisenstadt stressed "the need to recognize as valid multiple modes of historical development, a diversity of visions for the future, and the fundamental normative equality of different cultural and societal trajectories." By doing so, one could provide a cross-regional analysis of patterns of social order and integration, in which processes of modernization were not equated with processes of Westernization, i.e. advancement does not mean following a European path. Eisenstadt's approach also has the advantage of challenging a second pillar of Westernized notions of modernity, namely the axiom that modernization is dependent upon a society becoming secularized. Yet, according to Conrad, this approach is not without considerable shortcomings. First, the concept of multiple modernities, remains somewhat vague and its argumentation restricted to the field of culture. In evaluating different cultures, it is not always clear: What makes these diverse cultures modern? What are the unifying structures and if there are no unifying structures, does the concept of modernity become worthless, because it is all encompassing? Additionally, in positing "the civilization as a discrete unit of analysis defined by autonomous processes of cultural development", this approach often ignores the long history of interactions between "civilizations".
In presenting these competing approaches, Conrad is quick to acknowledge that there is much overlap between them as well as between them and global history. After all, no history is free of comparison; any reference to change implies a notion of difference from another period in time, social group, geographic locale, set of ideas, etc. Still, he maintains that global history as the history of global integration represents a distinct approach, which he defines in juxtaposition to the older approach of world history as well as the new fad of "Big History". Thus, unlike the former, global history is not concerned only with macro-perspectives. Many global histories seek to situate a specific event in history within a broader global context, e.g. discussions of the concept of culture in 1880s Bengal. Other features of this approach to global history are: 1) an openness to experimenting with alternative notions of spatiality, i.e. they do not take as their point of departure traditional containers of history, such as the nation or the empire 2) an emphasis on global history as relational history. In other words, no historical unit -- the nation, the family, the city -- develops in isolation, rather their development is influenced by events and processes that take place outside that unit 3) a rejection of the teleologies of modernization theory 4) an emphasis on the chronicity of history events and 5) self-reflexivity of the issue of Eurocentrism. Put differently, historians of global history are cognizant of the positionality of the historian, meaning as a historian one may write about places far and near, but one does so from a particular place and the dynamics of that place influence one's narrative. The author dedicates a chapter to each of these features, in which he also does not shy away from discussing challenges and concerns that the field of global history must address, including the limitations of the concept and the difficulties of overcoming Eurocentrism in global history, given both the dominance of past narrative of "the West and the Rest" and the leading role that Western historians have taken in developing this new field.
The clarity and openness with which the author tackles these issues make this book a must-read for anyone interested in global studies. The book's length also makes it a realistic addition for an advanced undergraduate or graduate class on historical methodology.
August 20, 2025
In den meisten Punkten sehr gelungener Überblick über Ursprünge, Tendenzen und Themen der Globalgeschichte, sowie deren Institutionslisierung in verschiedenen Kontexten, allerdings schon über ein Jahrzehnt alt.
Obgleich Conrad selbst ein Befürworter der Globalgeschichte und Kritiker der nationalstaatlich ausgerichteten deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft ist, ist er sich der Grundproblematik bewusst, dass Globalgeschichte immer von den Quellenstudien lokal ausgerichteter und philologisch fundierter Historiographie abhängig bleiben wird. Mithin betrachtet er sie als Bereicherung nicht als Universalparadigma. Zudem geht er trotz seiner berechtigten Kritik an eurozentristischer Geschichtsschreibung nie soweit (wie andere Globalhistoriker), die begyndere Rolle Europas in den Globalisierungsprozessen seit 1500 zu leugnen.
Kritisch bleibt aber anzumerken, dass die Abgrenzung der Globalgeschichte als Geschichte der globalen Vernetzung von äteren Formen der Weltgeschichtsschreibung unpräzise bleibt.
Zudem verhält er sich nicht konsistent, was das Verhältnis von Nationalstaat und Imperium angeht. Mal können Nationalstaaten Imperien besitzen, dann wird mit Bezug auf Frankreich behauptet, dass es erst durch Aufgabe des Imperiums Nationalstaat geworden sei.
Obgleich Conrad selbst ein Befürworter der Globalgeschichte und Kritiker der nationalstaatlich ausgerichteten deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft ist, ist er sich der Grundproblematik bewusst, dass Globalgeschichte immer von den Quellenstudien lokal ausgerichteter und philologisch fundierter Historiographie abhängig bleiben wird. Mithin betrachtet er sie als Bereicherung nicht als Universalparadigma. Zudem geht er trotz seiner berechtigten Kritik an eurozentristischer Geschichtsschreibung nie soweit (wie andere Globalhistoriker), die begyndere Rolle Europas in den Globalisierungsprozessen seit 1500 zu leugnen.
Kritisch bleibt aber anzumerken, dass die Abgrenzung der Globalgeschichte als Geschichte der globalen Vernetzung von äteren Formen der Weltgeschichtsschreibung unpräzise bleibt.
Zudem verhält er sich nicht konsistent, was das Verhältnis von Nationalstaat und Imperium angeht. Mal können Nationalstaaten Imperien besitzen, dann wird mit Bezug auf Frankreich behauptet, dass es erst durch Aufgabe des Imperiums Nationalstaat geworden sei.
Read
January 20, 2025CHAPTER 4 - defining global history
- focus on integration rather than diffusion of Western ideas/culture
- surpassing traditional arbitrary boundaries (internal and external) - openness to pursue links
- challenging to examine the "whole" and simultaneously maintain appreciation for cultural specificity
- modern GH = more self-reflective about its Eurocentrism
- examine extent of connections (i.e., how much did an exchange actually alter society? - e.g., Western clocks in Japan pre and post 1850)
- focus on integration rather than diffusion of Western ideas/culture
- surpassing traditional arbitrary boundaries (internal and external) - openness to pursue links
- challenging to examine the "whole" and simultaneously maintain appreciation for cultural specificity
- modern GH = more self-reflective about its Eurocentrism
- examine extent of connections (i.e., how much did an exchange actually alter society? - e.g., Western clocks in Japan pre and post 1850)
January 21, 2020
3.5?
Overall liked it and thought it was very accessible for an academic book. I am intrigued by this sub-discipline (and can see myself working within these parameters, for sure). So, I agreed with many of the obvious points, but a lot of them are just borrowing far too much from a) common sense and b) anthropology (both things I am already well versed in... heh). There are still some quite large oversights, I think, and some quite clear (and annoying) political bias. In all, it did give me some things to dwell on (via my notes are scribbled all over basically every page) and made me excited for some of the other texts in the class going forward!
Overall liked it and thought it was very accessible for an academic book. I am intrigued by this sub-discipline (and can see myself working within these parameters, for sure). So, I agreed with many of the obvious points, but a lot of them are just borrowing far too much from a) common sense and b) anthropology (both things I am already well versed in... heh). There are still some quite large oversights, I think, and some quite clear (and annoying) political bias. In all, it did give me some things to dwell on (via my notes are scribbled all over basically every page) and made me excited for some of the other texts in the class going forward!
March 3, 2017
Clear intro to the history of global history, written with Conrad's characteristic lucidity and penchant for the well-turned heuristic
June 22, 2022
This is a book of historiography that is trying to describe and define the new genre of global history, “a form of historical analysis in which phenomena, events, and processes are placed in a global context.” Conrad suggests that there are three categories of global history, 1) a history of everything, 2) the history of connections, and 3) a history based on the concept of integration. He argues that the last is the most fruitful. Further to this, he argues that any level of analysis, down to microhistory, can be global history, if the historian looks at those events in a global context. Finally, Conrad is not suggesting that global history is the only valid method of doing history, but rather is just trying to explain how to recognize it when you see it.
The driving force behind the rise of a global history approach has been globalization. As historians began to travel more, meet other historians from other places, and became aware of a more integrated world, they began to look for ways of describing it, looking for a more inclusive approach, beyond national histories or Western civilization. Global historians are generally critical of Eurocentrism and wish to move beyond the idea that only European development has been a model for world development. It rejects notions of purely internal development and of teleology, of development from primitive to modern.
The author discusses the similarities and differences between global history and other similar approaches such as comparative history, big history, world history postcolonial studies or the history of globalization. What separates global history from all of these is that global history emphasizes connections, exchange, intercourse, links, networks, flows, entanglements and mobility, and how these lead to structural changes. This has led to different approaches to global history such as comparative studies, transnational history, world-systems theory, and multiple modernities. He discusses what he sees as the strengths and weaknesses of these various approaches.
A global approach makes more sense for some times and places than others, specifically, where global connections are more present. And speaking of time, global history can more often concentrate upon synchronicity, upon how or why phenomena emerge at the same time in different places, rather than continuity, or processes of development and change within cultures. That being said, the local manifestations of how these phenomena emerge is very important, as that is how the local and the global connections and structural interactions produce something unique. Individuals and societies have always imagined themselves to be a part of something larger but this “was always the result also of a particular perspective and desire: a form of world-making.”
To go back to the point of trying to shake off history’s Eurocentrism, there are contradictions that need to be resolved. Firstly, “A genuine global consciousness began to take shape in discrete Eurasian regions in the early modern period: and in the age of European hegemony a common narrative of material progress and national development emerged.” And it is true that, a common global civilization developed in the late 19th Century as a result of European colonization. However, global history has three important points to make here. First, the development of European supremacy was not just a result of internal European developments, but also because of ideas and structures that Europe had absorbed from outside and then re-interpreted. Second, local communities interacted with European domination in their own unique ways to produce a multiplicity of responses beyond a solely European model. Lastly, other parts of the world interacted with places other than Europe, and that too affected the historical process. On the other hand, as he points out, “centering” other places in not necessarily better if it has the same problems that Eurocentrism used to have, if it dissolves into identity politics, or if we assume that only certain people are entitled to speak about certain things. While we may never achieve an ideal of “the view from on high”, substituting apparent biases is not better.
He has a very sensible discussion of the problem of the level of analysis in history. When we look at the individual or small group, we get a real look at the impact of human agency. As we scale out, we get further and further away to impersonal historical forces and so maybe nobody is to blame for atrocities or can take credit for brilliant developments. But of course that is not true. It is not always apparent exactly what level of analysis to use, but we must try. Why is the calendar structured exactly as it is? Well, there is a reason it is called the Julian calendar, and July is named for Julius Caesar and August for Augustus Caesar. Further, the reasons we have a 24-hour day, 60 minutes in an hour or 60 seconds in a minute are culture, as is the reason we have a leap day and not a leap month. However, it is no accident that there are 365 days or 12 months in a year. That is science. We generally need to use multiple levels to make sense of most things.
One of the most dishonest methods of reviewing something is to take an isolated sentence out of the context in which the author put it, and then criticize that. I don’t think that is what I am doing here. “Neither ‘world’ nor ‘global’ are self-evident, naturally-existing categories.” This is an anti-scientific, post-modern view and I disagree completely. I agree that it is not always appropriate to provide a global context to every history, and that there have been very many conceptions of “the world”. However, the world is a physical thing in the universe not made by humans. It is the third planet in a solar system on a spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy, and thus it is far more self-evident and naturally-existing than concepts like country, nation, race, or gender, all of which to some greater or lesser extent are human-made concepts.
As I read this book, I realized that some of the books I have read recently, such as Delage’s “Bitter Feast,” Frankopan’s “Silk Roads” and Spector’s “In the Ruins of Empire” are all examples. All of these try to combine the local with the universal, emphasize connections, and come up with unique perspectives. Many years ago I was a graduate student in Canadian history and as I was reading that, I realized it was impossible to understand why things happened as they did in Canada if you didn’t know what was going on in France, Britain, the United States, or various indigenous communities as well, depending upon the specific historical problem.
If you are not a graduate student of history, you can give this book a pass and you will never notice. There is a lot of gobbledygook. “Entanglements and networks characterize the present moment, which has itself emerged from systems of interaction and exchange.” However, if you are looking for a method of analysis for your thesis, you might do worse than this. History is a discipline that is hurting for students, and that means that jobs as professors are scarce. You might be able to give your more mundane research a new perspective and improve your job prospects by hopping on this bandwagon.
Personally, I think the study of history is useful because it is entertaining, for one thing. Stranger things have actually happened in the past than most novelists can imagine. Next, it explains how we got to where we are now. This is where I think that global history can contribute. Our societies, countries, communities are not self-contained, replicating organisms but very much influenced by what is going on around us, as most cultural chauvinists would rather not admit. And finally, together with other disciplines such as evolutionary psychology and sociology it can help to explain human nature. What is constant, what can be changed, and what are the effects of that change? Ian Morris and Yuval Harari, in their big histories, hypothesize that history is part of a scientific continuity, from physics to chemistry to biology to history. They might be right.
The driving force behind the rise of a global history approach has been globalization. As historians began to travel more, meet other historians from other places, and became aware of a more integrated world, they began to look for ways of describing it, looking for a more inclusive approach, beyond national histories or Western civilization. Global historians are generally critical of Eurocentrism and wish to move beyond the idea that only European development has been a model for world development. It rejects notions of purely internal development and of teleology, of development from primitive to modern.
The author discusses the similarities and differences between global history and other similar approaches such as comparative history, big history, world history postcolonial studies or the history of globalization. What separates global history from all of these is that global history emphasizes connections, exchange, intercourse, links, networks, flows, entanglements and mobility, and how these lead to structural changes. This has led to different approaches to global history such as comparative studies, transnational history, world-systems theory, and multiple modernities. He discusses what he sees as the strengths and weaknesses of these various approaches.
A global approach makes more sense for some times and places than others, specifically, where global connections are more present. And speaking of time, global history can more often concentrate upon synchronicity, upon how or why phenomena emerge at the same time in different places, rather than continuity, or processes of development and change within cultures. That being said, the local manifestations of how these phenomena emerge is very important, as that is how the local and the global connections and structural interactions produce something unique. Individuals and societies have always imagined themselves to be a part of something larger but this “was always the result also of a particular perspective and desire: a form of world-making.”
To go back to the point of trying to shake off history’s Eurocentrism, there are contradictions that need to be resolved. Firstly, “A genuine global consciousness began to take shape in discrete Eurasian regions in the early modern period: and in the age of European hegemony a common narrative of material progress and national development emerged.” And it is true that, a common global civilization developed in the late 19th Century as a result of European colonization. However, global history has three important points to make here. First, the development of European supremacy was not just a result of internal European developments, but also because of ideas and structures that Europe had absorbed from outside and then re-interpreted. Second, local communities interacted with European domination in their own unique ways to produce a multiplicity of responses beyond a solely European model. Lastly, other parts of the world interacted with places other than Europe, and that too affected the historical process. On the other hand, as he points out, “centering” other places in not necessarily better if it has the same problems that Eurocentrism used to have, if it dissolves into identity politics, or if we assume that only certain people are entitled to speak about certain things. While we may never achieve an ideal of “the view from on high”, substituting apparent biases is not better.
He has a very sensible discussion of the problem of the level of analysis in history. When we look at the individual or small group, we get a real look at the impact of human agency. As we scale out, we get further and further away to impersonal historical forces and so maybe nobody is to blame for atrocities or can take credit for brilliant developments. But of course that is not true. It is not always apparent exactly what level of analysis to use, but we must try. Why is the calendar structured exactly as it is? Well, there is a reason it is called the Julian calendar, and July is named for Julius Caesar and August for Augustus Caesar. Further, the reasons we have a 24-hour day, 60 minutes in an hour or 60 seconds in a minute are culture, as is the reason we have a leap day and not a leap month. However, it is no accident that there are 365 days or 12 months in a year. That is science. We generally need to use multiple levels to make sense of most things.
One of the most dishonest methods of reviewing something is to take an isolated sentence out of the context in which the author put it, and then criticize that. I don’t think that is what I am doing here. “Neither ‘world’ nor ‘global’ are self-evident, naturally-existing categories.” This is an anti-scientific, post-modern view and I disagree completely. I agree that it is not always appropriate to provide a global context to every history, and that there have been very many conceptions of “the world”. However, the world is a physical thing in the universe not made by humans. It is the third planet in a solar system on a spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy, and thus it is far more self-evident and naturally-existing than concepts like country, nation, race, or gender, all of which to some greater or lesser extent are human-made concepts.
As I read this book, I realized that some of the books I have read recently, such as Delage’s “Bitter Feast,” Frankopan’s “Silk Roads” and Spector’s “In the Ruins of Empire” are all examples. All of these try to combine the local with the universal, emphasize connections, and come up with unique perspectives. Many years ago I was a graduate student in Canadian history and as I was reading that, I realized it was impossible to understand why things happened as they did in Canada if you didn’t know what was going on in France, Britain, the United States, or various indigenous communities as well, depending upon the specific historical problem.
If you are not a graduate student of history, you can give this book a pass and you will never notice. There is a lot of gobbledygook. “Entanglements and networks characterize the present moment, which has itself emerged from systems of interaction and exchange.” However, if you are looking for a method of analysis for your thesis, you might do worse than this. History is a discipline that is hurting for students, and that means that jobs as professors are scarce. You might be able to give your more mundane research a new perspective and improve your job prospects by hopping on this bandwagon.
Personally, I think the study of history is useful because it is entertaining, for one thing. Stranger things have actually happened in the past than most novelists can imagine. Next, it explains how we got to where we are now. This is where I think that global history can contribute. Our societies, countries, communities are not self-contained, replicating organisms but very much influenced by what is going on around us, as most cultural chauvinists would rather not admit. And finally, together with other disciplines such as evolutionary psychology and sociology it can help to explain human nature. What is constant, what can be changed, and what are the effects of that change? Ian Morris and Yuval Harari, in their big histories, hypothesize that history is part of a scientific continuity, from physics to chemistry to biology to history. They might be right.
January 14, 2025
I never want to see the word “Eurocentrism” again
March 10, 2018
This book is another one I had to read for my world history seminar. It is the theory of world and global history. As such, it is unlikely to be a book a lot of non-history PhD students would read. I did find his style to be readable, and for a theoretician he is fairly clear and concise. It helped me to understand a bit more about how world history has evolved, and how the study of it differs significantly from other forms of history.
January 30, 2021
For a book on theory, Conrad manages to explain everything with remarkable clarity and depth. A wonderful way to become familiar with Global History theory and methodology!
March 4, 2020
The victory of global history lies in its disappearance
For a new scholar, the young field of global history can be quite challenging to grasp, because of its diverse, partly overlapping approaches. Sebastian Conrad tackles this challenge in his book “What is Global History?” and introduces a working definition of global history as a specific perspective. As an experienced global history scholar Conrad writes a short historiography of global history and shows how this field of study has emerged, while giving an outlook and a limitation to the concept. Conrad calls the most important feature of the global history approach global integration. Global integration is not only about looking at the global context of historical events, neither just about flows and connections, but about zooming in and seeing how these connections and flows were integrated or controlled in a structural, local way. He specifies the concepts which analyze the complex historical relations between the global and the local.
Sebastian Conrad is professor of Global History at Freie Universität Berlin. He has research interests in colonial history, history of historiography and the history of East Asia. As a doctoral candidate, he wrote his dissertation on how Japanese and German historians rewrote and interpreted the history of their countries after their defeat in World War II and after the end of fascism.
In his introduction, Conrad already establishes three important concepts of global history. Two of them are the “birth defects” of modern social sciences and humanities: The nation-state and Eurocentrism, which global history is trying to overcome and the third is the concept of global integration. In Chapter 2, Conrad writes a short history of thinking globally. He shows how all societies wanted to place themselves within a larger context, how perspectives emerged and what tensions were created. In Chapter 3, the author takes up the different approaches competing with global history for scholarly attention. In the next two chapters, the author describes global integration in detail and therefore sets an agenda for future global history scholars. In Chapter 6, he focuses on the spatial turn, while in chapter 7, he examines time. In Chapter 8, Conrad takes up self-reflection on Eurocentrism. In Chapter 9, he is engaged with the world-making of global history. In his last chapter, he situates global history in today’s world and gives an outlook as well as a limitation to the promising field of study.
According to Conrad global history is defined by a specific approach including eight features:
1. Global history is about situating a historical issue and phenomenon within a potentially global or broader context.
2. Global history has an alternative notion of space and scholars do their work where their research questions lead them to.
3. Global history has a relational approach, meaning that no historical unit develops in isolation but only through interaction.
4. Global history and the spatial turn focuses on individuals and societies and how they interact. Temporal vocabulary of development or backwardness is replaced by spatial metaphors such as territoriality, geopolitics, circulation, and networks.
5. Global history acknowledges continuity and synchronicity. Synchronicity reflects the global condition, as an example, the author mentions the Arab Spring revolts.
6. Global history reflects on Eurocentrism and does it by not only focusing on Eurocentrism as a perspective but also on how it emerged in times of European hegemony.
7. Global historians are aware of their positionality because they write history with their own narratives which are influenced by their own location.
8. According to the authors, the most important feature of global history is global integration. Global integration is where the global meets the local.
While defining the features of global history, Conrad draws on a variety of decisive authors and gives countless examples for each of his introduced concept. The extensive referencing and illustrating provide possibilities to further explore the field of study and give inspiration for potential research questions. Examples given are the Bengali culture, China as a superpower or Western clocks in Japan. It is shown how global history would approach these examples, also taking into consideration the differences between competing approaches and their potential research questions. Chapter 3 is particularly interesting because it gives an overview of competing approaches such as comparative studies, transnational history, world-systems theory, postcolonial studies and the concept of multiple modernities. This overview gives an understanding of strengths as well as weaknesses and is an accessible starting point to further define global history, because taken all together global history as an approach can draw upon the methodological concepts of these approaches.
However, when Conrad shows the weaknesses of other approaches, he does so with the intention to strengthen global history as an approach. In practice, these approaches and their theories are more complex and distinctions between the fields are more fluid. For example, Dipesh Chakrabarty would first be called a postcolonial author who would also – based on the definition above – be a global historian.
In the end, Conrad reveals his real message when he predicts that every historian will become a global historian because every local event will be understood within different scales, one of them the global condition. “The gradual disappearance of the rhetoric of the “global” will then, paradoxically, signal the victory of global history as a paradigm” (Conrad 2016: p.235). This is in line with Christopher A. Bayly: “All historians are world historians now, though many have not yet realized it” (Bayly 2004: p.469). To sum up, “What is Global History?” is a strong assessment of the current academic state of global history. Conrad’s systematic approach is an accessible introduction to the methodology of global history and can be particularly recommended to new scholars of the field. Ultimately, everyone who is interested in a global vision while understanding our past should read this book.
For a new scholar, the young field of global history can be quite challenging to grasp, because of its diverse, partly overlapping approaches. Sebastian Conrad tackles this challenge in his book “What is Global History?” and introduces a working definition of global history as a specific perspective. As an experienced global history scholar Conrad writes a short historiography of global history and shows how this field of study has emerged, while giving an outlook and a limitation to the concept. Conrad calls the most important feature of the global history approach global integration. Global integration is not only about looking at the global context of historical events, neither just about flows and connections, but about zooming in and seeing how these connections and flows were integrated or controlled in a structural, local way. He specifies the concepts which analyze the complex historical relations between the global and the local.
Sebastian Conrad is professor of Global History at Freie Universität Berlin. He has research interests in colonial history, history of historiography and the history of East Asia. As a doctoral candidate, he wrote his dissertation on how Japanese and German historians rewrote and interpreted the history of their countries after their defeat in World War II and after the end of fascism.
In his introduction, Conrad already establishes three important concepts of global history. Two of them are the “birth defects” of modern social sciences and humanities: The nation-state and Eurocentrism, which global history is trying to overcome and the third is the concept of global integration. In Chapter 2, Conrad writes a short history of thinking globally. He shows how all societies wanted to place themselves within a larger context, how perspectives emerged and what tensions were created. In Chapter 3, the author takes up the different approaches competing with global history for scholarly attention. In the next two chapters, the author describes global integration in detail and therefore sets an agenda for future global history scholars. In Chapter 6, he focuses on the spatial turn, while in chapter 7, he examines time. In Chapter 8, Conrad takes up self-reflection on Eurocentrism. In Chapter 9, he is engaged with the world-making of global history. In his last chapter, he situates global history in today’s world and gives an outlook as well as a limitation to the promising field of study.
According to Conrad global history is defined by a specific approach including eight features:
1. Global history is about situating a historical issue and phenomenon within a potentially global or broader context.
2. Global history has an alternative notion of space and scholars do their work where their research questions lead them to.
3. Global history has a relational approach, meaning that no historical unit develops in isolation but only through interaction.
4. Global history and the spatial turn focuses on individuals and societies and how they interact. Temporal vocabulary of development or backwardness is replaced by spatial metaphors such as territoriality, geopolitics, circulation, and networks.
5. Global history acknowledges continuity and synchronicity. Synchronicity reflects the global condition, as an example, the author mentions the Arab Spring revolts.
6. Global history reflects on Eurocentrism and does it by not only focusing on Eurocentrism as a perspective but also on how it emerged in times of European hegemony.
7. Global historians are aware of their positionality because they write history with their own narratives which are influenced by their own location.
8. According to the authors, the most important feature of global history is global integration. Global integration is where the global meets the local.
While defining the features of global history, Conrad draws on a variety of decisive authors and gives countless examples for each of his introduced concept. The extensive referencing and illustrating provide possibilities to further explore the field of study and give inspiration for potential research questions. Examples given are the Bengali culture, China as a superpower or Western clocks in Japan. It is shown how global history would approach these examples, also taking into consideration the differences between competing approaches and their potential research questions. Chapter 3 is particularly interesting because it gives an overview of competing approaches such as comparative studies, transnational history, world-systems theory, postcolonial studies and the concept of multiple modernities. This overview gives an understanding of strengths as well as weaknesses and is an accessible starting point to further define global history, because taken all together global history as an approach can draw upon the methodological concepts of these approaches.
However, when Conrad shows the weaknesses of other approaches, he does so with the intention to strengthen global history as an approach. In practice, these approaches and their theories are more complex and distinctions between the fields are more fluid. For example, Dipesh Chakrabarty would first be called a postcolonial author who would also – based on the definition above – be a global historian.
In the end, Conrad reveals his real message when he predicts that every historian will become a global historian because every local event will be understood within different scales, one of them the global condition. “The gradual disappearance of the rhetoric of the “global” will then, paradoxically, signal the victory of global history as a paradigm” (Conrad 2016: p.235). This is in line with Christopher A. Bayly: “All historians are world historians now, though many have not yet realized it” (Bayly 2004: p.469). To sum up, “What is Global History?” is a strong assessment of the current academic state of global history. Conrad’s systematic approach is an accessible introduction to the methodology of global history and can be particularly recommended to new scholars of the field. Ultimately, everyone who is interested in a global vision while understanding our past should read this book.
December 3, 2021
I read it for school. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I had read it in a more relaxed period. Overall, it was an informative book about global history.
September 21, 2025
Read this for uni
I’m a global history novice and this was a useful tool for me to familiarise myself with ongoing debates within GH and the development of the global lens.
I look forward to reading more
I’m a global history novice and this was a useful tool for me to familiarise myself with ongoing debates within GH and the development of the global lens.
I look forward to reading more
July 23, 2025
it should've been longer, but quite insightful in how to approach Global History.
January 19, 2023
A very succinct, but dense monograph on the notion of “global history”, its many potentialities for new knowledge, as well as its various issues. It’s problem-based and so it leaves one coming out of it with a hundred more questions than one entered— I guess, in a good way.
This was a great peek into the problems of modern history writing all over the world and the directions in which it has been going, as well as where it can go into the future. It’s extremely relevant today as globalization (in its many iterations) is somehow both rapidly accelerating and hitting hard speed bumps after the pandemic, and I’m sure will be useful for anyone interested in exploring new directions for engaging with national histories, multiple modernities, and integration-centered transnational approaches, among others.
This was a great peek into the problems of modern history writing all over the world and the directions in which it has been going, as well as where it can go into the future. It’s extremely relevant today as globalization (in its many iterations) is somehow both rapidly accelerating and hitting hard speed bumps after the pandemic, and I’m sure will be useful for anyone interested in exploring new directions for engaging with national histories, multiple modernities, and integration-centered transnational approaches, among others.
January 27, 2022
Libro de particular interés (si se es historiador, que no es mi caso) sobre la evolución del concepto de Historia Global, y las distintas perspectivas que el historiador debe/puede abordar en su labor. Si se es lego en el tema, puede resultar denso o incluso, monótono (a diferencia de otros textos sobre la historia como disciplina, con un enfoque más amplio). Posee una nutrida sección de notas, con distintos textos sobre historia aplicada, sea con perspectiva global o no, que resultan de interés adicional.
October 31, 2023
十字路口的全球史和身首异处的文化精英——评塞巴斯蒂安·康拉德《全球史是什么》
一、全球史的内容：新瓶装旧酒的帝国争霸史
“全球史”这个词自流行之日起就显得形迹可疑。被该领域的许多专家认为是第一本当代意义上的“全球史”著作，书名居然是“西方的兴起：人类共同体的历史”。这很难不让人联想到文化帝国主义的糖衣炮弹：它总是跟在军事帝国主义的坚船利炮后面来俘获人心，以更“高级”、更“先进”、更“强大”因而也更有魅力的宗教、艺术、科学、风俗、制度、价值观等形式来使当地的人民和精英失去反抗的意愿，从而巩固帝国主义宗主国在殖民地和半殖民地的霸权。
从本书对于当代全球史研究和著述的记叙中可以看到，学术界正在流行的这股“全球史”风潮，在很大程度上只是在当前世界形势类似于一战之前的帝国主义争霸的情况下，改头换面之后名正言顺地重新复活的帝国史。
在作者列出的全球史五大主要来源中，地区比较研究、跨国主题、后殖民理论、多元现代性都很明显是为特定的国家利益服务的，而世界体系方法也含有浓重的帝国史痕迹。这些领域的作品和传统的政治史一样都是眼光向上的，过度关注“分久必合，合久必分”的天下大势和主导大势的帝王将相，注重为现政权合法性进行辩护并提出巩固统治的政策建议，而把黎民百姓的生活放在次要的位置，并几乎完全不考虑一个更好的世界的可能性。人类虽然在同一个地球上，但不同的人却生活在不同的世界里，因此，了解全球的大势，并不意味着理解具体的个人，更不意味着能够给处于弱势地位和不利境况的人们提出有效的行动建议。
新瓶装旧酒的帝国史的幕后推手是一些有帝国野心的国家。老大帝国英吉利、灯塔帝国美利坚、残余帝国俄罗斯、苏醒帝国大中华，以及在最近的几百年中曾经有过帝国扩张史的法国、德国、意大利、西班牙、土耳其、日本等等，各有各的帝国梦想，因此也各有各的“全球”观念。比如，在中国最早被作为全球史著作而翻译引进的不是麦克尼尔的《西方的兴起》，而是斯塔夫里阿诺斯的《全球通史》，原因之一当然和书名有关，但更重要的原因，恐怕是斯塔夫里阿诺斯更加关注欧美之外的第三世界国家的艰难命运，他的另一本在中国名气稍逊的著作就是《全球分裂：第三世界的历史进程》，这显然更能契合中国普通人对五千年文明古国的民族自尊心和中国统治者向外国营造的发展中国家的形象。又如，日本的全球史学者（杉山正明、冈田英弘）非常喜欢研究亚洲内陆的干旱草原地带，强调蒙古帝国（元朝）和清朝的亚洲意义，这显然有利于削弱以黄河长江流域为中心的中华帝国在历史叙述中的重要性。德国最近兴起的全球史研究中传播最广的一部作品仅仅是关于十九世纪的（奥斯特哈默，《世界的演变：19世纪史》），而书中所定义的十九世纪恰恰正是欧美强国在世界范围内全方位占据主导地位的时期，并突出强调了德国崛起后的十九、二十世纪之交的“世纪末”时期。英国近来的全球史作品中较有影响力的一部直接就叫做“全球帝国史”（约翰·达尔文，《全球帝国史：帖木儿之后帝国的兴与衰》）。凡此种种，都说明了在“全球史”的背后笼罩着国家争霸的阴影。
二、全球史的价值立场：世界公民或世界大同，精英的还是平民的？
然而，正如“全球”一词所内含的意向，当前的全球史潮流最大的一个特点就是宣称要突破民族国家的研究视野和叙述框架，突破狭隘的部落情感和自我中心倾向。这一口号落实在实际研究中，就是注重跨国界、跨地区的人员、物资、知识的流动所产生的影响。除了全球史之外，还有一些强调其他主题的历史学潮流也在努力超越以民族国家为中心的狭隘视野，如人类演化史、地球生态环境史、大历史（大卫·克里斯蒂安，《时间地图：大历史导论》、《大历史：虚无与万物之间》）、深度历史（Daniel Lord Smail, Deep History: The Architecture of Past and Present），等等。之所以要在“历史”一词的前面加上一些限定词，是因为这些学者一致批评以往的“世界史”叙述是“剪刀加浆糊”般地由各个国家的历史拼凑起来的，因而缺乏整体性，既不能充分理解每个国家的历史进程，更不用说理解整个世界了。
因此，本书反复强调了国家和区域之间在经济功能方面的“（全球）整合”（integration，也可译为一体化）和在地位等级方面的“（全球）结构”，并强调了全球应该成为所有历史研究的大背景。这里，需要区分两类不同的全球史：一是以全球为背景的关于某个地方或某个专题的历史，二是关于某个全球性主题或涵盖全球所有重大事件的历史。本书所指的全球史，无论是从作者列举的七个特征还是作者所赞赏的具体研究案例来看，主要是指前者，也就是带有全球视野的地方史或专题史。
那么，这种全球视野究竟如何才能达到？本书反复强调了构成这一全球视角的若干重要概念，如：流动flow、关联connection、缠结entanglement、偶合conjuncture、整合integration、结构structure、等级hierarchy。在正面的论述之外，作者还依据后殖民理论和世界体系方法，着重批评了以往的世界史研究和著述中存在的两种片面的思路：以欧洲中心主义为典型的各种自我中心主义和以文明论为典型的民族文化特殊论。作者认为，全球史的方法通过时刻反思自己所处的位置（positionality，也可译为立场），从而不断接近一个全球的视角。
作者所描述的全球视角其实很容易被熟知儒家人际关系学、道教泛神论和马克思主义唯物辩证法的中国人所接受，因为这种视角其实就是这三种思想所共有的普遍联系的思想。而在崇尚一神论、出世宗教和柏拉图主义理念论的社会里，人们更倾向于历史的单线发展论和先定目的论，重视历史的时间序列更甚于地理的空间结构。
个人所处的地理位置仅仅是影响到观察角度和叙述方式的原因之一，更重要的是个人所持的价值立场：全球史应该服务于谁的利益、何种利益？作者提出，全球公民（cosmopolitan，也可译为普世主义、世界大同、世界主义）是全球史内在固有的一种价值立场，因为诸如气候、环境、工作条件、市场运行、文化交流等全球性问题的解决需要不同社会的人们都有一种在同一个星球上共存和共享其资源的意识，这样，人们即使拥有不同的价值观和不同的未来设想，也能弥合分裂、进行合作来应对这些全球性的问题。
然而，这样的全球公民仅仅符合一小部分人的兴趣。作者指出，全球史能够吸引的读者除了想要争夺世界霸权的民族国家的统治精英之外，主要是高度集中地掌握了大量金融资本、文化知识和社会关系的“国际中产阶级”人士，他们的日常生活正在变得日益全球化，他们的切身感受就像《纽约时报》专栏作家托马斯·弗里德曼所宣称的那样：世界是平的。实际上，这些信奉全球公民理念、喜欢了解全球史的“国际中产阶级”同样植根于并服务于一个或少数几个特定的民族国家，他们和民族主义精英的区别只是在于，他们的个人利益中来自于国际不平等交换的比重比后者更大一些，或者说，他们是当前全球化进程的主要受益者而后者则受益不多、或甚至是利益受损者。
因此，当前主流的全球史的真正立场，仍然是少数精英的，而不是广大平民的。作者对于不平等的全球秩序的批判，只不过反映了左翼文化精英对弱者和失败者居高临下的贵族式的同情、或炫耀式的怜悯，而并不是出于真正的平民立场。这些左翼文化精英自以为并声称自己服务于广泛公众的利益，但他们舒适地生活在学院体制和政府赞助的庇护之下，早已脱离了与本地民众的日常交往和利益关联，因此他们的物质利益和他们身边普通民众的命运并没有多少直接的关联，而主要是在学院体制内自产自销、用于争夺学院主导权的象征符号上维持着象征性的联系。左翼文化精英对弱者的不幸命运的同情，右翼文化精英对凡人的不思进取的批判，就像是“一个唱红脸一个唱白脸”，往往互相补充，甚至会互相转化，共同构成了文化精英对于普通民众的总体态度：伪善。正是由于这种高度疏离于广大平民的精英位置和缺乏反思的精英立场，导致了全球史（以及当代学术界）的最严重的弊病：手段代替目的，工具代替价值。
三、全球史的局限：没有行动的空洞思想
本书的大部分内容作为对近年来的全球史作品的归纳，自然也不可能超越这些作品本身的局限性。值得注意的是，本书最后一章对于当前的全球史提出了五个方面的批评。这五个方面可以归纳为由于过度运用时间上和空间上的大尺度而导致的两种不良倾向：一是由于低估人的主观能动性从而减轻了人对于自己行为所负的责任，二是容易忽视某一区域社会内部和不同区域社会之间的等级结构。对这两种不良倾向的批评都是合理的，但作为对全球史的整体反思，这些批评并不充分，因为从现有的全球史研究内部，无法充分触及到其根本性的局限。
为此，可以提几个超出本书思考范围的问题：为了“理解全球”，仅仅“放眼全球”、注重“整合”和“结构”就够了吗？也就是说：“理解全球”的目的是什么？
回答是：如果不想去“改变全球”，就不能真正做到“理解全球”。正如一句名言所说，学者总是试图以各种各样的方式去解释世界，但关键在于改变世界。
行动是思想的先导和动力。没有思想的行动是盲目的，而没有行动的思想则是空洞的。一个人对于行动的设想，已经预先决定了他认识和理解的方式。目前为止的这些全球史研究主要是出于学者的个人好奇心、学院体制内的地位竞争、统治精英的内政外交策略，这不可避免地给这些研究设下了根本的局限性，即：研究者既然没有超越现存的主导性社会秩序（资本主义、民族主义、父权主义）和主流价值观（世俗个人主义）的明确目的，当然就不可能找到超越现存的主流知识范型（方法论个体主义）的方法。
正是在这里，暴露出了作者所倡导的全球史方法的最大盲点所在：这种理论反思只触及到认识论（如何认识和叙述历史），而缺乏本体论（历史本身是否有规律和意义）和价值论（认识历史有什么用处和目的）的支持，因而是浮于表面和残缺不全的。历史材料就像是浩如烟海的碎片，只有精心挑选、精心组合，才能形成一个有意义的整体画面。如果对挑选的过程不加反思和控制，那么，巧妇难为无米之炊，最终组合出来的结果只可能是反映了挑选时的下意识偏见，即符合统治精英利益的主流意识形态。这便是片面注重认识论的恶果。
四、全球史的出路：整个人类世界的根本变革
“全球”意味着从地球之外的视角所做的观察和反思，也就是把地球当作一个整体，发现整体上的变化趋势，并提出从整体上进行改变的可能性。由此出发，可以得到判断什么是真正意义上的全球史的两个标准。
第一，“全球”必然指向全人类。如果不是站在无权无声的普通劳动者的立场上思考全人类的兴衰存亡，全球史最多就只是没有魂灵的空壳（全球史研究者则成为没有灵魂的专家），或者更差，在有意无意间成为助长少数统治者的帝国野心的假面具和情报官。当发达资本主义国家的统治者明白自己的发达有赖于和其他不发达国家之间的不平等交换或甚至是赤裸裸的资源掠夺和劳动剥削，可想而知的结果就是统治者会加强原先的统治。
第二，全球史必然指向革命性的改变，促使人们进行整体的、根本的、彻底的思考和行动。如果没有世界公民、世界大同、世界革命的理想，全球史也是没有意义的空话，同样很可能会沦为帝国野心的帮凶。一个拥有全球视野的民族主义者在解决本国所面临的全球性问题时往往会采取最自私、最排外的方法，例如希特勒的灭绝犹太人和统治欧亚大陆的计划是为了解决1930年代的全球经济危机给德国带来的经济萧条问题。因此，全球史真正需要超越的，不应只是认识方法上的狭隘民族主义，而更应是价值观上的狭隘民族主义。对于今天的历史学家和其他人文社会学者来说，首要的问题不是用什么办法去开拓视野、加深理解，而是为了谁的利益去开拓视野、加深理解：个人、弱者、族群、资本、国家，还是全人类？答案当然是全人类，只是这里的“全人类”并不等于每一个人的简单加总，而是在排除了一切狭隘自私的情感、观念、制度和行为之后的人类总体，排除在外的人类个体包括：为了本国利益而不惜侵犯别国利益的民族主义者、为了租金和利润而不惜压低劳动报酬和损害劳动者健康的资本主义者、为了自己利益而不惜牺牲他人利益的利己主义者，等等。
用这两个标准来衡量，当前大多数被冠以“全球史”称号的作品都是不合格的。尤其是，这些作品在试图超越民族-国家政治的局限性的时候，却并没有试图超越资本主义经济和世俗个人主义文化的局限性。政治、经济、文化作为三个功能不同的领域维持着整个社会的运行、再生和发展，仅仅从其中的一个方面进行突破是不可能成功的，最终还是会落入到当前世界主导秩序的圈套。因此，就像欧洲中世纪的神学研究陷入“针尖上能站几个天使”的无意义的精妙论证一样，当代的全球史研究也常常陷入各种无意义的精妙细节。
以一些流行的全球史作品为例，可以清楚地看到它们几乎都犯了盲人摸象、以偏概全的错误。例如，贾雷德·戴蒙德的《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》在因果推理时混淆了时空的尺度，在历史叙事中则忽视了人与人之间、群体与群体之间的社会关系而片面强调地理因素和技术的作用。尤瓦尔·赫拉利的《未来简史》则以作者自己的价值观（以自我感受为中心的个人主义）去衡量其他种类的价值观，从而得出了严重偏误的观点。
因此，全球史要真正达到它所期望的目标，必须挣脱学院体制在自己身上打下的甜蜜枷锁，不顾一切地投身到人类自我解放的伟大斗争中去。否则，全球史研究和其他的学术研究一样都是缺乏精神内核的，学者也只能沦为自说自话、失魂落魄、随波逐流、辅佐权势的“精致的利己主义者”。
一、全球史的内容：新瓶装旧酒的帝国争霸史
“全球史”这个词自流行之日起就显得形迹可疑。被该领域的许多专家认为是第一本当代意义上的“全球史”著作，书名居然是“西方的兴起：人类共同体的历史”。这很难不让人联想到文化帝国主义的糖衣炮弹：它总是跟在军事帝国主义的坚船利炮后面来俘获人心，以更“高级”、更“先进”、更“强大”因而也更有魅力的宗教、艺术、科学、风俗、制度、价值观等形式来使当地的人民和精英失去反抗的意愿，从而巩固帝国主义宗主国在殖民地和半殖民地的霸权。
从本书对于当代全球史研究和著述的记叙中可以看到，学术界正在流行的这股“全球史”风潮，在很大程度上只是在当前世界形势类似于一战之前的帝国主义争霸的情况下，改头换面之后名正言顺地重新复活的帝国史。
在作者列出的全球史五大主要来源中，地区比较研究、跨国主题、后殖民理论、多元现代性都很明显是为特定的国家利益服务的，而世界体系方法也含有浓重的帝国史痕迹。这些领域的作品和传统的政治史一样都是眼光向上的，过度关注“分久必合，合久必分”的天下大势和主导大势的帝王将相，注重为现政权合法性进行辩护并提出巩固统治的政策建议，而把黎民百姓的生活放在次要的位置，并几乎完全不考虑一个更好的世界的可能性。人类虽然在同一个地球上，但不同的人却生活在不同的世界里，因此，了解全球的大势，并不意味着理解具体的个人，更不意味着能够给处于弱势地位和不利境况的人们提出有效的行动建议。
新瓶装旧酒的帝国史的幕后推手是一些有帝国野心的国家。老大帝国英吉利、灯塔帝国美利坚、残余帝国俄罗斯、苏醒帝国大中华，以及在最近的几百年中曾经有过帝国扩张史的法国、德国、意大利、西班牙、土耳其、日本等等，各有各的帝国梦想，因此也各有各的“全球”观念。比如，在中国最早被作为全球史著作而翻译引进的不是麦克尼尔的《西方的兴起》，而是斯塔夫里阿诺斯的《全球通史》，原因之一当然和书名有关，但更重要的原因，恐怕是斯塔夫里阿诺斯更加关注欧美之外的第三世界国家的艰难命运，他的另一本在中国名气稍逊的著作就是《全球分裂：第三世界的历史进程》，这显然更能契合中国普通人对五千年文明古国的民族自尊心和中国统治者向外国营造的发展中国家的形象。又如，日本的全球史学者（杉山正明、冈田英弘）非常喜欢研究亚洲内陆的干旱草原地带，强调蒙古帝国（元朝）和清朝的亚洲意义，这显然有利于削弱以黄河长江流域为中心的中华帝国在历史叙述中的重要性。德国最近兴起的全球史研究中传播最广的一部作品仅仅是关于十九世纪的（奥斯特哈默，《世界的演变：19世纪史》），而书中所定义的十九世纪恰恰正是欧美强国在世界范围内全方位占据主导地位的时期，并突出强调了德国崛起后的十九、二十世纪之交的“世纪末”时期。英国近来的全球史作品中较有影响力的一部直接就叫做“全球帝国史”（约翰·达尔文，《全球帝国史：帖木儿之后帝国的兴与衰》）。凡此种种，都说明了在“全球史”的背后笼罩着国家争霸的阴影。
二、全球史的价值立场：世界公民或世界大同，精英的还是平民的？
然而，正如“全球”一词所内含的意向，当前的全球史潮流最大的一个特点就是宣称要突破民族国家的研究视野和叙述框架，突破狭隘的部落情感和自我中心倾向。这一口号落实在实际研究中，就是注重跨国界、跨地区的人员、物资、知识的流动所产生的影响。除了全球史之外，还有一些强调其他主题的历史学潮流也在努力超越以民族国家为中心的狭隘视野，如人类演化史、地球生态环境史、大历史（大卫·克里斯蒂安，《时间地图：大历史导论》、《大历史：虚无与万物之间》）、深度历史（Daniel Lord Smail, Deep History: The Architecture of Past and Present），等等。之所以要在“历史”一词的前面加上一些限定词，是因为这些学者一致批评以往的“世界史”叙述是“剪刀加浆糊”般地由各个国家的历史拼凑起来的，因而缺乏整体性，既不能充分理解每个国家的历史进程，更不用说理解整个世界了。
因此，本书反复强调了国家和区域之间在经济功能方面的“（全球）整合”（integration，也可译为一体化）和在地位等级方面的“（全球）结构”，并强调了全球应该成为所有历史研究的大背景。这里，需要区分两类不同的全球史：一是以全球为背景的关于某个地方或某个专题的历史，二是关于某个全球性主题或涵盖全球所有重大事件的历史。本书所指的全球史，无论是从作者列举的七个特征还是作者所赞赏的具体研究案例来看，主要是指前者，也就是带有全球视野的地方史或专题史。
那么，这种全球视野究竟如何才能达到？本书反复强调了构成这一全球视角的若干重要概念，如：流动flow、关联connection、缠结entanglement、偶合conjuncture、整合integration、结构structure、等级hierarchy。在正面的论述之外，作者还依据后殖民理论和世界体系方法，着重批评了以往的世界史研究和著述中存在的两种片面的思路：以欧洲中心主义为典型的各种自我中心主义和以文明论为典型的民族文化特殊论。作者认为，全球史的方法通过时刻反思自己所处的位置（positionality，也可译为立场），从而不断接近一个全球的视角。
作者所描述的全球视角其实很容易被熟知儒家人际关系学、道教泛神论和马克思主义唯物辩证法的中国人所接受，因为这种视角其实就是这三种思想所共有的普遍联系的思想。而在崇尚一神论、出世宗教和柏拉图主义理念论的社会里，人们更倾向于历史的单线发展论和先定目的论，重视历史的时间序列更甚于地理的空间结构。
个人所处的地理位置仅仅是影响到观察角度和叙述方式的原因之一，更重要的是个人所持的价值立场：全球史应该服务于谁的利益、何种利益？作者提出，全球公民（cosmopolitan，也可译为普世主义、世界大同、世界主义）是全球史内在固有的一种价值立场，因为诸如气候、环境、工作条件、市场运行、文化交流等全球性问题的解决需要不同社会的人们都有一种在同一个星球上共存和共享其资源的意识，这样，人们即使拥有不同的价值观和不同的未来设想，也能弥合分裂、进行合作来应对这些全球性的问题。
然而，这样的全球公民仅仅符合一小部分人的兴趣。作者指出，全球史能够吸引的读者除了想要争夺世界霸权的民族国家的统治精英之外，主要是高度集中地掌握了大量金融资本、文化知识和社会关系的“国际中产阶级”人士，他们的日常生活正在变得日益全球化，他们的切身感受就像《纽约时报》专栏作家托马斯·弗里德曼所宣称的那样：世界是平的。实际上，这些信奉全球公民理念、喜欢了解全球史的“国际中产阶级”同样植根于并服务于一个或少数几个特定的民族国家，他们和民族主义精英的区别只是在于，他们的个人利益中来自于国际不平等交换的比重比后者更大一些，或者说，他们是当前全球化进程的主要受益者而后者则受益不多、或甚至是利益受损者。
因此，当前主流的全球史的真正立场，仍然是少数精英的，而不是广大平民的。作者对于不平等的全球秩序的批判，只不过反映了左翼文化精英对弱者和失败者居高临下的贵族式的同情、或炫耀式的怜悯，而并不是出于真正的平民立场。这些左翼文化精英自以为并声称自己服务于广泛公众的利益，但他们舒适地生活在学院体制和政府赞助的庇护之下，早已脱离了与本地民众的日常交往和利益关联，因此他们的物质利益和他们身边普通民众的命运并没有多少直接的关联，而主要是在学院体制内自产自销、用于争夺学院主导权的象征符号上维持着象征性的联系。左翼文化精英对弱者的不幸命运的同情，右翼文化精英对凡人的不思进取的批判，就像是“一个唱红脸一个唱白脸”，往往互相补充，甚至会互相转化，共同构成了文化精英对于普通民众的总体态度：伪善。正是由于这种高度疏离于广大平民的精英位置和缺乏反思的精英立场，导致了全球史（以及当代学术界）的最严重的弊病：手段代替目的，工具代替价值。
三、全球史的局限：没有行动的空洞思想
本书的大部分内容作为对近年来的全球史作品的归纳，自然也不可能超越这些作品本身的局限性。值得注意的是，本书最后一章对于当前的全球史提出了五个方面的批评。这五个方面可以归纳为由于过度运用时间上和空间上的大尺度而导致的两种不良倾向：一是由于低估人的主观能动性从而减轻了人对于自己行为所负的责任，二是容易忽视某一区域社会内部和不同区域社会之间的等级结构。对这两种不良倾向的批评都是合理的，但作为对全球史的整体反思，这些批评并不充分，因为从现有的全球史研究内部，无法充分触及到其根本性的局限。
为此，可以提几个超出本书思考范围的问题：为了“理解全球”，仅仅“放眼全球”、注重“整合”和“结构”就够了吗？也就是说：“理解全球”的目的是什么？
回答是：如果不想去“改变全球”，就不能真正做到“理解全球”。正如一句名言所说，学者总是试图以各种各样的方式去解释世界，但关键在于改变世界。
行动是思想的先导和动力。没有思想的行动是盲目的，而没有行动的思想则是空洞的。一个人对于行动的设想，已经预先决定了他认识和理解的方式。目前为止的这些全球史研究主要是出于学者的个人好奇心、学院体制内的地位竞争、统治精英的内政外交策略，这不可避免地给这些研究设下了根本的局限性，即：研究者既然没有超越现存的主导性社会秩序（资本主义、民族主义、父权主义）和主流价值观（世俗个人主义）的明确目的，当然就不可能找到超越现存的主流知识范型（方法论个体主义）的方法。
正是在这里，暴露出了作者所倡导的全球史方法的最大盲点所在：这种理论反思只触及到认识论（如何认识和叙述历史），而缺乏本体论（历史本身是否有规律和意义）和价值论（认识历史有什么用处和目的）的支持，因而是浮于表面和残缺不全的。历史材料就像是浩如烟海的碎片，只有精心挑选、精心组合，才能形成一个有意义的整体画面。如果对挑选的过程不加反思和控制，那么，巧妇难为无米之炊，最终组合出来的结果只可能是反映了挑选时的下意识偏见，即符合统治精英利益的主流意识形态。这便是片面注重认识论的恶果。
四、全球史的出路：整个人类世界的根本变革
“全球”意味着从地球之外的视角所做的观察和反思，也就是把地球当作一个整体，发现整体上的变化趋势，并提出从整体上进行改变的可能性。由此出发，可以得到判断什么是真正意义上的全球史的两个标准。
第一，“全球”必然指向全人类。如果不是站在无权无声的普通劳动者的立场上思考全人类的兴衰存亡，全球史最多就只是没有魂灵的空壳（全球史研究者则成为没有灵魂的专家），或者更差，在有意无意间成为助长少数统治者的帝国野心的假面具和情报官。当发达资本主义国家的统治者明白自己的发达有赖于和其他不发达国家之间的不平等交换或甚至是赤裸裸的资源掠夺和劳动剥削，可想而知的结果就是统治者会加强原先的统治。
第二，全球史必然指向革命性的改变，促使人们进行整体的、根本的、彻底的思考和行动。如果没有世界公民、世界大同、世界革命的理想，全球史也是没有意义的空话，同样很可能会沦为帝国野心的帮凶。一个拥有全球视野的民族主义者在解决本国所面临的全球性问题时往往会采取最自私、最排外的方法，例如希特勒的灭绝犹太人和统治欧亚大陆的计划是为了解决1930年代的全球经济危机给德国带来的经济萧条问题。因此，全球史真正需要超越的，不应只是认识方法上的狭隘民族主义，而更应是价值观上的狭隘民族主义。对于今天的历史学家和其他人文社会学者来说，首要的问题不是用什么办法去开拓视野、加深理解，而是为了谁的利益去开拓视野、加深理解：个人、弱者、族群、资本、国家，还是全人类？答案当然是全人类，只是这里的“全人类”并不等于每一个人的简单加总，而是在排除了一切狭隘自私的情感、观念、制度和行为之后的人类总体，排除在外的人类个体包括：为了本国利益而不惜侵犯别国利益的民族主义者、为了租金和利润而不惜压低劳动报酬和损害劳动者健康的资本主义者、为了自己利益而不惜牺牲他人利益的利己主义者，等等。
用这两个标准来衡量，当前大多数被冠以“全球史”称号的作品都是不合格的。尤其是，这些作品在试图超越民族-国家政治的局限性的时候，却并没有试图超越资本主义经济和世俗个人主义文化的局限性。政治、经济、文化作为三个功能不同的领域维持着整个社会的运行、再生和发展，仅仅从其中的一个方面进行突破是不可能成功的，最终还是会落入到当前世界主导秩序的圈套。因此，就像欧洲中世纪的神学研究陷入“针尖上能站几个天使”的无意义的精妙论证一样，当代的全球史研究也常常陷入各种无意义的精妙细节。
以一些流行的全球史作品为例，可以清楚地看到它们几乎都犯了盲人摸象、以偏概全的错误。例如，贾雷德·戴蒙德的《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》在因果推理时混淆了时空的尺度，在历史叙事中则忽视了人与人之间、群体与群体之间的社会关系而片面强调地理因素和技术的作用。尤瓦尔·赫拉利的《未来简史》则以作者自己的价值观（以自我感受为中心的个人主义）去衡量其他种类的价值观，从而得出了严重偏误的观点。
因此，全球史要真正达到它所期望的目标，必须挣脱学院体制在自己身上打下的甜蜜枷锁，不顾一切地投身到人类自我解放的伟大斗争中去。否则，全球史研究和其他的学术研究一样都是缺乏精神内核的，学者也只能沦为自说自话、失魂落魄、随波逐流、辅佐权势的“精致的利己主义者”。
July 28, 2024
incredible introduction and overview of global history! Conrad does well to explain what global history is and what it isn’t, the merits of this field for current and future scholarship, a history of the field, and much more. in doing so, he shows how this increasingly popular field can be even better with a solid understanding of the methodology that is still being developed by historians. in short, I would recommend this book to any historian who wants to understand global history or even just to gain new ways of approaching their own research questions.
August 1, 2021
A good survey of a growing field. It made me realize that the North American academy's emphasis on migration, postcolonial, and the Atlantic world is a flip side of the coin to the European schools' focus on global history. I especially liked ch 6 and 9 on some of the exciting new areas to investigate and also the weaknesses of particular approaches.
May 28, 2023
For someone who teaches history at the high school level, this was an awesome way to dabble in some debates of historiography. It is pretty accessible, though challenging enough that some of it went over my head. I appreciated the author's explanations in trying to define the field itself as well as his overview of major critiques of global history.
February 9, 2024
Great book.
I mainly liked the introduction which explains the trends that global history aims to go against, in addition to what global history is according to the author.
I also mainly liked the second chapter which was a global history of global history. You get to see how different peoples around the world conceived of "world history" throughout the ages.
I mainly liked the introduction which explains the trends that global history aims to go against, in addition to what global history is according to the author.
I also mainly liked the second chapter which was a global history of global history. You get to see how different peoples around the world conceived of "world history" throughout the ages.
April 26, 2019
Conrad’s explanation of the importance of using a global approach to historiography completely altered the way I view and study history. His defense and critique of the field is compelling, and expanded my view of globalization and my western-centric education. An impactful read!
May 5, 2019
Well-written introduction to the subject of Global History. Covers most (if not all) aspects of the discipline including it's origins, terminology, political implications, theory and problems in theory, all the while offering examples which further elucidate the author's points.
July 19, 2016
First rate historiography.
February 10, 2019
An excellent introduction to the field of Global History.
February 2, 2021
good for introduction
February 17, 2025
a useful approach to think about what it means to be a global historian, and how we can write a global history. Will be citing in future for sure
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews