Asian review of World Histories

  • 제4권1호
  • /
  • Pages.133-163
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2287-965X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9811(eISSN)
아시아세계사학회 (The Asian Association of World Historians)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Shmuel N. Eisenstadt and the Comparative Political History of Pre-Eighteenth-Century Empires

  • 발행 : 2016.05.07
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This essay critically analyses the legacy of Eisenstadt's The Political Systems of Empires for the comparative political history of pre-industrial empires. It argues that Eisenstadt has given us a rich toolkit to conceptualize the formation, maintenance, and dissolution of empires by theorizing the structural relationships between social groups in large-scale polities and among such polities, and by analysing global patterns of development in the distribution of the sources of social power. The Political Systems of Empires provides an inventory of key questions and dynamics that a comparative history of power relationships in empires cannot ignore. This essay, furthermore, discusses three methodological problems in Eisenstadt's work which have had a significant impact on comparative empire studies between the 1980s and the 2000s. The essay argues that certain shared features of comparative studies of pre-industrial empires help perpetuate Eurocentric analyses: the foregrounding of select empires and periods as ideal types (typicality), the focus on macro-historical structures and dynamics without the integration of social relationships and actions in historical conjunctures (the lack of scalability), and the search for convergence and divergence. These features need to be overcome to make Eisenstadt's legacy viable for comparative political history.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical BureaucraticSocieties (London New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; New Brunswick: TransactionPublishers, 1993), 10.
  2. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical BureaucraticSocieties (London New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; New Brunswick: TransactionPublishers, 1993), 369, also 23-24
  3. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical BureaucraticSocieties (London New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; New Brunswick: TransactionPublishers, 1993), 375.
  4. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical BureaucraticSocieties (London New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993), Appendix, 375-471.
  5. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical BureaucraticSocieties (London New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993), 195, 325-326, and passim.
  6. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical BureaucraticSocieties (London New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993), 9.
  7. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires: The Rise and Fall of the Historical BureaucraticSocieties (London New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1993), 214-19.
  8. Julian Go, “The 'New' Sociology of Empire and Colonialism,” Sociology Compass 3(2009): 4-5.
  9. Michael W. Doyle, Empires (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), 94, 99.
  10. Munkler argues that governmental reorganization and a cyclical model with upper andlower segments fit the history of empire better than the more common rise and fall paradigm.Herfried Munkler, Empires: The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the UnitedStates (Cambridge, London: Polity Press, 2007), esp. ch. 3.
  11. John M. Hobson, “Eurocentrism and Neorealismin the 'Fall of Mann': Will the Real Mann Please Stand Up?,” Millennium - Journal of InternationalStudies 34 (2006): 523.
  12. Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1986), 170-73.
  13. Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1986), 171.
  14. Frederic Hurlet, Les Empires. Antiquite et Moyen Age (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes,2008)
  15. Lin Yaofu, Selected Essays on Court Culture in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Taibei: NationalTaiwan University Press, 1999)
  16. David Knechtges and Eugene Vance, Rhetoric and theDiscourses of Power in Court Culture: China, Europe, and Japan (Seattle: University of WashingtonPress, 2005).
  17. PhirozeVasunia, “The Comparative Study of Empires,” Journal of Roman Studies 101 (2011): 222-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075435811000086
  18. Robert Holton, “Max Weber and the Interpretative Tradition,” in Handbook of HistoricalSociology, eds. Gerard Delanty and Engin F. Isin (London: Sage, 2003): 29-30
  19. Susan Hekman,Weber, the Ideal Type, and Contemporary Social Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).
  20. Philip Pomper,“The History and Theory of Empires,” History and Theory 44, no. 4 (2005): 1-27 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2303.2005.00340.x
  21. James N.Rosenau, “Illusions of Power and Empire,” History and Theory 44, no. 4 (2005): 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2303.2005.00343.x
  22. Krishan Kumar, “Nation-States as Empires, Empires as Nation-States: Two Principles,One Practice,” Theory and Society 39, no. 2: 119 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-009-9102-8
  23. Frederick Cooper and Jane Burbank, Empiresin World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 8
  24. Ann Stoler and Frederick Cooper, “Between Metropole and Colony: Rethinkinga Research Agenda,” in Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World,eds. A. Stoler and F. Cooper (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 1-56
  25. Cooper,“States, Empires, and Political Imagination,” in Colonialism in Question, ed. F. Cooper (Berkeley:University of California Press, 2005): 153-203
  26. “Provincializing France,” in ImperialFormations, eds. A. L. Stoler, C. McGranahan, & P. C. Perdue (Sante Fe: School for AdvancedResearch, 2007): 341-77.
  27. Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective(Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
  28. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems, 193, and esp. ch. 12.
  29. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems, 228
  30. Jonathan Skaff, Sui-Tang China and its Turko-Mongol Neighbors:Culture, Power, and Connections, 580-800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
  31. Peter FibigerBang and Dariusz Kolodziejczyk eds. Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to ImperialCulture and Representation in Eurasian History (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press,2012).
  32. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems, xxxiv.
  33. James M. Blaut, Eight Eurocentric Historians (London: Guilford, 2000)
  34. John M. Hobson,The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press,2004)
  35. Jack Goody, The Theft of History (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
  36. Doyle, Empires, 143.
  37. Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1, 341.
  38. Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1, 538.
  39. Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 2000).
  40. Munkler, Empires, 106.
  41. Munkler, Empires, 63-64.
  42. De Weerdt, Information, Territory, and Networks: The Crisis and Maintenance of Empirein Song China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2015)
  43. Morris Rossabi, China among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
  44. Wim Blockmans and Hilde De Weerdt, “The Diverging Legaciesof Classical Empires in China and Europe,” European Review, forthcoming.
  45. Pomeranz, “Histories for a Less National Age,” AHA Presidential Address, Jan. 6,2014, Washington DC, http://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-andarchives/presidential-addresses/kenneth-pomeranz.
  46. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems, 222-72.
  47. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems, 230.
  48. De Weerdt, Information, Territory, and Networks, ch. 4-5.
  49. Philip Stern, “Corporate Virtue: The Languages of Empire in EarlyModern British Asia,” Renaissance Studies 26, no. 4 (2012): 510-530 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-4658.2012.00823.x
  50. A Social Historyof Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1994
  51. Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1, 341, 502.
  52. Walter Scheidel, “From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Romanand Qin-Han State Formation and Its Aftermath,” in id Rome and China: Comparative Perspectiveson Ancient World Empires (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 21.
  53. Michael Puett delivered a comparable critique of “divergence” in “Divergence as aCategory of Comparative History: The Case of China in Eurasian History,” paper presented at“New Perspectives on Comparative Medieval History: China and Europe, 800-1600” PembrokeCollege, Oxford, Sept. 30, 2013.
  54. John Darwin, After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire (London: Penguin,2007), ch. 4.
  55. Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 1, 341.
  56. Victoria Tin-bor Hui, War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early ModernEurope (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 205.
  57. Hilde De Weerdt, “War and State Formation inAncient China and Early Modern Europe by Victoria Tin-bor Hui,” Bijiao: China in ComparativePerspective Book Review vol. 1, no. 1 (2011), 26-28.
  58. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems, xliv.
  59. Eisenstadt, “Convergence and Divergence of Modern and Modernizing Societies: Indicationsfrom the Analysis of the Structuring of Social Hierarchies in Middle Eastern Societies,”International Journal of Middle East Studies 8, no. 1 (1977): 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800026738
  60. John Watts, The Making ofPolities: Europe, 1300-1500 (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
  61. Victor Lieberman, Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c. 800-1830, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 2009).
  62. R. I. Moore, “The Eleventh Century in Eurasian History: Comparative Approachto the Convergence and Divergence of Medieval Civilizations,” Journal of Medieval andEarly Modern Studies 33, no. 1 (2003): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1215/10829636-33-1-1