A seminar was presented by Sven Beckert at the Freie Universität Berlin on Dec 4, 2014. On the following day (Dec. 5), a workshop was held in a satellite classroom at the same university in which researchers from the University of Tokyo, the Freie Universität Berlin, the Paris École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and Princeton University presented reports and various issues were discussed. (Titles omitted)     

 

Sebastian CONRAD (Berlin): “Positionality in Global History”

Sebastian Conrad discussed the difficulties in overcoming the differences in positionality of researchers engaged in global history based on a paper that was made available to the audience in advance.

In response, a large number of objections were raised by the audience. Questions include: what should be done regarding uniformity of descriptions of world history (or histories of the world), how vulnerable regions in terms of economic history should be described, why objections from Japan and China do not sufficiently refute eurocentrism, and the arrogance of the paternal stance of eurocentrism. Questions were also posed regarding issues related to the languages used to describe world history (or histories of the world), the American character of global history, and how to think about global history in relation to national histories. Conrad expressed the view that various viewpoints should exist in world history and that such uniformity is unnecessary.          

 

HANEDA Masashi (Tokyo): “History of Japanese Historiography and “Global History”

Masashi Haneda traced the evolution of world history education in Japan and the current of global history in international society over time. In his description, Haneda noted that the main frameworks for historical studies in Japan are Japanese history, Oriental history, and Western history. He further explained that there is a need to lower the barrier of Japanese history by describing Japanese history in English and the challenges in creating a “new world history” in order to do so.    

In response, a basic question was raised from the audience regarding the nature of Oriental history in Japan, which yielded an explanation of the existence of kanji (Chinese characters), which is unique to the region (i.e. that does not exist in Europe). There was also a question regarding developments in the Japanese historical tradition related to global history. Haneda responded by describing the difficulties in convincing Japanese historians of the importance of global history and pointed out the fundamental issue stemming from the close relationship between each country’s historical study and national identity. In doing so, Haneda brought to the fore various points in common with Conrad’s “positionality.”      

Alessandro STANZIANI (Paris): “The past and present of Global history in France”

Alessandro Stanziani reported that, although there is substantial interest in global history in France, few historians actually engage in it, adding that a large number of historians engage in very similar comparative history. In addition, Stanziani described the close relationship between global history and social sciences since Durkheim and introduced the history of the Annales School. While mixing in humorous comments, he explained that there is an underlying eurocentrism and that, because of the lack of diversity in approach and the unwillingness to step outside the framework of the Annales School, global history is engaged in by only a handful of “recycled” historians. He pointed out that, as a result, various problems remain in global history research related to methods for comparing “cultural regions” and the understanding of capitalism, etc.

In response, a question was raised about how the issues of global history and the positionality of historians should be determined in the French historical tradition of study. Stanziani put forth the pessimistic opinion that individual historians are likely to remain in and not step out of their current research areas.  

 

FUSHIMI Takeshi (Keio): “Searching the Place of American Civilizations in the ‘Japanese World History’”

Takeshi Fushimi explained the state of Latin American history in Japanese world history and showed that, despite the boom in the study of world history following WWII, descriptions of Mesoamerica in history education in Japan have been lacking. While the civilization of the America is generally understood in Japan to be a history of subjugation, Fushimi expressed his personal belief that Mesoamerican civilization represents a “fifth civilization” and introduced the Japanese cultural anthropologist Seiichi Izumi (1915-70) and colleagues who contributed to research in this area. The multiculturalist tendencies of such Japanese researchers who conducted research on Mesoamerica left a particularly deep impression.   

A question was raised from the audience regarding the positionality of Fushimi and colleagues when they, as outsiders, describe Mesoamerica. To this, Fushimi explained that he was contributing to research on Mesoamerica by conducting fieldwork and archaeological research and publishing research results in the region in question rather than in Japan.     

 

Andreas ECKERT (Berlin): “Another imperialism? Global History and African historians”

In his report, Andreas Eckert did not explain imperialism, as indicated by the title, but, rather, pointed out issues with global history from the standpoint of African history. One of the issues Eckert identified was the fact that historical research by African researchers tends to be limited to “African itself” and its relationship to global history is rarely discussed. That said, he noted that, while research on Africa is carried out in the context of Africa being the origin of African Americans, such research tends to be conducted from an American point of view. In addition, he pointed out the serious challenge that, although there is interest at American universities regarding the contribution of Africa to human evolutionary history and issues related to political stance and while Africans also study development at American universities, there exists a social structure in which Africans themselves are unable to describe their own history.     

The presentation yielded a series of random questions from the audience regarding issues related to the large number of and complexities of languages used in Africa and how current circumstances can be overcome. Eckhart responded by describing his unsuccessful attempt to write history with African researchers, and no conclusion was reached.    

 

YUGE Naoko (Waseda): “The enlightenment and its Darkness”

Naoko Yuge focused on the negative aspects (darkness) of the enlightenment as an antithesis to the over-valuation of the philosophy of European enlightenment by Japanese historians of the Western World. Starting with Kaempfer’s History of Japan (Tadao Shichiku’s translation Sakoku Ron [Isolationist Theory] of the German original), Yuge discussed the existence, on the one hand, of enlightenment scholars, such as Dome (who discussed the issue of Jews and European civil rights), who adopted an objective viewpoint and of scholars such as the anthropologist Blumenbach who rated the various races. She further explained the process by which the racial views of enlightenment scholars validated the racial superiority of Europeans. In addition, Yuge also pointed out the influence that such ideology had on cultured persons of Meiji-Era Japan such as Yukichi Fukuzawa and the relationship of such ideology to Japan’s imperialist policies.      

In response, numerous questions were raised by the audience, including doubts regarding the soundness of emphasizing only the negative aspects of enlightenment philosophy. In addition, there were comments pointing out that the importance of the creation of the philosophy of enlightenment as Europe’s unifying ideology could not be ignored. While affirming these aspects of the philosophy of enlightenment, Yuge emphasized the point that the issue of race, in the context of global history, cannot be avoided and is, in fact, integrally related to global history.

(Summarized by Takako MORINAGA)

 

KURODA Akinobu (Tokyo): “Monetary Theory, Monetary History and Global History”

Akinobu Kuroda argued the need for new theory of monetary history based on historical facts. Up to this point, the framework for monetary history was constructed according to theory that was based on supposition and not empirical facts. As a result of conducting investigations over a wide geographic area including China, India, Europe, and Africa, it has been demonstrated that the underlying theory itself is incorrect. Specifically, the preceding theory has ignored local economies, as well as multidimensional monetary arrangements among farm villagers or individuals engaged in the same trade. It is necessary to re-categorize the means of exchange based on these historical facts and to create a new theory for humanity as a whole.

The significance of doing so is not limited to the discipline of monetary history. For example, with regard to the question of who provided the credit for a given currency, it was assumed that the answer was the authorities (national government, etc.) or higher-order (long-distance) trade. That said, the new framework emphasizes the fact that it was provided, in part, by the users themselves. This expands the agency of individuals who were previously seen as being of lower status. It suggests that the “view from below (users)” will influence our view of history and theory as a whole.    

 

Matthew KARP (Princeton): “American Slavery, Slaveholders, and Global History”

Matthew Karp’s (Princeton University) report entailed a reinterpretation of the significance of the American Civil War in the context of the world history. In Sven Beckert’s presentation held on the evening before the workshop, it was confirmed that the Civil War dealt a serious blow to the supply of cotton, the production of which, at the time, already involved close interactions between countries around the world and that cotton production in the US South by slaves continued to serve as a core of this production. Karp asked how the Southern slave owners should be viewed in this context. The wealth generated through the use of slaves is understood to be a vestige of the early modern period, and the defeat of the South, as having ushered in modernization. 

In contrast, however, it is in the “modern era” of the 19th century that racial inequality intensified and that the schemes for relegating “dark races” to unequal work were created. Karp argued that, in this sense, the South can be viewed as a “global laboratory for imperialism” and that the Southern slave owners, on the brink of the turning point of an age of global industrialization based on the forcible cultivation of raw materials through the exploitation of the dark races that stood in stark contrast to the industrialization through free labor envisioned by the national government, were not behind the times but, rather, pioneers of the “dark side.”    

The response from the audience was also interesting. While it was affirmed, on the one hand, that the supplantation of forced labor by wage-based labor should not be assumed to be a linear, with respect to the methodology of global history, questions were raised as to how local development should be linked to international development and the apprehension was expressed that one form of Beckert’ and Karp’s viewpoints would be decided upon and would permeate and diffuse, creating a new center.  

 

Tomoko MORIKAWA (Hokkaido): “Global History and a View from West Asia”

Using a wide range of maps, Tomoko Morikawa first demonstrated that the boundaries of West Asia, which is her area of expertise, are variously defined and that the Middle East and Near East is eurocentrically demarcated and divided based on national boundaries that are the product of colonialism. She pointed out that the scholarly divisions within areas studies which reflect national boundaries are obstacles.

Morikawa further proposed using the guiding concept of pilgrimage destination as one method for overcoming the problem of segmentation based on national boundaries. Pilgrimages reached a highpoint in the 19th century, with large scale migrations occurring on the order of 100,000 pilgrims per year per pilgrimage destination. Pilgrimage research, in terms of historical records, requires investigation that crosses over the categories of area studies. In addition, from a global standpoint, pilgrimage destinations are limited in number and only become established when certain conditions are met. Morikawa demonstrated that by identifying and amplifying the differences in form, it would not only be possible but also valuable to devise a world history of pilgrimage destinations.          

Finally, Morikawa proposed adopting a triangular or, if possible, polygonal viewpoint in future historical studies and explained that, in this sense, the West Asian view of history should be proactively added as a third region alongside Europe and East Asia in creating a framework for historical studies.

 

Teresa SHAWCROSS (Princeton): “Globalism and the Crisis of Mediterranean Empires: A Medieval Historian’s Approach”

Teresa Shawcross, who is a historian of the Byzantine Empire Mediterranean World in the Middle Ages at Princeton University, discussed from various viewpoints how the relationship between multiple worlds in the Eurasian World of the 13th century should be examined, while also referring to the manner in which Marco Polo, the protagonist of the much-talked-about drama Worlds Will Collide, which is being broadcast simultaneously around the world, is portrayed.   

Shawcross noted that the perception that one’s own world was only a small part of the milieu of multiple worlds had already been established before the 5th century but also explained how Venice and Byzantine’s understanding of their own place in the world changed substantially as a result of the rise of various empires and the appearance of the Mongolian Empire, which overwhelmed all of these. The central and multipolar nature, differences in regional responses based on empire and globalization, the rise and fall, shift, and coupling of regional powers, depression, and other diverse relationships within the Eurasian World of the 13th century were brought to light.

In addition to questions about the continuity of nomadic empires, several members of the audience pointed out the fact that Korea and Japan are left out of such understanding of the Eurasian World. There was also discussion on whether or not the fact that a region was assimilated by an empire is the only effective criterion for recognizing different worlds.

 

Sheldon GARON (Princeton): “Japan’s ‘Comparative Advantage’ in Global History”

The final presenter, Sheldon Garon of Princeton University, noted that a large number of regions have been excluded from historical studies and proposed that global history be reexamined and suggested starting with the experience of Japan, as the most striking example of such an excluded region. Up to this point, world history methodology has variously employed comparison, connection, contact and significance as axes. From the viewpoint of “utility (ease of use)” as a new axis, Garon focused on “transnational learning” (global knowledge generated within a framework that crosses of national boundaries) and specifically discussed the significance of Japan’s adoption of a savings policy and carrying out of domestic propaganda and evacuations during wartime after cross-referencing deliberations and practices in other countries.        

Numerous questions were raised in relation to Gerschenkron’s theory on the advantages of “economically backward” countries, including questions regarding Japanese exceptionalism and the relationship between modernization and Westernization. Summarizing these questions, Garon emphasized that Japan’s example should be seen not as an exceptional case of success but as an experience shared by various countries. 

 

Final Discussion and Future Perspectives

In conclusion, Eckert summarized the various issues that emerged during the lively discussion into seven main points, which the participants then commented on. According to my interpretation, the main points of the issues that were clarified during this workshop as summarized by Eckert are as follows.  

●Discuss how to understand chronology in the context of world history (including not discussion in terms of chronology) while consciously incorporating research on early history (Modern Times, Middle Ages, Ancient Times)

●Although discourse on world history topics tends to concentrate on the material, knowledge, and institutional aspects, it is extremely important to identify what the focus will be.

●There is an urgent need to re-assess and critically examine the methods used to investigate historical records up to this point.

●There is a need to critically examine the categorization and concepts used up to this point, starting at the level of terminology.

●Given the fact that English is the primary language for describing world history, examine the need and methods for incorporating research published in languages other than English.

●It is not enough to simply say that world history studies combines research (from multiple regions) and entails the complex intertwining of relationships. As a discipline, world history must pose and answer meaningful questions. In other words, it is necessary to discuss the situations/affairs in which a world history perspective is effective.

●There is a need to discuss how world history studies should be institutionalized. There is a tendency for world history to be written as an extracurricular exercise by great historians or by “lone outlaws” who have stepped out of their original areas of expertise. Given this tendency, it is necessary to discuss what type of institutionalization would be effective for collectively carving out the field of world history.  

Overall, the workshop was an extremely valuable opportunity that generated lively discussion and enabled participants to get a feel for the actual challenges facing global history.

 

(Summarized by Miki SUGIURA)