This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Why Europe and the West? Why Not China? David S. Landes T he world history of technology is the story of a long, protracted inversion. As late as the end of the first millennium of our era, the civilizations of Asia were well ahead of Europe in wealth and knowledge. The Europe of what we call the Middle Ages (say, tenth century) had regressed from the power and pomp of Greece and Rome, had lost much of the science it had once possessed, had seen its economy retreat into generalized autarky. It traded little with other societies, for it had little surplus to sell, and insofar as it wanted goods from outside, it paid for them largely with human beings. Nothing testifies better to deep poverty than the export of slaves or the persistent exodus of job-hungry migrants. Five hundred years later, the tables had turned. I like to summarize the change in one tell-tale event: the Portuguese penetration into the Indian Ocean led by Vasco da Gama in 1498. This was an extraordinary achievement. Some scholars will tell you that it was some kind of accident; that it could just as easily have been Muslim sailors, or Indian, or Chinese to make the connection from the other direction. Did not the Chinese send a series of large fleets sailing west as far as the east African coast in the early fifteenth centurybigger, better and earlier than anything the Portuguese had to show? Dont you believe it. These affirmations of Asian priority are especially prom- inent and urgent nowadays because a new inversion is bringing Asia to the fore. A multicultural world history finds it hard to live with a eurocentric story of achievement and transformation. So a new would-be (politically correct) orthodoxy would have us believe that a sequence of contingent events (gains by Portugal and then others in the Indian Ocean, followed by conquests by Spain and then others in the New World) gave Europe what began as a small edge and was then worked up into centuries of dominion and exploitation. A gloss on this myth contends that y David S. Landes is Emeritus Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 20, Number 2Spring 2006Pages 322 a number of non-European societies were themselves on the edge of a technolog- ical and scientific breakthrough; that in effect, European tyranny (to paraphrase Thomas Grays Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard), froze the genial current of the [Asian] soul. A variant on this history-as-accident (or luck) is the pendulum approach associated with Jack Goodys (1996) book, East in the West. Everything starts on an even keel thanks to the allegedly common heritage of the Bronze Age; but then different parts move ahead, only to be caught up and passed by others, which then lose ground to their predecessors. So Europe was just especially lucky, taking the lead at the crucial turn to the Industrial Revolution. But Asias turn will now come; indeed is already coming. As Goody (pp. 231232) writes: [I ]t is a pendularindeed is already coming....
View Full Document
- Spring '08