Global History

Global, globalization and global history

Global history has the objective to attempt to present history in a complex way, not self-centered on only one continent or nation. Globalization started in the late 15th century; the early modern age (15th-19th century) is the period during which the world actually became global. In the second half of the 19th century, it only intensified due to technological advancements, but the necessary political, economic, cultural, and social preconditions were set long before.

The complexity of globalization

It is a very complex and multilayered phenomenon. Also, it is stressed the importance of technology, because it is the mean for transportation and communication. Only the economic element cannot allow us to fully understand the world we are living in. Another element is that conflicts and diplomacy are also large parts of the history of globalization, and modern globalization: in the early modern age, because the world was becoming global, it was important to devise new legal, diplomatic, and relational tools, so the creation of international relations were, in fact, due to the start of globalization.

Understanding global history

About global history, it is a perspective, not a territorial object: what matters the most are the connections and the relations, to underline what is different/similar. Because of that, there is no contradiction between local, national, and global: the three terms can live together in a productive way. Global history can be a way to re-interpret also national and local history. In this sense, it is not only an advancement from a scientific point of view, but also from a social and cultural aspect, a way to overcome eurocentrism and other possible centrism.

Transnational processes and global relations

Global history looks at a series of processes and relations of different natures which helps us to find and understand the theoretical origins of globalization. Therefore, it deals with transnational processes and global relations. When we talk about these connections, it is not only about something immaterial, but about the movement of actual things (goods), people (migrations, soldiers, sailors, diplomats, spies, etc.), ideas, and institutions.

Types of global history

When we read articles and books, you will see that there are different types of global history: that can mean a history with a global horizon, like studying a single city, or a single city on a global dimension, taking into account its influence in the world. It can also mean history of global relations, how relations from different parts of the world are managed and put together, but also can be a history of global integration, how the parts really became integrated on all levels (economic, legal, social, and cultural).

Terminology in global history

Different terms are used by scholars: before the term “global history” was common, in the 90s the term “world history” was more common, and “transnational history”. They all have in common the huge difference with traditional history in the attention to the relations and time and space. Global history shows that also the concept of time and space is very relative to certain places.

Charles Parker, global interactions in the early modern age (1400-1800): an analysis

It is a secondary source, a scholarly work by Charles Parker, one of the most important books written about global interaction in the early modern age. It’s a very comprehensive overview of globalization and its start in the early modern age. We will cover some of Parker’s affirmations.

Parker's perspective on globalization

In the introduction, Parker outlines the purpose of his book: it explains what is new in his book, what he is adding to our knowledge about the early modern age. He argues that in the early modern age we can see a series of phenomena which contributed to the creation of the world as a global space. However, he devotes a large part of the book to discuss empires: this is important because usually when we study the early modern age, the rise of empires is not discussed, since it was mostly western-centered the rising of the national states was considered more important.

What Parker points out is that at the same time we have the creation of a series of imperial states, which have completely different characters and had a huge influence in setting in motion interactions between people from around the world, because they fostered not only new commercial networks but also large-scale migration streams. It also set in motion global biological exchanges (plants, animals, and also diseases). Along with these, there is always the transfer of ideas and knowledge.

Cooperation in the early modern age

Another element is that the early modern age is usually depicted as an age of conflict and competition but it was also a very important aspect of cooperation. If we study advancement not with the idea of the goal to show how great a nation is, we can study that many were reached through cooperation.

The role of empires

About the empires, European empires are not very vital. We have the creation of colonial empires: the most prominent European nations all managed to create commercial empires expanding outside Europe. Three Muslim empires rose across North Africa, Eastern Europe, and Western and Central Asia. The Ottoman, the Safavid, and Mughal empires all emerged in the 1400s and 1500s, promoting the revival of Islam, the intermingling of Arab, Turkish, and Persian cultures, and the expansion of trade.

The possibility of looking at those empires is another reason why it is interesting to study global history starting from this period and not in the 19th century with the emergence of a strong western empire, limiting the agency and importance of the other parts of the world. Other than these empires, we also have other ones: one is Eurasian, Russia, created in the early modern age, using techniques of conquest similar to the Spanish and Portuguese in Latin America, and the Chinese (Ming and later Qing) empire. They were agents with which European empires had a dialogue on the same level.

Cross-cultural interaction

The other element which Parker underlines is the idea of cross-cultural interaction. The early modern age, according to Parker, is an age of unprecedented cross-cultural interaction. Of course, interaction between people from different cultures already existed, but it became more frequent and gave rise to new cultures. They had a practical use, like the creation of a unique and distinct culture in Latin America. It gave origins to foundational shifts in economic and political structures in the world.

Conflicts and cooperation

There were a series of violent acts, many of them carried out by Europeans. By the way, there was this idea that the fact that no region stood at the apex of the world dominion, they were all struggling and sometimes cooperating, before in later years different nations stood up in dominion (the English first, then the French, then the English again, finally the US). Today we are going back to a world without a strong leadership, but bipolar or tripolar. Since there was no dominant region, there were many conflicts, but all regions understood that cooperation was necessary.

Evolution of cartography

Ptolemy (100-170) was a cartographer active in Alexandria of Egypt. His work until the late 15th century remained the most reliable source where Europeans and Arabs built their knowledge about the world.

Development of maps

• Then we have a map from the mid-15th century. It has more details, but the depicted world is still the same, with some missing parts like the Americas and the north.
• There was an idea of the extreme north (Scandinavia and Greenland) as something unknown, something exotic.
• Then we have the representation of winds, an interest which shows that maps were actual instruments for sailors. Because of that and the Mediterranean being the main area of work for sailors, the Mediterranean was considered as the center of human activities, the most crowded part of the map.
• Then there was the idea of the end of the world. The end of the world was considered to be in the far east, in a gulf called Sinus Magnus. Columbus based his calculations on such knowledge as well.
• During the 16th century, finally the idea of a new continent became established. North America was usually very distorted because they didn’t have enough information. It shows again that knowledge was created step by step, and that the influence of the carriers of said knowledge (explorers like Columbus and Giovanni da Verrazzano, who helped depict North America, even in the wrong way).

Maps are also about representing power: creating a map about the American continent is also a way of appropriation from the western power of a new continent. Europeans presented it as a gift by God for the European power. Those maps were also given to kings, queens, and nobles to stress the role of European explorers, but also conquerors.

The representation of the new world

With the map of the new world, produced at the end of the 16th century, the fathers of the new world were not considered to be Columbus, Vespucci, and Magellan, but also Pizarro, who was a military man that conquered with a bloodshed the empire. To have appropriation over the new continent, they were not keen to use the native terms. Maps can be used with different purposes: they can be a draft to depict a new area, a tool to navigate, or for espionage.

The knowledge of America arrived in the Chinese empire, at least in the cartography, through Matteo Ricci, a missionary and figure of a cultural mediator between Europe and the Chinese empire. He is credited with having drafted a map putting together Europe and the empire. What is different in his map is the perspective: in the Chinese map, the empire was in the middle.

In a map in the 17th century, we have the first appearance of Australia. The map is interesting because it shows the connection between commerce, colonization, exploration, and globalization: these explorations carried by Tasman were paid by the Dutch East India Company, not a governmental agent.

By the end of the 18th century, we finally have a global world.

Global and local

Voltaire was the very first historian to look at history in a global perspective. Before Voltaire, there is an interest in what is different, but usually, it is also deemed to be inferior. Instead, in Voltaire, there is the idea of writing history looking at the world not only from the point of view of conquests, military deeds, and politics, but looking at customs, laws, commerce, finance, agriculture, and population. Looking at this multidisciplinary methodology expressed by Voltaire, we can see a similarity with global history.

The interest of Voltaire is not only about France, but it is a comparative perspective: he tried to confront the custom and the spirit of nations, to give a picture of different civilizations. It was a huge effort because, at that time, it was more difficult than today to reach sources. He took a while to be accepted because in the 19th century, also in the historical field, there was a very strong idea of nation, and nationalism, so he, in the age of Enlightenment, stood out as an exceptional figure.

20th-century perspectives

Coming to more recent ages, in the 20th century, there was a great interest in understanding the roots and the mechanisms behind globalization. There is the emergence of a series of new studies: one of the most successful and debated perspectives was the world system theory by Immanuel Wallerstein. At the center of this theory, there is an idea of prominence of the economy in all the processes. According to this theory, in the world there is a hierarchy system between countries: core countries, semi-periphery countries, and periphery countries. In core countries, innovation is happening, with the most military and political power. The others stand in a circle around core countries.

According to Wallerstein, what unifies these countries is not diplomatic or political hierarchy, but the division of labor, because they are all interdependent. Core countries might seem more powerful, but to be functional they need also the other two categories. All economies are based on market integration, which is necessary to have globalization. This is opposed to political integration, which, according to Wallerstein, happens at the beginning of the early modern age. According to Parker, these two elements are closely together. Parker is a more recent historian and he is proposing a more comprehensive view of globalization.

According to Wallerstein, world economies develop differently over time. In the middle ages, we cannot talk about a proper world system or globalization. He says that we have different, separated systems (a system in Russia, another one in China, etc.) not integrated even if there are exchanges. Because of the strong agency of Europe, we have the creation of a global world economy, because of Spain and Portugal, then the intervention of Netherlands, France, and England, which created other empires, in which economies had more effect, and finally we have the creation of a world system economy and a globalized world. This interpretation by Wallerstein was much debated at the end of the 20th century.

Edward Said and Orientalism

Edward Said wrote “Orientalism”. He pointed out that western culture created a series of stereotypes of eastern societies. These images ended up becoming a justification for imperialism because these depicted inferior oriental societies needing the protection and the civilization of the western societies, but also for a long period of time, they were accepted by the elites in eastern societies. It was necessary to rediscover the true identity of eastern societies. Said was the one starting this process in the 1915-16, creating postcolonial studies along with world history, transnational history, and then they all converged in global history. Postcolonial studies aim to underline the contribution of non-western societies, eastern and Latin American societies in shaping the modern world. It’s not what Wallerstein was saying: we don’t have the global world only because at a certain point Europe, in the early modern age, started to create a world economy: it’s not only about economy, or Europe.

Eurocentrism in global history

This opens up to eurocentrism, an important concept in global history. Of course, there is a historical role of Europe and the US in global development, but they are not the only protagonists. From Parker, at least the 18th century, we have a polycentric world, but not a superpower: we have the Mughals, the Ottomans, the Chinese empire, and then, starting from the 18th and the early 19th century we have also the rising Latin-American societies, when they finally reached independence.

It is however true that from the 18th century that the West gained a global prominence. The West was at the basis of the integration of a capitalistic global market because of a technological and military superiority. It is also a positive aspect because thanks to this we have the spreading of universal values, such as human rights. So, there is always this idea of having a complex vision, and more importantly, there is this idea of global integration as a 2-way process: for example, the British Empire, we can say that it alone shaped all our modern world (influence of British culture), but if we look at history and at our present society, it is important not to stop at Europe alone.

The great divergence

Historians talk about a great divergence happening between Asia and Europe. It is true that until the 18th century there wasn’t a superpower. There was a similarity between Asia and Europe, also if we look at technological development. But at a certain point, there is truly a great divergence: there is a sort of temporary decline in Asia, then it recovered from this decline starting from the late 19th century and especially in the 20th century. There are many theories trying to explain why the West emerged and was able to create huge empires and to impose its economic vision and necessity to the world.

Marx's economic perspective

We must bear in mind that in the 19th century there were empires. There was political control from Europe over pretty much all of Africa, but even those parts which were not under European political dominion were heavily controlled by western powers. So, how was this possible?

One of the first intellectuals to reflect upon this was Marx. According to him, it was everything about economic factors: Europe was able to develop a more efficient and cruel system of production. It was able to create capital, to free resources and laborers and employ them in the industry and military expeditions. This can be true, but it doesn’t explain why in Europe the mode of production changed.

Weber's cultural and institutional factors

At the beginning of the 19th century, we have a theory developed by Max Weber (German sociologist). He reflected upon his society, but also upon the past. He is well known for a theory according to which the prominence of the western world was due to cultural and institutional factors. According to him, of huge importance was the protestant ethic: there was a restructuring of all economy which allowed Northern parts of Europe and the US to become the leading countries.

The theory by Weber is very interesting: it puts under attention the importance of cultural mentality, but if we look only at this, it’s not enough. Because it’s not only in protestant countries that we have this kind of progress, and many of the most important innovations were developed by catholic nations.

Frank's economic outlook

In the late 20th century, we had a new theory, building more still on economic factors, but with a different outlook from that of Marx (two historians): Frank believed that the development of Europe was especially based on the riches of America. There is a lot of truth in this because at least until the 18th century it was possible for the colonial nations to exploit the American continent for their own profit. But Portugal and Spain did not become superpowers, declined starting from the 18th century. The riches of America alone cannot explain why Britain and France became imperial powers in the 19th century. Also, the French empire was very limited in America, and the French empire lost the Seven Years War (1756-1753) and the British lost a big part of their American empire with the War of Independence.

Pomeranz's perspective

The last theory was that of Kennet Pomeranz. His book was titled “The Great Divergence”. He is the first one trying to study these different looking at Asia, comparing England and China.

He found out that until the 18th century everything was very similar. It was a feudal society where the population was involved in agriculture. What changed, according to Pomeranz, was that the British had more access to timber and coal. Therefore, it was possible for England to develop an industrial system,