Suchergebnisse

Two prominent approaches to the history of empires and nation-states are comparative imperial history [CIH] and transnational history [TNH]. Each group of historians has actively promoted their perspective, but the two have had little interaction. Furthermore, in the history of East Asia, nationalist perspectives have dominated over transnational approaches until very recent times. This article points to new studies that examine Chinese imperial and national history from transnational and comparative perspectives, and encourages further work, including an ecological and environmental viewpoint, that will foster this trend.

During the 40 years since its founding, the Social Science History Association (SSHA) and its journal have attracted many scholars to the field of social science history, stimulating many new lines of research, but it has only had limited success in developing some of the more prominent new trends in the history field. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's early presence in the journalSocial Science Historydid not stimulate much further work on thelongue durée. In environmental history, transnational history, and studies of the non-Western world, the SSHA has not led the way. The article calls on members of the SSHA to think about creative responses to these new directions of inquiry.

According to modern ecological theory, ecosystems are fragile combinations of diverse elements, and their resilience—or ability to recover after external shocks—varies as the system develops. Under conditions of low resilience, the system can collapse unpredictably and shift into a new state. Biodiversity in ecosystems, however, helps to maintain resilience. These basic natural principles also help to illuminate the social processes of empires. Like ecosystems, empires expand, grow, and collapse unpredictably when they lose the ability to respond to external shocks. Just as biodiversity increases resilience, imperial formations prosper when they are more cosmopolitan, incorporating diverse cultural elements that foster institutional innovation, and they suffer collapse when they limit participation by outside challengers. The author develops this analogy between ecosystems and imperial formations through a discussion of the Ming and Qing empires, concluding with reflections on the Maoist production system and the current resilience of China today.

I discuss the references inNature and Powerto imperial China, especially its thorough discussion of key issues in China's environmental history, but I point out several limitations. Joachim Radkau says little about the role of local elites in agrarian policy, the impact of central Eurasian conquest on imperial regimes' attitudes toward the land, and the impact of global trade on the empire in the preindustrial age. The second part of the article discusses the important strategic and environmental role of trades in fur, tea, and fish from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries.

AbstractEmpire is back. Once upon a time, in the era of decolonization, empires seemed like remnants of a past that would soon disappear. No more. Now, both as a reality of modern geopolitics and as a subject of academic study, empires are flourishing as never before. Although the current global power with the greatest imperial pretensions is now facing increasing difficulties in subduing resistance in one of its remote frontiers, and the American public at home would just as soon forget about this adventure in delusion, the question of the suitability of the United States for an imperial role will not soon disappear. Furthermore, China's sustained rise to the ranks of a great world power has begun to raise questions about whether China, too, will take on an imperial role, as it needs to guarantee supplies of energy for its booming economy and engage in geopolitical competition with its rivals. Like many other empires, China has also had difficulty in gaining the allegiance of the peoples on its frontiers.

AbstractEcologies of production and state classifications shaped Chinese imperial frontier policies. In Chinese classical debates about the effect of environment on human character, the dominant view held that all peoples could become civilised, but a dissenting view held that barbarians could never change their ways. Nomadic pastoralists likewise debated whether to adopt certain Han cultural practices or reject them. Chinese dynasties often accepted diversity, but at certain times tried to eliminate difference by persuasion or by force. Three cases illustrate these processes during the Qing period: the relationship between Manchus and Mongols, Qing policies towards aboriginal peoples and the settlement of Taiwan, and Qing policies towards southwestern mountain peoples. In each case, policies came out of the interaction of ethnic categorization, views on cultural transformation and frontier environments. When Qing rulers lost the ability to recognise such cultural distinctions, they lost a key to the endurance of the empire.

Victor Lieberman'sStrange Parallelsis the culmination of an extended effort to compare many major polities of the Eurasian continent in the early modern age. Lieberman finds common cycles of administrative integration and disintegration that were increasingly synchronized over time. Although he does not give a single-factor explanation for this synchronization, his model provides a common vocabulary for political, economic, and cultural analysis that can inspire all comparative world historians. China, however, is missing from this analysis, even though its dynastic cycles share much with the other polities. China's ambivalent position in Eurasia deserves comparative study because of divergent interpretations of Chinese dynastic relations with frontier warriors, the strong influence of Chinese trade and power on its neighbors' polities, and China's long-lasting cultural and bureaucratic tradition.