Four questions to three readings: read and then briefly respond to each of these questions in three or four sentences.Below are the questions and the reading that will be associated to that question.E
To]by Balla]bty]be a]bd A]btoi]bette Burto]bIntroduction: Bodies, Empires,
and Wor≠∆d Histories
W
e ≠∆ive in a wor≠∆d profound≠∆y shaped by cross-cu≠∆tura≠∆ en-counters, s≠∆avery, co≠∆onization, and mi≠àration. These forces
have not on≠∆y been centra≠∆ in determinin≠à the distribution
of wea≠∆th and power at a ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ ≠∆eve≠∆, but they have a≠∆so mo≠∆ded the
wor≠∆d’s demo≠àraphic profi≠∆e, dictated where nationa≠∆ boundaries have
been inscribed, influenced the ≠∆e≠àa≠∆ re≠àimes that ≠àovern peop≠∆e’s ≠∆ives,
and shaped the ways di√erent ethnic, r≠ae≠∆i≠àious, racia≠∆, and nationa≠∆ com-
munities re≠∆ate to each other. The impact of co≠∆onia≠∆ism and the resu≠∆ts of
empire bui≠∆din≠à are not restricted to ‘‘hi≠àh po≠∆itics’’ and state practices,
but a≠∆so shape everyday ≠∆ife at a ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ ≠∆eve≠∆, influencin≠à the ≠∆an≠àua≠àes we
speak, the c≠∆othes we wear, the food we eat, the music we ≠∆isten to, and the
arts and cu≠∆ture we are inspired by. The ≠∆e≠àacies of s≠∆avery, empires, and
mobi≠∆ity are frequent≠∆y painfu≠∆, but they are inescapab≠∆e: in many ways,
these ≠∆e≠àacies are at the heart of what it is to be modern, what it is to be
human, at the start of the twenty-first century. As a distinctive approach to the past, one that focuses on cross-cu≠∆tura≠∆
encounters, institutions, and ideo≠∆o≠àies and the inte≠àrative power of vari-
ous types of networks, wor≠∆d history a≠∆≠∆ows us to scrutinize the diverse
forces that have brou≠àht various communities into contact, concert, and
conflict. Wor≠∆d history has enjoyed renewed popu≠∆arity in recent years, in
part because economists, socio≠∆o≠àists, anthropo≠∆o≠àists, and other stu-
dents of the present moment are increasin≠à≠∆y interested in how areas of
the ≠à≠∆obe that were once thou≠àht to be distinct have actua≠∆≠∆y been inter-
connected for a very ≠∆on≠à time. It is no ≠∆on≠àer possib≠∆e, or even desirab≠∆e,
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 2I]btrodu]ftio]b
to uncritica≠∆≠∆y think in terms of ‘‘the West,’’ ‘‘Asia,’’ ‘‘Europe,’’ or ‘‘the
Third Wor≠∆d’’ — not on≠∆y because each of those cate≠àories tends to ho-
mo≠àenize the ≠àeo≠àraphica≠∆ re≠àion it evokes, but equa≠∆≠∆y because a≠∆≠∆ of
those p≠∆aces have been interdependent from the fourteenth century on-
ward, if not before. Scho≠∆ar≠as have been at work inv≠aesti≠àatin≠à what many
of us in the first decades of the twenty-first century take for ≠àranted in the
present: that because of trade, mi≠àration, revo≠∆ution, war, re≠∆i≠àion, and
trave≠∆, ≠àoods, peop≠∆e, ideas≠a, and civi≠∆izations the≠amse≠∆ves are a≠∆≠∆ the res≠au≠∆t
of transnationa≠∆ processes. In other words — and to use a common buz≠az-
word of the moment — they are the resu≠∆t of ‘‘≠à≠∆oba≠∆ization.’’ Here we
a≠àree with Laura Bri≠à≠às that the term
globalizatio]b is often ‘‘a p≠∆aceho≠∆der,
a word with no exact meanin≠à that we use in our contested e√orts to
describe the successors to deve≠∆opment and co≠∆onia≠∆ism.’’
∞ Current de-
bates on ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ization emphasize some of the same processes of intercon-
nection and mutua≠∆ dependence that practitioners of wor≠∆d history have
examined in the past twenty years. Their teachin≠à and research have su≠à-
≠àested that far from bein≠à fixed within borders or ≠∆imited to ≠∆oca≠∆ commu-
nities and nationa≠∆ states, many of the wor≠∆d’s most important com-
modities, po≠∆itica≠∆ systems, and spiritua≠∆ practices are the consequence of
diverse cu≠∆tura≠∆ encounters over time and space — so much so that we
now have to rethink terms ≠∆ike ‘‘European pro≠àress,’’ ‘‘Chinese trade,’’ and
‘‘Western Christianity.’’ Comin≠à to these subje≠acts from the perspective of
wor≠∆d history a≠∆≠∆ows us to appreciate how they came to be identified with
such ≠àeo≠àraphica≠∆ precision. It a≠∆so underscores the ≠∆imits of understand-
in≠à them mere≠∆y as insu≠∆ar nationa≠∆ or territoria≠∆≠∆y based phenomena.
Wor≠∆d history, in short, enab≠∆es us to take a ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ view of ostensib≠∆y ≠∆oca≠∆
events, systems, and cu≠∆tures and to reeva≠∆uate the histories of connection
and rupture that have ≠∆eft their mark, in turn, on our contemporary
condition. The influence of societies on each other across re≠àions and, in some
cases, across the ≠à≠∆obe does not mean, of course, that they have been
uniform or anythin≠à ≠∆ike united, even at the same moments in history.
This is in ≠∆ar≠àe part because empires and imperia≠∆ ambitions have been
amon≠à the most powerfu≠∆ sponsors of ‘‘cu≠∆tura≠∆ contact’’ — and of the
processes of intermixture, borrowin≠à, fusion, and appropriation that
such contact has ≠àiven rise to over the course of centuries. So, for exam-
p≠∆e, European cu≠∆tures have been immeasurab≠∆y shaped by their encoun-
ters with African, Indian, and Mesoamerican peop≠∆es in ways that make
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 Bodies, Empires, a]bd World Histories3
Europe itse≠∆f one of the ≠àreatest examp≠∆es of transnationa≠∆ity in the wor≠∆d.
But the often vio≠∆ent imposition of European modernity on ‘‘subject
peop≠∆es’’ in the form of techno≠∆o≠ày, capita≠∆ist ≠∆abor practices, and the
Christian civi≠∆izin≠à mission has meant that cu≠∆tures on the receivin≠à end
of such contact have been in a reactive and at times defensive posture with
respect to dominant forms of ‘‘≠à≠∆oba≠∆’’ influence. Nor are such imperia≠∆
strate≠àies unique to the ‘‘West.’’ Both the Han and the Mu≠àha≠∆ empires
produced simi≠∆ar forms of co≠∆onia≠∆ encounter with the indi≠àenous com-
munities they came into contact with, mode≠∆s of which ≠∆ater, Western
imperia≠∆ advocates (notab≠∆y the British) were ac≠aute≠∆y aware. The impact
of empires on ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ processes and transformations has thus been con-
siderab≠∆e, as we≠∆≠∆ as historica≠∆≠∆y si≠ànificant. That is why this co≠∆≠∆ection
focuses on the ro≠∆e of imperia≠∆ ideo≠∆o≠àies — their a≠àents and their en-
emies, their co≠∆≠∆aborators and their resisters — in he≠∆pin≠à to shape wor≠∆d
history.
A few caveats are in order. We use the term ‘‘empire’’ quite ≠∆oose≠∆y
here, intendin≠à it to mean webs of trade, know≠∆ed≠àe, mi≠àration, mi≠∆itary
power, and po≠∆itica≠∆ intervention that a≠∆≠∆owed certain communities to
assert their influence and soverei≠ànty over other ≠àroups.
≤ In other words,
these ‘‘imperia≠∆ webs’’ functioned as systems of exchan≠àe, mobi≠∆ity, ap-
propriation, and extraction, fashioned to enab≠∆e the empire-bui≠∆din≠à
power to exp≠∆oit the natura≠∆ resources, manufactured ≠àoods, or va≠∆ued
ski≠∆≠∆s of the subordinated ≠àroup. In o√erin≠à the ima≠àe of the web, we
want to emphasize interconnected networks of contact and exchan≠àe
without downp≠∆ayin≠à the very rea≠∆ systems of power and domination
such networks had the power to transport. The web’s intricate strands
carried with them and he≠∆ped to create hierarchies of race, c≠∆ass, re≠∆i≠àion,
and ≠àender, amon≠à others, thereby castin≠à the conquerors as superior
and the conquered as subordinate, with important and ≠∆in≠àerin≠à conse-
quences for the communities they touched. We do not wish to su≠à≠àest
that empires functioned as co≠∆ossa≠∆ ju≠à≠àernauts, razin≠à everythin≠à in their
paths and puttin≠à into p≠∆ace system≠as of domination that we≠are una√ected
by ‘‘native’’ a≠àency or uncontested by indi≠àenous interests. Indeed, the
ima≠àe of the web a≠∆so conveys somethin≠à of the doub≠∆e nature of the
imperia≠∆ system. Empires, ≠∆ike webs, were fra≠ài≠∆e and prone to crises
where important threads were broken or structura≠∆ nodes destroyed, yet
a≠∆so dynamic, bein≠à constant≠∆y remade and reconfi≠àured throu≠àh con-
certed thou≠àht and e√ort.
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 4I]btrodu]ftio]b
As the essays that fo≠∆≠∆ow amp≠∆y demonstrate, empires have not simp≠∆y
been carriers or enab≠∆ers of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ processes, they have in turn spawned
new hybrid forms of economic activity, po≠∆itica≠∆ practice, and cu≠∆tura≠∆
performance that take on ≠∆ives of their own — in part because of the ways
co≠∆onized peop≠∆es and cu≠∆tures have acted on or resisted imperia≠∆ po≠∆itica≠∆
and socia≠∆ forms. Nor do we want to imp≠∆y that a≠∆≠∆ wor≠∆d history can be
reduced simp≠∆y to the fact of empires. Not on≠∆y does such a c≠∆aim stake
too much ≠àround for imperia≠∆ histories, but it is in dan≠àer of b≠∆indin≠à us
to stories ≠∆ar≠àe and sma≠∆≠∆ which cannot a≠∆ways be ≠à≠∆impsed throu≠àh the
archives that empires ≠∆eave behind. But we do be≠∆ieve that tar≠àetin≠à em-
pires is o]be way of makin≠à sense of wor≠∆d history because it requires us to
pay attention to bi≠à structura≠∆ events and chan≠àes as we≠∆≠∆ as to ask what
impact they had on microprocesses and the historica≠∆ subjects who ≠∆ived
with and throu≠àh them.≠a Trackin≠à empires in a ≠à≠∆ob≠aa≠∆ context is, in other≠a
words, one way of reima≠àinin≠à the wor≠∆d’s history so that both its monu-
menta≠∆ qua≠∆ity and its u≠∆timate≠∆y fra≠àmented character can be captured
simu≠∆taneous≠∆y. Why the focus on bodie≠as as a means of accessin≠a≠à the co≠∆onia≠∆ encoun-
ters in wor≠∆d history? Quite simp≠∆y, we are seekin≠à a way to dramatize
how, why, and under what conditions women and ≠àender can be made
visib≠∆e in wor≠∆d history — a cha≠∆≠∆en≠àe on many ≠∆eve≠∆s. Women do not tend
to enter the primary source materia≠∆s that remain from imperia≠∆ and co≠∆o-
nia≠∆ archives because, for the most part, they did not ho≠∆d positions of
o≈cia≠∆ power. This absence has mean≠at that it is di≈cu≠∆t to≠a see them, and
to understand their historica≠∆ ro≠∆es, in wor≠∆d civi≠∆izations. There are ex-
ceptions, of course. Queens and e≠∆ite women can be recaptured from
obscurity throu≠àh texts and visua≠∆ ima≠àes; they dot the ≠∆andscape of
wor≠∆d history textbooks and even some books devoted to women of the
past across the ≠à≠∆obe. But this ≠∆eaves us with a ≠∆ess than satisfyin≠à view of
how women experienced the movement of history, how dominant and
indi≠àenous re≠àimes saw them, and what ro≠∆e ≠àender has p≠∆ayed in he≠∆pin≠à
to shape civi≠∆izationa≠∆ attitudes as we≠∆≠∆ as transnationa≠∆ movements and
processes. What is strikin≠à, however, is the extent to which women’s bodies (and,
to a ≠∆esser de≠àree, men’s) have been a subject of concern, scrutiny, anxiety,
and survei≠∆≠∆ance in a variety of times and p≠∆aces across the wor≠∆d. Whether
it was native Indian women’s sexua≠∆ity that caused concern for a co≠a≠∆oniz-
in≠à Catho≠∆ic Church in co≠∆onia≠∆ Mexico or that of Japanese women under
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 Bodies, Empires, a]bd World Histories5
postwar U.S. mi≠∆itary occupation, the fema≠∆e body has ≠àotten — and
kept — the attention of imperia≠∆ o≈cia≠∆s in ways that demonstrate how
crucia≠∆ its mana≠àement was be≠∆ieved to be for socia≠∆ order and po≠∆itica≠∆
stabi≠∆ity. The stakes of this stabi≠∆ity were perhaps especia≠∆≠∆y hi≠àh for impe-
ria≠∆ powers, which were d≠ae facto tryin≠à to impose specific ≠apo≠∆itica≠∆ forms
and cu≠∆tura≠∆ practices on often unwi≠∆≠∆in≠à popu≠∆ations. What this means is
that the body can be read by us as evidence of how women were viewed
by, and how ≠àender assumptions under≠àirded, empires in a≠∆≠∆ their com-
p≠∆exity. Some of the essays in this co≠∆≠∆ection focus on the body very ex-
p≠∆icit≠∆y, as in Patrick McDevitt’s essay on contact sport as a nationa≠∆ pas-
time in co≠∆onia≠∆ Ire≠∆and and Hyun Sook Kim’s on the fate of ‘‘comfort
women’’ in the context of Wor≠∆d War II. Other essays use the body as a
metaphor for citizenship and the nation, as in E≠∆isa Camiscio≠∆i’s work on
interwar French immi≠àration contro≠∆s as expressions of concern about
the racia≠∆ purity of the ‘‘nationa≠∆ body.’’ Others focus on examp≠∆es of
cu≠∆tura≠∆ contact throu≠àh bodies ≠∆itera≠∆≠∆y in motion, ≠∆ike Siobhan Lambert
Hur≠∆ey’s essay on the be≠àam of Bhopa≠∆ and Carter Vau≠àhn Find≠∆ey’s
research on the Ottoman trave≠∆er and writer Ahmed Midhat. Sti≠∆≠∆ others,
≠∆ike Me≠∆ani McA≠∆ister ’s essay that be≠àins with Muhammad A≠∆i, show how
famous bodies can be used as a jumpin≠à-o√ point for seein≠à con≠anections
between ≠∆oca≠∆ communities (African Americans durin≠à the co≠∆d war) and
transnationa≠∆ events with ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ si≠ànificance (the Arab-Israe≠∆i War and
the internationa≠∆ Is≠∆amicist movement).
The vo≠∆ume is divided into three sections. The first section, ‘‘Thresh-
o≠∆ds of Modernity: Mappin≠à Genders,’’ focuses on the p≠∆ace of race, ≠àen-
der, and sexua≠∆ity in empire bui≠∆din≠à durin≠à the ear≠∆y modern period.
A≠∆thou≠àh the essays r≠aan≠àe over disparate ≠àeo≠àraphic and socia≠∆ contex≠ats,
they underscore the centra≠∆ity of the body in the articu≠∆ation of imperia≠∆
ideo≠∆o≠àies and in the often frau≠àht dynamics of cross-cu≠∆tura≠∆ contact.
More ≠àenera≠∆≠∆y sti≠∆≠∆, the contributions in this first section revea≠∆ how the
operation of ear≠∆y modern empires be≠àan to reconfi≠àure understandin≠às
of the body at a ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ ≠∆ev≠ae≠∆, as the ≠∆an≠àua≠àes of ≠àe≠ander and race ≠àrew in
authority and imperia≠∆ systems be≠àan to ‘‘≠à≠∆oba≠∆ize’’ and universa≠∆ize ≠∆e≠àa≠∆
re≠àimes, re≠∆i≠àious be≠∆i≠aefs, and understandin≠às of sickness an≠ad death. The
essays that make up the second section of the vo≠∆ume, ‘‘G≠∆oba≠∆ Empires,
Loca≠∆ Encounters,’’ examine a wide array of very specific ≠∆oca≠∆ co≠∆onia≠∆
encounters from the c≠∆ose of the ei≠àhteenth century to the midd≠∆e decades
of the twentieth century. These essays chart the diverse ≠∆ocations where
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 6I]btrodu]ftio]b
understandin≠às of the body were defined and contested: from the sports
fie≠∆ds of Ire≠∆and to Austra≠∆ian courtrooms, from the prairies of the Ameri-
can Midwest to the c≠∆ubs of co≠∆onia≠∆ India, from swimmin≠à ho≠∆es in
Mozambique to the Britis≠ah Co≠∆umbia frontier. The contributions t≠ao this
section fore≠àround the ways the boundaries of race and ≠àender were
ne≠àotiated, po≠∆iced, and reinforced in an a≠àe of co≠∆onia≠∆ modernity and
demonstrate the processes that increasin≠à≠∆y undermined the flexibi≠∆ity
and fluidity that characterized many ear≠∆ier socia≠∆ formations.
The third section of the vo≠∆ume, ‘‘The Mobi≠∆ity of Po≠∆itics and the
Po≠∆itics of Mobi≠∆ity,’’ focuses on the batt≠∆es over empire from the fina≠∆
decade of the nineteenth century to the ≠∆ate twentieth century. Whi≠∆e
many of the essays examine the po≠∆itics of antico≠∆onia≠∆ism and nationa≠∆-
ism, they a≠∆≠∆ reflect on the ways our modern wor≠∆d was shaped by ≠àreater
mobi≠∆ity, whether in trave≠∆, mi≠àration, the flow of ideas and information,
war, or imperia≠∆ expansion itse≠∆f. The fierce debates over imperia≠∆ism
reconstructed in this section turn on the body, how it was mana≠àed, how
it cou≠∆d be represented, and how the bruta≠∆ities visited on particu≠∆ar types
of bodies shou≠∆d be remembered or understood. The co≠∆≠∆ection c≠∆oses
with a fina≠∆ essay that re≠aflects on the vo≠∆ume as a wh≠ao≠∆e and that uses the
notion of ‘‘bodies in contact’’ to map some future directions for both
wor≠∆d history research and teachin≠à.
the essays collected here have, then, a dua≠∆ purpose. First, they
emphasize the centra≠∆ity of bodies — raced, sexed, c≠∆assed, and ethnicized
bodies — as sites throu≠àh which imperia≠∆ and co≠∆onia≠∆ power was ima≠à-
ined and exercised. By thus fore≠àroundin≠à the body, this vo≠∆ume marks a
fundamenta≠∆ reconception of the nature and workin≠às of empires: we
focus on the materia≠∆ e√ects of ≠àeopo≠∆itica≠∆ systems in everyday spaces,
fami≠∆y ≠∆ife, and on-the-≠àround cu≠∆tura≠∆ encounters. Rather than privi≠∆e≠à-
in≠à the operations of the Forei≠àn O≈ce or ≠àent≠∆eman≠∆y capita≠∆ists, for
examp≠∆e, this attention to bodies means that the p≠∆antation, the theater,
the home, the street, the schoo≠∆, the c≠∆ub, and the marketp≠∆ace are now
visib≠∆e as spaces where peop≠∆e can be seen to have experienced modes of
imperia≠∆ and co≠∆onia≠∆ power. A≠∆thou≠àh the past two decades have wit-
nessed a tremendous boom in scho≠∆ar≠∆y production on co≠∆onia≠∆ism and
empire, with feminist historians takin≠à the ≠∆ead in the project of recover-
in≠à the experiences of women and other ‘‘others,’’ this research has not
received the attention it shou≠∆d in wor≠∆d history textbooks and hence in
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 Bodies, Empires, a]bd World Histories7
wor≠∆d history courses. There, hi≠àh po≠∆itics and commerce sti≠∆≠∆ dominate
accounts of empire in ways that certain≠∆y remain usefu≠∆. Women and
≠àender are now scrupu≠∆ous≠∆y attended to but most often not in ways that
underscore their constitutive ro≠∆e in the shapin≠à of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ power or cross-
cu≠∆tura≠∆ socia≠∆ or≠àanization.
≥ Lon≠à after women’s history has moved be-
yond the ‘‘add women and stir ’’ formu≠∆a, wor≠∆d history surveys sti≠∆≠∆ tend
to take an additive approach, so that each unit ‘‘covers’’ women, but
discrete≠∆y; rare enou≠àh is the approach taken by Peter Stearns, which
emphasizes ‘‘particu≠∆ar historica≠∆ episodes’’ in tension with ‘‘hi≠àher-≠∆eve≠∆
ana≠∆ysis of patterns over time.’’
∂ And, as sha≠∆≠∆ be discussed in more detai≠∆
be≠∆ow, scarce≠∆y any attention is paid to mascu≠∆inity as a cu≠∆tura≠∆ (≠∆et a≠∆one
a po≠∆itica≠∆) cate≠àory.
∑ This is especia≠∆≠∆y re≠àrettab≠∆e because co≠∆onia≠∆ proj-
ects and their processes were frequent≠∆y be≠∆ieved to throw white ma≠∆e
bodies into crisis (makin≠à them vu≠∆nerab≠∆e to disease, insanity, and hy-
bridization), and the supposed ‘‘femininity’’ of co≠∆onized men was fre-
quent≠∆y used as a po≠∆itica≠∆ too≠∆ to justify their exc≠∆usion from positions of
power and as a means of justifyin≠à their co≠∆onization in the first p≠∆ace.
∏
The abstractions, omissions, and faci≠∆e cate≠àorizations that tend to fo≠∆≠∆ow
from a historio≠àraphica≠∆ ≠∆iterature that over≠∆ooks ≠àendered subjectivities
and experiences need qua≠∆ification and e≠∆aboration. This is a≠∆≠∆ the more
important because the quest for ≠àenera≠∆ization can take peop≠∆e — espe-
cia≠∆≠∆y women, chi≠∆dren, and ‘‘natives’’ — out of the story, thereby often
re≠∆e≠àatin≠à human a≠àency in its particu≠∆ars to the mar≠àins of historica≠∆
understandin≠à. This is not to say, of course, that women, ≠a≠àender, and sexua≠∆ity repre-
sent the fu≠∆≠∆ extent of what bodies in history can and do si≠ànify. Bodies
evoke birth and death, work and p≠∆ay, disease and fitness; they carry
≠àerms and fluids as we≠∆≠∆ as a variety of po≠∆itica≠∆, socia≠∆, and cu≠∆tura≠∆ mean-
in≠às; they are the ≠àrounds of po≠∆itica≠∆ economies and the pretext for
intrusion, discip≠∆ine, and punishment at both the individua≠∆ and the co≠∆-
≠∆ective ≠∆eve≠∆s. A≠∆thou≠àh the essays that make up this co≠∆≠∆ection treat sub-
jects as diverse as s≠∆avery and trave≠∆, ecc≠∆esiastica≠∆ co≠∆onia≠∆ism and mi≠∆itary
occupation, marria≠àe and property, nationa≠∆ism and footba≠∆≠∆, immi≠àra-
tion and temperance, we do not propose to o√er anythin≠à ≠∆ike a ≠à≠∆oba≠∆
history of the body.
π For our purposes, the ≠àendered bodies invoked by
the authors co≠∆≠∆ected here serve as entrées into ≠∆ar≠àer discussions of how
the body can ≠àive shape to themes of re≠∆evance to wor≠∆d history, as we≠∆≠∆ as
how they can reorient that project so that it encompasses di√erent bodies
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 8I]btrodu]ftio]b
of evidence.
∫ Of equa≠∆ importance is the opportunity to brin≠à into view
research pub≠∆ished in venues that may be i≠ànored or underuti≠∆ized by
European or American audiences, such as the I]bdia]b Jour]bal of Ge]bder
Studies, the Jour]bal of Afri]fa]b History, and Australia]b Femi]bist Studies.
In doin≠à so we can better appreciate both the app≠∆icabi≠∆ity of Euro-
American theoretica≠∆ mode≠∆s of ≠àender and the body to diverse ≠àeo≠àraph-
ica≠∆ sites and the very rea≠∆ ≠∆imits of those frameworks for historicizin≠à
‘‘≠à≠∆oba≠∆’’ rea≠∆ities. Bodies i]b Co]bta]ft, in short, enab≠∆es readers to access
some of the most recent and si≠ànificant scho≠∆arship on women, ≠àender,
and the co≠∆onia≠∆ encounter so that students with a variety of discip≠∆inary
interests can appreciate the tensions between macro and micro perspec-
tives on the ≠à≠∆obe — and so that the constitutive impact of ≠àender and
sexua≠∆ity in a≠∆≠∆ their historica≠∆ comp≠∆exity can be more fu≠∆≠∆y appreciated. Second, the vo≠∆ume insists on the centra≠∆ity of imperia≠∆ and co≠∆onia≠∆
bodies in the circuits of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ po≠∆itics, capita≠∆, and cu≠∆ture. This commit-
ment stems from our conviction that historica≠∆≠∆y, empires have been con-
stitutive of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ systems, but that in contemporary debates about how
to think and teach wor≠∆d history and ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ization the centra≠∆ity of impe-
ria≠∆ power and know≠∆ed≠àe is often excised or downp≠∆ayed or occ≠∆uded, a
situation that may or may not chan≠àe with the arriva≠∆ of new forms of
U.S. imperia≠∆ism at work in the ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ arena. Co≠∆≠∆ective≠∆y these essays
map the transformative power of imperia≠∆ systems and the ways in which
the deve≠∆opment of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ empires have been entwined historica≠∆≠∆y with
bodies in contact: that is, bodies not just invo≠∆ved in intimate persona≠∆,
sexua≠∆, or socia≠∆ re≠∆ations but bodies in motion, bodies in subjection,
bodies in stru≠à≠à≠∆e, bodies in action. This move e√ective≠∆y recasts readers’
understandin≠à of the contemporary wor≠∆d, where empires are c≠∆ear≠∆y not
over, even and especia≠∆≠∆y in this particu≠∆ar ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ moment. Each of the
essays we have chosen makes visib≠∆e the ideo≠∆o≠àica≠∆ work of imperia≠∆ or
co≠∆onia≠∆ menta≠∆ities in a specific moment and a specific set of ≠∆ocations,
demonstratin≠à both the need for historica≠∆ contin≠àency when creatin≠à
≠à≠∆oba≠∆ narratives and the fundamenta≠∆≠∆y transnationa≠∆ operation of co≠∆o-
nia≠∆ power. Once a≠àain, feminist scho≠∆arship has been crucia≠∆ to recent
deve≠∆opments in compar≠aative, imperia≠∆, and wor≠∆≠ad histories, but in ways
that have not been easi≠∆y accessib≠∆e to students in the c≠∆assroom.
Ω Bodies i]b
Co]bta]ft thereby o√ers students of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ization an opportunity to appre-
ciate the ro≠∆e of empir≠aes in shapin≠à wor≠∆d sys≠atems by trackin≠à embodied
experiences across hi≠astorica≠∆ time and cu≠∆tura≠∆ space. It a≠∆so makes r≠aecent
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 Bodies, Empires, a]bd World Histories9
scho≠∆arship avai≠∆ab≠∆e to instructors, who can then test it a≠àainst the over-
archin≠à c≠∆aims and theories made in the textbooks that are inevitab≠∆y used
in ≠∆ar≠àe courses. This, we hope, creates a series of heretofore unavai≠∆ab≠∆e
peda≠ào≠àica≠∆ opportunities by settin≠à up supposed≠∆y ‘‘sma≠∆≠∆’’ histories that
may ratify some estab≠∆ished syntheses, question others, and perhaps even
chip away at the ≠∆on≠à-standin≠à distinction between bi≠à and sma≠∆≠∆ pro-
cesses of historica≠∆ continuity and chan≠àe.
∞≠ In the process,
Bodies i]b Co]b-
ta]ft a≠∆so enab≠∆es students to interro≠àate the tota≠∆izin≠à narratives that can
arise under the rubric of ‘‘wor≠∆d history’’ and to ask when, why, and under
what conditions the ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ is a desirab≠∆e cate≠àory of historica≠∆ ana≠∆ysis.
∞∞
If this co≠∆≠∆ection brin≠às to≠àether a series of essays that fore≠àround race,
≠àender, and sexua≠∆ity in ways that cha≠∆≠∆en≠àe the traditiona≠∆ foci of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆
narratives, many of the essays reflect perhaps the most important contri-
bution of recent wor≠∆d history research: the critique of ≠∆on≠à-estab≠∆ished
narratives of ‘‘the rise of the West.’’ The emer≠àence of wor≠∆d history as a
distinctive approach to the past in the ear≠∆y twentieth century coincided
with a moment of European paramountcy and a widespread faith in the
West’s civi≠∆izin≠à mission. Within such a context, it was hard≠∆y surprisin≠à
that ear≠∆y wor≠∆d histories, written by H. G. We≠∆≠∆s, Oswa≠∆d Spen≠à≠∆er, and
Arno≠∆d Toynbee, p≠∆ayed a centra≠∆ ro≠∆e in conso≠∆idatin≠à Europe and North
America at the heart of understandin≠às of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ history and articu≠∆atin≠à a
powerfu≠∆ narrative that mo≠∆ded the comp≠∆ex, fra≠àmentary, and hetero-
≠àeneous nature of the human past into a strikin≠à account of the creation,
conso≠∆idation, and extension of the power of the ‘‘West.’’
∞≤ Even as wor≠∆d
history s≠∆ow≠∆y became professiona≠∆ized after Wor≠∆d War II, this narrative
continued to provide a key framework for understandin≠às of the ≠à≠∆oba≠∆
past in under≠àraduate ≠∆ecture ha≠∆≠∆s, ≠àraduate seminar rooms, and facu≠∆ty
≠∆oun≠àes. In turn, this mode≠∆ was fortified by socio≠∆o≠àists and area studies
specia≠∆ists who promu≠∆≠àated wor≠∆d system and d≠aependency theories that
firm≠∆y ≠∆ocated Europe and North America as the ‘‘core’’ of the modern
wor≠∆d.
∞≥ In 1963 W. H. McNei≠∆≠∆ pub≠∆ished his paradi≠àmatic The Rise of the
West, a work that had so≠∆d over 75,000 copies by 1990 and that continues
to be wide≠∆y used in co≠∆≠∆e≠àe c≠∆assrooms and to attract a wide pub≠∆ic
audience. The subtit≠∆e of McNei≠∆≠∆’s work (A History of the Huma]b Com-
mu]bity) reduces human history to a narrative of the ‘‘rise of the West’’ and
underscores the profound≠∆y te≠∆eo≠∆o≠àica≠∆ assumptions that shaped wor≠∆d
history in the 1960s and 1970s.
∞∂
Such assumptions do ≠∆in≠àer today, but research undertaken by wor≠∆d
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 10I]btrodu]ftio]b
historians since the ear≠∆y 1980s has exp≠∆icit≠∆y cha≠∆≠∆en≠àed the primacy at-
tached to Europe or the West as the prime historica≠∆ a≠àent of cross-
cu≠∆tura≠∆ inte≠àration. The work of Janet Abu-Lu≠àhod, for examp≠∆e, ca≠∆≠∆ed
into question the be≠∆ief that Europeans were centra≠∆ in drivin≠à cross-
cu≠∆tura≠∆ exchan≠àes, by drawin≠à attention to the comp≠∆e≠ax circuits of ≠∆on≠à-
distance trade that inte≠àrated Eurasia in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries.
∞∑ This emphasis on the importance of chan≠àes takin≠à p≠∆ace in
centra≠∆ Asia has been extende≠ad by other scho≠∆ars who≠a have identified the
‘‘Mon≠ào≠∆ exp≠∆osion’’ in this period as markin≠à the emer≠àence of the first
tru≠∆y ‘‘wor≠∆d empire.’’
∞∏ Most important, however, it has been the histo-
rians who work on China≠a and its connections with inner Asia≠a, Southeast
Asia, the rest of East Asia, and Europe who have transformed our under-
standin≠às of the basic pattern of wor≠∆d history. At the same time, research
on the economic history of South Asia has both revised an ima≠àe of a
corrupt and weakenin≠à Mu≠àha≠∆ empire inherited from British co≠∆onia≠∆
discourse and has emphasized that the Indian Ocean was the center of a
series of inter≠∆ockin≠à commercia≠∆ networks that reached out as far as East
Africa and Indonesia. Europeans were ≠∆atecomers to this cosmopo≠∆itan
commercia≠∆ wor≠∆d and their arriva≠∆ caused ≠∆itt≠∆e concern to the Jewish,
Arab, Gujarati, Tami≠∆, Ma≠∆ay, and Chinese traders who dominated the
bazaars and shippin≠à routes of the re≠àion. It was on≠∆y as a resu≠∆t of the
mi≠∆itarization of trade durin≠à the ei≠àhteenth century and the ≠àrowin≠à
co≠∆onia≠∆ aspirations of European East India Companies that Europeans
≠àradua≠∆≠∆y came to dominate the ≠∆on≠à-estab≠∆ished markets and commercia≠∆
hubs around the Indian Ocean. In e√ect, this work on Asian economic history and Asia’s trade with
Europe has both ca≠∆≠∆ed into question the exceptiona≠∆ status so frequent≠∆y
accorded to Europe and recast our understandin≠às of the chrono≠∆o≠ày of
wor≠∆d history.
∞π One of the crucia≠∆ debates that continues to exercise
wor≠∆d historians is the re≠∆ationship between Europe’s rise, imperia≠∆ism,
and the emer≠àence of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ capita≠∆ism. Whi≠∆e some historians, such as
David Landes, continue to attribute Europe’s rise to power to supposed≠∆y
intrinsica≠∆≠∆y European cu≠∆tura≠∆ qua≠∆ities (‘‘work, thrift, honesty, patience,
tenacity’’), recent research h≠aas tended to undersc≠aore the centra≠∆ity of im-
peria≠∆ism in the New Wor≠∆d in both a≠∆≠∆owin≠à Europe to escape from its
eco≠∆o≠àica≠∆ constraints (by makin≠à a host of new natura≠∆ resources and
va≠∆uab≠∆e commodities avai≠∆ab≠∆e to Europe) and co≠anstitutin≠à the very na-
ture of European cu≠∆ture itse≠∆f.
∞∫ Moreover, where McNei≠∆≠∆ mi≠àht have
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 Bodies, Empires, a]bd World Histories11
≠àiven shape to history by discernin≠à the risin≠à dominance of the West,
what has emer≠àed out of recent wor≠∆d historica≠∆ research is an ima≠àe of a
mu≠∆ticentered wor≠∆d durin≠à the period between 1250 and 1800, when
China was perhaps the sin≠à≠∆e most powerfu≠∆ re≠àion. In the 1800s, it seems
that Europe did exercise increasin≠à power at a ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ ≠∆eve≠∆ as a resu≠∆t of
the mi≠∆itary-fisca≠∆ revo≠∆ution that conso≠∆idated its mi≠∆itary advanta≠àe over
non-European nations, its harnessin≠à of its natura≠∆ resources, especia≠∆≠∆y
coa≠∆, to its industria≠∆ revo≠∆ution, and a sustained period of imperia≠∆ expan-
sion be≠àinnin≠à from the 1760s.
∞Ω
Of course, the spectacu≠∆ar rise of European empires from the midd≠∆e of
the ei≠àhteenth century was a≠∆so intimate≠∆y connected with the ‘‘ho≠∆≠∆owin≠à
out’’ of the Safavid and Mu≠àha≠∆ empires and the abi≠∆ity of European
a≠àents to turn these o≠∆der imperia≠∆ structures to their own advanta≠àe.
≤≠ A t
the same time, the conso≠∆idation of imperia≠∆ authority at the mar≠àins of
Europe (especia≠∆≠∆y in Ire≠∆and and the Mediterranean) and the thrust of
European powers in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific incorpo-
rated vast territories into the po≠∆itica≠∆, commercia≠∆, and re≠∆i≠àious ambit of
European co≠∆onia≠∆ systems. There is no doubt that this new a≠àe of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆
imperia≠∆ism marks a profound disjuncture in wor≠∆d history, as the pu≠∆≠∆ of
European markets, the practices of imperia≠∆ / co≠∆onia≠∆ states, the ‘‘univer-
sa≠∆’’ ≠∆an≠àua≠àes of science and statistics, and the internationa≠∆ reach of
missionary or≠àanizations fashioned new and profound≠∆y uneven forms of
interconnection and interdependence.
≤∞ Many of the essays in this co≠∆≠∆ec-
tion trace these transformations, reconstructin≠à how specific co≠∆onia≠∆ en-
counters produced understandin≠às of ≠àender, race, and sexua≠∆ity and re-
vea≠∆in≠à the ways these ≠∆oca≠∆ exchan≠àes were increasin≠à≠∆y assimi≠∆ated into
broader imperia≠∆ debates over cu≠∆tura≠∆ di√erence. The tremendous variety
of human socia≠∆ arran≠àements remained a key concern of the scientists,
historians, and theorists of empire in the mid-nineteenth century. And
a≠∆thou≠àh a ≠àreat ran≠àe of cu≠∆tura≠∆ variation remained, the≠a reach of Euro-
pean empires rendered much of this comp≠∆exity ≠∆e≠àib≠∆e throu≠àh the (dis-
tortin≠à) ≠∆an≠àua≠àes of race and ≠àender. But the thrust of much recent work is that European ascendancy was
never uncontested an≠ad Europe’s position as the ≠à≠∆oba≠∆≠a center of imperia≠∆
power was re≠∆ative≠∆y short-≠∆ived. The United States, the Soviet Union,
and Japan emer≠àed as both industria≠∆ forces and imperia≠∆ powers around
the turn of the twentieth century, and Tokyo, Hon≠à Kon≠à, Sin≠àapore,
and Bombay emer≠àed as new commercia≠∆, cu≠∆tura≠∆, techno≠∆o≠àica≠∆, and
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 12I]btrodu]ftio]b
mi≠àratory centers. Wor≠∆d history research on mi≠àration, economics, em-
pires, and ideo≠∆o≠àies su≠à≠àests that history cannot be ima≠àined as an inex-
orab≠∆e march to Western dominance and ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ homo≠àeneity, but is a
more comp≠∆ex and ambi≠àuous set of interwoven and over≠∆appin≠à pro-
cesses driven by a diverse array of ≠àroups from a variety of di√erent
≠∆ocations.
≤≤
These ar≠àuments frame this vo≠∆ume, and in various ways, the essays in
this co≠∆≠∆ection reinforce this emer≠àent ima≠àe of a mu≠∆ticentered, even a
de-centered, wor≠∆d, evokin≠à a fluidity that ≠àender and the body, especia≠∆≠∆y
when read as performative cate≠àories, contin≠àent for its manifestations as
much on space as on time, can he≠∆p us immeasurab≠∆y to appreciate. Whi≠∆e
many of the authors pay c≠∆ose attention to the uneven power re≠∆ations of
co≠∆onia≠∆ism and the profound inequa≠∆ities created by European imperia≠∆
systems, they exp≠∆ore the imperia≠∆ projects carried out by non-European
powers, reconstruct the abi≠∆ity of suba≠∆tern ≠àroups to cha≠∆≠∆en≠àe co≠∆onia≠∆
authority and puncture co≠∆onia≠∆ ideo≠∆o≠àies, and map the sophisticated
cu≠∆tura≠∆ comp≠∆exes created by peop≠∆es at the supposed ‘‘periphery’’ of
empires. Equa≠∆≠∆y important, however, this co≠∆≠∆ection fore≠àrounds the body in a
way that wor≠∆d history scho≠∆arship to date h≠aas resisted. Wor≠∆d history, at
≠∆east in its dominant institutiona≠∆ form, has not on≠∆y c≠∆un≠à to an ‘‘addi-
tive’’ view of women’s history but has a≠∆so ≠àenera≠∆≠∆y remained insu≠∆ated
from (if not resistant to) new directions in cu≠∆tura≠∆ history, especia≠∆≠∆y
≠àender history. As a resu≠∆t, ‘‘mascu≠∆inity’’ is an ana≠∆ytica≠∆ cate≠àory that
remains, for a≠∆≠∆ intents and purposes, unheard of in the fie≠∆d. Reconstruct-
in≠à the variab≠∆e and cu≠∆tura≠∆≠∆y contin≠àent historica≠∆ forms of mascu≠∆inity,
and their re≠∆ationship to economics, po≠∆itics, cu≠∆ture, re≠∆i≠àion, c≠∆ass, and
sexua≠∆ity, is a project that has on≠∆y just be≠àun. Rosa≠∆ind O’Han≠∆on’s essay
on imperia≠∆ mascu≠∆inities in Mu≠àha≠∆ north India, Patrick McDevitt’s ex-
amination of the p≠∆ace of sports in Catho≠∆ic mascu≠∆inity in Ire≠∆and, and
Joseph A≠∆ter ’s examination of ce≠∆ibacy and the p≠∆ace of mascu≠∆ine con-
straint in Indian nationa≠∆ist thou≠àht su≠à≠àest the important insi≠àhts into
the p≠∆ace of ≠àendered bodies and embodied subjectivities in empire bui≠∆d-
in≠à, antico≠∆onia≠∆ resistance and nationa≠∆ist ideo≠∆o≠àies that critica≠∆ histories
of mascu≠∆inity o√er. Much of the pioneerin≠à work in the fie≠∆d, especia≠∆≠∆y
with re≠àard to modern imperia≠∆ mascu≠∆inities, has su≠à≠àested that the
ma≠∆e-dominated archives that are the stock in trade of the wor≠∆d historian
can be read in new and interestin≠à ways. Rather than searchin≠à on≠∆y for
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 Bodies, Empires, a]bd World Histories13
notab≠∆e women or seekin≠à to access an unmediated fema≠∆e subjectivity,
we can assemb≠∆e a richer understandin≠à of the operation of ≠àender in
wor≠∆d history by examinin≠à the ways these archives ar≠aticu≠∆ate competin≠à
visions of and anxieti≠aes about mascu≠∆inity, whi≠∆e attendin≠à equa≠∆≠∆y to the
pressures that c≠∆ass, racia≠∆, ethnic, and re≠∆i≠àious a≈≠∆iations have histor-
ica≠∆≠∆y exerted on it as both an embodied and a performative articu≠∆ation of
identity.
Whether interpreted broad≠∆y or narrow≠∆y, then, the cate≠àory ‘‘bodies
in contact’’ can enab≠∆e us to appreciate histories we mi≠àht not otherwise
have seen and to make visib≠∆e connections between the co≠∆onia≠∆ and the
≠à≠∆oba≠∆ that scho≠∆ars are, in some instances, just be≠àinnin≠à to make into
‘‘history.’’ As important, recoverin≠à women and ≠àender in wor≠∆d history
not on≠∆y permits us to see them as historica≠∆ subjects, it a≠∆so means that we
have to understand empires as ≠àendered projects — endeavors in which,
it turns out, women and ≠àender mattered tremendous≠∆y. Our focus on
bodies, then, reorients both imperia≠∆ history and wor≠∆d history by rootin≠à
the phenomenon of ‘‘encounter ’’ in a ≠àendered, sexua≠∆ized context, and
often throws ≠∆i≠àht on practices of dai≠∆y ≠∆ife and experience that are other-
wise obscured. As important, it a≠∆≠∆ows us to reima≠àine the ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ past as a
space of contact between women and men, between ‘‘woman’’ and co≠∆o-
nizer, between co≠∆onizin≠à men and cu≠∆tures that were often considered
‘‘e√eminate’’ by imperia≠∆ observers. The fact that these ≠àendered re≠∆ation-
ships recur fair≠∆y consistent≠∆y across empires, across the wor≠∆d — as ex-
hibited from the ear≠∆y modern period down to the ≠∆ate twentieth century,
from China to the Americas and in a variety of ≠∆ocations in between — su≠à≠àests that it is a subject that under≠àraduates need to ≠∆earn about if they
are to have as fu≠∆≠∆ an understandin≠à of wor≠∆d history as possib≠∆e. This
co≠∆≠∆ection represents a be≠àinnin≠à in that direction; we hope it wi≠∆≠∆ stimu-
≠∆ate debate, discussion, and even perhaps a new ≠àeneration of historians
interested in further exp≠∆orin≠à the re≠∆ations between bodies, empires, and
the wor≠∆ds of the past.
Notes
∞. Laura Bri≠à≠às, Reprodu]fi]bg Empire: Ra]fe, Sex, S]fie]b]fe a]bd U.S. Imperialism i]b Puerto
Ri]fo (Berke≠∆ey: University of Ca≠∆ifornia Press, 2002), 1.
≤. This vision of empires and imperia≠∆ history is deve≠∆oped in Tony Ba≠∆≠∆antyne, Orie]b-
talism a]bd Ra]fe: Arya]bism i]b the British Empire (Basin≠àstoke, En≠à≠∆and: Pa≠∆≠àrave-
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 14I]btrodu]ftio]b
Macmi≠∆≠∆an, 2001). More recent≠∆y, a s≠∆i≠àht≠∆y di√erent vision of the ‘‘web’’ has been
harnessed to wor≠∆d history in J. R. McNei≠∆≠∆ and Wi≠∆≠∆iam H. McNei≠∆≠∆, The Huma]b Web:
A Bird’s-eye View of World History (New York: Norton, 2003).
≥. One recent exception is Robert Ti≠ànor et a≠∆., Worlds Together, Worlds Apart (New
York: Norton 2002).
∂. Peter N. Stearns, Ge]bder i]b World History (London: Rout≠∆ed≠àe, 2000), 4.
∑. For a discussion of this prob≠∆em, see Mar≠àaret Strobe≠∆, ‘‘Women’s History, Gender
History, and European Co≠∆onia≠∆ism,’’ in Colo]bialism a]bd the Moder]b World: Sele]fted
Studies, ed. Gre≠àory B≠∆ue, Martin Bunton, and Ra≠∆ph Crozier (New York: M.E.
Sharpe, 2002), 51 – 68.
∏. Many thanks to Ade≠∆e Perry for this point.
π. For an extreme≠∆y compe≠∆≠∆in≠à version of this project, see Va≠∆erie Traub, ‘‘The G≠∆oba≠∆-
Body,’’ in Early Moder]b Visual Culture: Represe]btatio]b, Ra]fe a]bd Empire i]b Re]baissa]b]fe
E]bgla]bd, ed. Peter Erickson and C≠∆ark Hu≠∆se (P hi≠∆ade≠∆phia: University of Pennsy≠∆vania
Press, 2000), 44 – 97.
∫. We are ≠àratefu≠∆ to C≠∆are Crowston for ur≠àin≠à this point.
Ω. For one exception, see Sarah Shaver Hu≠àhes and Brady Hu≠àhes, eds., Wome]b i]b
World History, 2 vo≠∆s. (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1997).
∞≠. See, for examp≠∆e, Char≠∆es Ti≠∆≠∆y, Big Stru]ftures, Large Pro]fesses, Huge Compariso]bs
(New York: Russe≠∆≠∆ Sa≠àe Foundation, 1984).
∞∞. For more on te≠∆eo≠∆o≠àies of ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ization from a feminist perspective, see Jean
A≠∆≠∆man and Antoinette Burton, eds., ‘‘Destination G≠∆oba≠∆ization? Women, Gender and
Comparative Co≠∆onia≠∆ Histories in the New Mi≠∆≠∆ennium,’’ Jour]bal of Colo]bialism a]bd
Colo]bial History 4, 1 (2003) http: // muse.jhu.edu / journa≠∆s / cch / .
∞≤. Oswa≠∆d Spen≠à≠∆er, The De]fli]be of the West (London: A≠∆≠∆en and Unwin, 1922);
Arno≠∆d J. Toynbee, A Study of History, 10 vo≠∆s. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934 –
1954); H. G. We≠∆≠∆s, Outli]be of History (London: Casse≠∆≠∆, 1920). Spen≠à≠∆er certain≠∆y
reco≠ànized the si≠ànificance of non-Western civi≠∆izations, but for him on≠∆y ‘‘Western
Civi≠∆ization’’ had fu≠∆fi≠∆≠∆ed its potentia≠∆, and the crisis that he dia≠ànosed in the ear≠∆y
twentieth century reflected a crisis born out of the dec≠∆ine of ‘‘Western Civi≠∆ization.’’
∞≥. For a bracin≠à account of the stakes of American civi≠∆ization for 1990s po≠∆itics, see
Thomas C. Patterson, I]bve]bti]bg Wester]b Civilizatio]b (New York: Month≠∆y Review
Press, 1997), 9 – 15. For an equa≠∆≠∆y compe≠∆≠∆in≠à ana≠∆ysis of Western Civ textbooks, see
Danie≠∆ A. Se≠àa≠∆, ‘‘Western Civ and the Sta≠àin≠à of History in American Hi≠àher Edu-
cation,’’ Ameri]fa]b Histori]fal Review 105, 3 (2000); a≠∆so avai≠∆ab≠∆e at http: // www
.historycooperative.or≠à / journa≠∆s / ahr / 105.3 / ah000770.htm≠∆.
∞∂. McNei≠∆≠∆ reflects critica≠∆≠∆y on the ‘‘Rise of the West’’ mode≠∆ in his essays: ‘‘The Rise of
the West after Twenty-five Years,’’ Jour]bal of World History 1, 1 (1990): 1 – 21 and ‘‘Wor≠∆d
History and the Rise and Fa≠∆≠∆ of the West,’’ Jour]bal of World History 9, 2 (1998): 215 –
236. In J. R. McNei≠∆≠∆ and Wi≠∆≠∆iam H. McNei≠∆≠∆, The Huma]b Web, his work is fashionin≠à
a new understandin≠à of the mu≠∆tip≠∆e forms of contact and interdependence that have
shaped human history.
∞∑. Janet L. Abu-Lu≠àhod, Before Europea]b Hegemo]by: The World System
a.d. 1250 – 1350
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020 Bodies, Empires, a]bd World Histories15
∞∏. See S. A. M. Adshead, Chi]ba i]b World History (Macmi≠∆≠∆an, 1987) and Ce]btral Asia
i]b World History (New York: Macmi≠∆≠∆an, 1993); David Christian, A History of Russia,
Ce]btral Asia, a]bd Mo]bgolia (Oxford: B≠∆ackwe≠∆≠∆, 1998).
∞π. Much of this work is synthesized in the Cambridge History of Chi]ba. For a co≠∆≠∆ection
of work that exp≠∆ores the connections between the deve≠∆opment of the Chinese econ-
omy and ≠à≠∆oba≠∆ trade, see Dennis O. F≠∆ynn and Arturo Girá≠∆dez, eds., Metals a]bd
Mo]bies i]b a]b Emergi]bg Global E]fo]bomy (Brookfie≠∆d, Vt.: Variorum, 1997). A≠∆so see the
provocative ar≠àuments forwarded in Dennis O. F≠∆ynn and Arturo Girá≠∆dez, ‘‘Born with
a ‘Si≠∆ver Spoon’: The Ori≠àin of Wor≠∆d Trade in 1571,’’ Jour]bal of World History 6, 2
(1995): 201 – 221. On South Asia and the Indian Ocean, see Satish Chandra, The I]bdia]b
O]fea]b: Exploratio]bs i]b History, Commer]fe a]bd Politi]fs (New De≠∆hi: Sa≠àe, 1987); K. N.
Chaudhuri, Trade a]bd Civilisatio]b i]b the I]bdia]b O]fea]b: A]b E]fo]bomi]f History from the Rise
of Islam to 1750 (Cambrid≠àe, En≠à≠∆and: Cambrid≠àe University Press, 1985); Kenneth
McPherson, The I]bdia]b O]fea]b: A History of People a]bd the Sea (De≠∆hi: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1993).
∞∫. David Landes, The Wealth a]bd Poverty of Natio]bs: Why Some Are So Ri]fh a]bd Some So
Poor (New York: Norton, 1998), 523; compare the works ≠∆isted in the next two notes.
∞Ω. Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Diverge]b]fe: Chi]ba, Europe, a]bd the Maki]bg of the
Moder]b World E]fo]bomy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000); Kenneth
Pomeranz and Steven Topik, The World That Trade Created: Culture, So]fiety, a]bd the
World E]fo]bomy, 1400 – the Prese]bt (Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1999); and the essays in
the forum on the ‘‘≠àreat diver≠àence’’ in Iti]berario 24, 3 / 4 (2000).
≤≠. See C. A. Bay≠∆y, Imperial Meridia]b: The British Empire a]bd the World 1780 – 1830
(White P≠∆ains, N.Y.: Lon≠àman, 1989) and Empire a]bd I]bformatio]b: I]btellige]b]fe Gather-
i]bg a]bd So]fial Commu]bi]fatio]b i]b I]bdia, 1780 – 1870 (Cambrid≠àe, En≠à≠∆and: Cambrid≠àe
University Press, 1996).
≤∞. C. A. Bay≠∆y, ‘‘The First A≠àe of G≠∆oba≠∆ Imperia≠∆ism, c. 1760 – 1830,’’ Jour]bal of Im-
perial a]bd Commo]bwealth History 26, 2 (1998): 28 – 47; Tony Ba≠∆≠∆antyne, ‘‘Empire,
Know≠∆ed≠àe and Cu≠∆ture: From Proto-≠à≠∆oba≠∆ization to Modern G≠∆oba≠∆ization,’’ in
Globalizatio]b i]b World History, ed. A. G. Hopkins (London: Pim≠∆ico, 2001), 115 – 140.
≤≤. See, for examp≠∆e, Arjun Appadurai, Moder]bity at Large: Cultural Dime]bsio]bs of
Globalizatio]b (Minneapo≠∆is: University of Minnesota Press, 1990); Michae≠∆ Geyer and
Char≠∆es Bri≠àht, ‘‘Wor≠∆d History in a G≠∆oba≠∆ A≠àe,’’ Ameri]fa]b Histori]fal Review 100, 4
(October 1995): 1034 – 1060; Akira Iriye, ‘‘The Internationa≠∆ization of History,’’ Amer-
i]fa]b Histori]fal Review 94, 1 (February 1989): 1 – 10; Adam McKeown, Chi]bese Migra]bt
Networks a]bd Cultural Cha]bge: Peru, Chi]fago, Hawaii, 1900 – 1936 (Chica≠ào: University
of Chica≠ào Press, 2001).
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/617519/9780822386452-001.pdfby University of California Santa Cruz useron 29 July 2020
