World history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the academic field. For a global overview of historical events, see history of the world. For the album by Mad at the World, see World History (album).

World history, global history or transnational history (not to be confused with diplomatic or international history) is a field of historical study that emerged as a distinct academic field in the 1980s. It examines history from a global perspective. It is not to be confused with comparative history, which, like world history, deals with the history of multiple cultures and nations, but does not do so on a global scale.

World history looks for common patterns that emerge across all cultures. World historians use a thematic approach, with two major focal points: integration (how processes of world history have drawn people of the world together) and difference (how patterns of world history reveal the diversity of the human experience).

Establishment of the field[edit]

The advent of world history as a distinct academic field of study can be traced to 1980s,[1] and was heralded by the creation of the World History Association and graduate programs at a handful of universities. Over the next decades scholarly publications, professional and academic organizations, and graduate programs in world history proliferated. World History has often displaced Western Civilization in the required curriculum of American high schools and universities, and is supported by new textbooks with a world history approach.

Organizations[edit]

  • The H-World discussion list[2] serves as a network of communication among practitioners of world history, with discussions among scholars, announcements, syllabi, bibliographies and book reviews.
  • World History Association (WHA) - Established in the 1980s, the WHA is predominantly an American phenomenon.[4]

History[edit]

Pre-modern[edit]

The study of world history, as distinct from national history, has existed in many world cultures. However, early forms of world history were not truly global, and were limited to only the regions known by the historian.

In Ancient China, Chinese world history, that of China and the surrounding people of East Asia, was based on the dynastic cycle articulated by Sima Qian in circa 100 BC. Sima Qian's model is based on the Mandate of Heaven. Rulers rise when they united China, then are overthrown when a ruling dynasty became corrupt.[5] Each new dynasty begins virtuous and strong, but then decays, provoking the transfer of Heaven's mandate to a new ruler. The test of virtue in a new dynasty is success in being obeyed by China and neighboring barbarians. After 2000 years Sima Qian's model still dominates scholarship, although the dynastic cycle is no longer used for modern Chinese history.[6]

In Ancient Greece, Herodotus (5th century BC), as founder of Greek historiography.,[7] presents insightful and lively discussions of the customs, geography, and history of Mediterranean peoples, particularly the Egyptians. However, his great rival Thucydides promptly discarded Herodotus's all-embracing approach to history, offering instead a more precise, sharply focused monograph, dealing not with vast empires over the centuries but with 27 years of war between Athens and Sparta. In Rome, the vast, patriotic history of Rome by Livy (59 BC-17 AD) approximated Herodotean inclusiveness;[8] Polybius (c.200-c.118 BC) aspired to combine the logical rigor of Thucydides with the scope of Herodotus.[9]

In Central Asia, The Secret History of Mongols is regarded as the single significant native Mongolian account of Genghis Khan. The Secret History is regarded as a piece of classic literature in both Mongolia and the rest of the world.

In the Middle East, Ala'iddin Ata-Malik Juvayni (1226–1283) was a Persian historian who wrote an account of the Mongol Empire entitled Ta' rīkh-i jahān-gushā (History of the World Conqueror).[10] The standard edition of Juvayni is published under the title Ta' rīkh-i jahān-gushā, ed. Mirza Muhammad Qazwini, 3 vol, Gibb Memorial Series 16 (Leiden and London, 1912–37). An English translation by John Andrew Boyle "The History of the World-Conqueror" was republished in 1997.

Rashīd al-Dīn Fadhl-allāh Hamadānī (1247–1318), was a Persian physician of Jewish origin, polymathic writer and historian, who wrote an enormous Islamic history, the Jami al-Tawarikh, in the Persian language, often considered a landmark in intercultural historiography and a key document on the Ilkhanids (13th and 14th century).[11] His encyclopedic knowledge of a wide range of cultures from Mongolia to China to the Steppes of Central Eurasia to Persia, the Arab lands, and Europe, provide the most direct access to information on the late Mongol era. His descriptions also highlight the manner in which the Mongol Empire and its emphasis on trade resulted in an atmosphere of cultural and religious exchange and intellectual ferment, resulting in the transmission of a host of ideas from East to West and vice versa.

One Arab scholar, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1409) broke with traditionalism and offered a model of historical change in Muqaddimah, an exposition of the methodology of scientific history. Ibn Khaldun focused on the reasons for the rise and fall of civilization, arguing that the causes of change are to be sought in the economic and social structure of society. His work was largely ignored in the Muslim world.[12] Otherwise the Muslim, Chinese and Indian intellectuals held fast to a religious traditionalism, leaving them unprepared to advise national leaders on how to confront the European intrusion into Asia after 1500.

Early modern[edit]

During the Renaissance in Europe, history was written about states or nations. The study of history changed during the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Voltaire described the history of certain ages that he considered important, rather than describing events in chronological order. History became an independent discipline. It was not called philosophia historiae anymore, but merely history (historia).

Giambattista Vico (1668–1744) in Italy wrote Scienza nuova seconda (The New Science) in 1725, which argued history as the expression of human will and deeds. He thought that men are historical entities and that human nature changes over time. Each epoch should be seen as a whole in which all aspects of culture—art, religion, philosophy, politics, and economics—are interrelated (a point developed later by Oswald Spengler). Vico showed that myth, poetry, and art are entry points to discovering the true spirit of a culture. Vico outlined a conception of historical development in which great cultures, like Rome, undergo cycles of growth and decline. His ideas were out of fashion during the Enlightenment, but influenced the Romantic historians after 1800.

A major theoretical foundation for world history was given by German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, who saw the modern Prussian state as the latest (though often confused with the highest) stage of world development.

Contemporary[edit]

World history became a popular genre in the 20th century with universal history.

In the 1920s several best-sellers dealt with the history of the world, including surveys The Story of Mankind (1921) by Hendrik Willem van Loon and The Outline of History (1918) by H.G. Wells.

Influential writers who have reached wide audiences include H. G. Wells, Oswald Spengler, Arnold J. Toynbee, Pitirim Sorokin, Carroll Quigley, Christopher Dawson,[13] and Lewis Mumford. Scholars working the field include Eric Voegelin,[14] William Hardy McNeill and Michael Mann.[15]

Spengler's Decline of the West (2 vol 1919–1922) compared nine organic cultures: Egyptian (3400 BC-1200 BC), Indian (1500 BC-1100 BC), Chinese (1300 BC-AD 200), Classical (1100 BC-400 BC), Byzantine (AD 300–1100), Aztec (AD 1300–1500), Arabian (AD 300–1250), Mayan (AD 600–960), and Western (AD 900–1900). His book was a smashing success among intellectuals worldwide as it predicted the disintegration of European and American civilization after a violent "age of Caesarism," arguing by detailed analogies with other civilizations. It deepened the post-World War I pessimism in Europe, and was warmly received by intellectuals in China, India and Latin America who hoped his predictions of the collapse of European empires would soon come true.[16]

In 1936–1954, Toynbee's ten-volume A Study of History came out in three separate installments. He followed Spengler in taking a comparative topical approach to independent civilizations. Toynbee said they displayed striking parallels in their origin, growth, and decay. Toynbee rejected Spengler's biological model of civilizations as organisms with a typical life span of 1,000 years. Like Sima Qian, Toynbee explained decline as due to their moral failure. Many readers rejoiced in his implication (in vols. 1–6) that only a return to some form of Catholicism could halt the breakdown of western civilization which began with the Reformation. Volumes 7–10, published in 1954, abandoned the religious message, and his popular audience slipped away, while scholars picked apart his mistakes.,[17]

McNeill wrote The Rise of the West (1963) to improve upon Toynbee by showing how the separate civilizations of Eurasia interacted from the very beginning of their history, borrowing critical skills from one another, and thus precipitating still further change as adjustment between traditional old and borrowed new knowledge and practice became necessary. McNeill took a broad approach organized around the interactions of peoples across the globe. Such interactions have become both more numerous and more continual and substantial in recent times. Before about 1500, the network of communication between cultures was that of Eurasia. The term for these areas of interaction differ from one world historian to another and include world-system and ecumene. Whatever it is called, the importance of these intercultural contacts has begun to be recognized by many scholars.[18]

History education[edit]

United States[edit]

In college curricula of the United States, world history became a popular replacement for courses on Western Civilization, beginning in the 1970s. Professors Patrick Manning, previously of Northeastern University and now at the University of Pittsburgh's World History Center; and Ross E. Dunn at San Diego State are leaders in promoting innovative teaching methods.[19]

In schools of architecture in the U.S. the National Architectural Accrediting Board now requires that schools teach history that includes a non-west or global perspective. This reflects a decade-long effort to move past the standard Euro-centric approach that had dominated the field.[20]

Recent themes[edit]

In recent years, the relationship between African and world history has shifted rapidly from one of antipathy to one of engagement and synthesis. Reynolds (2007) surveys the relationship between African and world histories, with an emphasis on the tension between the area studies paradigm and the growing world-history emphasis on connections and exchange across regional boundaries. A closer examination of recent exchanges and debates over the merits of this exchange is also featured. Reynolds sees the relationship between African and world history as a measure of the changing nature of historical inquiry over the past century.[21]

Marxian theory of history[edit]

The Marxist theory of historical materialism claims the history of the world is fundamentally determined by the material conditions at any given time – in other words, the relationships which people have with each other in order to fulfil basic needs such as feeding, clothing and housing themselves and their families.[22] Overall, Marx and Engels claimed to have identified five successive stages of the development of these material conditions in Western Europe.[23]

The theory divides the history of the world into the following periods:[24][25][26][27][28]

Primitive communism[edit]

The First Stage: is usually called primitive communism. When it happened Marx did not say. It has the following characteristics.[citation needed]

  • Shared property: there is no concept of ownership beyond individual possessions. All is shared by the tribe to ensure its survival.[citation needed]
  • Hunting and gathering: tribal societies have yet to develop large scale agriculture and so their survival is a daily struggle.[citation needed]
  • Proto-democracy: there is usually no concept of "leadership" yet. So tribes are led by the best warrior if there is war, the best diplomat if they have steady contact with other tribes and so forth. Marx did not say when it happened.

Slave society[edit]

The Second Stage: may be called slave society, considered to be the beginning of "class society" where private property appears.[citation needed]

  • Class: here the idea of class appears. There is always a slave-owning ruling class and the slaves themselves.
  • Statism: the state develops during this stage as a tool for the slave-owners to use and control the slaves.
  • Agriculture: people learn to cultivate plants and animals on a large enough scale to support large populations.
  • Democracy and authoritarianism: these opposites develop at the same stage. Democracy arises first with the development of the republican city-state, followed by the totalitarian empire.
  • Private property: citizens now own more than personal property. Land ownership is especially important during a time of agricultural development.

Feudalism[edit]

The Third Stage: may be called feudalism; it appears after slave society collapses. This was most obvious during the European Middle Ages when society went from slavery to feudalism. Historians in recent decades have largely abandoned the concept of feudalism. However, when the communists came to power and China in 1949, they required that all historians accept the Marxist theory of feudalism. It became the official orthodoxy, regardless of its weaknesses.[29]

  • Aristocracy: the state is ruled by monarchs who inherit their positions, or at times marry or conquer their ways into leadership.
  • Theocracy: this is a time of largely religious rule. When there is only one religion in the land and its organizations affect all parts of daily life.
  • Hereditary classes: castes can sometimes form and one's class is determined at birth with no form of advancement. This was the case with India.
  • Nation-state: nations are formed from the remnants of the fallen empires. Sometimes to rebuild themselves into empires once more. Such as England's transition from a province to an empire. However, Robert Bucholz, Newton Key say that recent historians, "examining a wider array of sources with more circumspection, have largely abandoned earlier assumptions" including Marxism.[30]

Capitalism[edit]

Marx pays special attention to this stage in human development. The bulk of his work is devoted to analysing the mechanisms of capitalism, which in western society classically arose "red in tooth and claw" from feudal society in a revolutionary movement. In capitalism, the profit motive rules and people, freed from serfdom, work for the capitalists for wages. The capitalist class are free to spread their laissez faire practices around the world. In the capitalist-controlled parliament, laws are made to protect wealth.

Capitalism may be considered the Fourth Stage in the sequence. It appears after the bourgeois revolution when the capitalists (or their merchant predecessors) overthrow the feudal system. Capitalism is categorized by the following:

  • Market economy: In capitalism, the entire economy is guided by market forces. Supporters of laissez faire economics argue that there should be little or no intervention from the government under capitalism. Marxists, however, such as Lenin in his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, argue that the capitalist government is a powerful instrument for the furtherance of capitalism and the capitalist nation-state, particularly in the conquest of markets abroad.
  • Private property: The means of production are no longer in the hands of the monarchy and its nobles, but rather they are controlled by the capitalists. The capitalists control the means of production through commercial enterprises (such as corporations) which aim to maximise profit.
  • Parliamentary democracy: The capitalists tend to govern through an elected centralised parliament or congress, rather than under an autocracy. Capitalist (bourgeois) democracy, although it may be extended to the whole population, does not necessarily lead to universal suffrage. Historically it has excluded (by force, segregation, legislation or other means) sections of the population such as women, slaves, ex-slaves, people of colour or those on low income. The government acts on behalf of, and is controlled by, the capitalists through various methods.
  • Wages: In capitalism, workers are rewarded according to their contract with their employer. Power elites propagate the illusion that market forces mean wages converge to an equilibrium at which workers are paid for precisely the value of their services. In reality workers are paid less than the value of their productivity — the difference forming profit for the employer. In this sense all paid employment is exploitation and the worker is "alienated" from their work. Insofar as the profit-motive drives the market, it is impossible for workers to be paid for the full value of their labour, as all employers will act in the same manner.
  • Imperialism: Wealthy countries seek to dominate poorer countries in order to gain access to raw materials and to provide captive markets for finished products. This is done directly through war, the threat of war, or the export of capital. The capitalist's control over the state can play an essential part in the development of capitalism, to the extent the state directs warfare and other foreign intervention.
  • Financial institutions: Banks and capital markets such as stock exchanges direct unused capital to where it is needed. They reduce barriers to entry in all markets, especially to the poor; it is in this way that banks dramatically improve class mobility.
  • Monopolistic tendencies: The natural, unrestrained market forces will create monopolies from the most successful commercial entities.

But according to Marx, capitalism, like slave society and feudalism, also has critical failings — inner contradictions which will lead to its downfall. The working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the "grave digger" of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces. The rest is surplus value — the capitalist's profit, which Marx calls the "unpaid labour of the working class." The capitalists are forced by competition to attempt to drive down the wages of the working class to increase their profits, and this creates conflict between the classes, and gives rise to the development of class consciousness in the working class. The working class, through trade union and other struggles, becomes conscious of itself as an exploited class. In the view of classical Marxism, the struggles of the working class against the attacks of the capitalist class will eventually lead the working class to establish its own collective control over production.

Socialism[edit]

After the working class gains class consciousness and mounts a revolution against the capitalists, socialism, which may be considered the Fifth Stage, will be attained, if the workers are successful.

Socialism may be characterised as follows:

  • Common property: the means of production are taken from the hands of a few capitalists and put in the hands of the workers. This translates into the democratic communes controlling the means of production.
  • Council democracy: Marx, basing himself on a thorough study of Paris Commune, believed that the workers would govern themselves through system of communes. He called this the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, overthrowing the dictatorship (governance) of capital, would democratically plan production and the resources of the planet.

Marx explained that, since socialism, the first stage of communism, would be "in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges", each worker would naturally expect to be awarded according to the amount of labor he contributes, despite the fact that each worker's ability and family circumstances would differ, so that the results would still be unequal at this stage, although fully supported by social provision.

Socialist society, having risen from a self conscious movement of the vast majority, would be self-governing:

Academic interpretations[edit]

Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence by G. A. Cohen is a key work for the philosophical school of Analytical Marxism. In it, Cohen advances a sophisticated technological-determinist interpretation of Marx "in which history is, fundamentally, the growth of human productive power, and forms of society rise and fall according as they enable or impede that growth."[32]

Cohen proposes that explanation in Marx’s conception of the social system is functional, by which he means roughly that the character of what is explained is determined by its effect on what explains it, so that economic relations of production profoundly affect productive forces (technology), and legal-political superstructures strongly condition economic foundations. Thus, in the latter case, in one direction a society’s legal-political superstructure stabilizes or entrenches its economic structure, but in the other direction the economic relations determine the character of the superstructure, so that in this sense the economic base is primary and the superstructure secondary. It is precisely because the superstructure strongly affects the base that the base selects that superstructure. As Charles Taylor puts it, "These two directions of influence are so far from being rivals that they are actually complementary. The functional explanation requires that the secondary factor tend to have a causal effect on the primary, for this dispositional fact is the key feature of the explanation."[25] It is because the influences in the two directions are not symmetrical that it makes sense to speak of primary and secondary factors, even where one is giving a non-reductionist, "holistic" account of social interaction.

The level of development of society’s productive forces (i.e., society’s technological powers, including tools, machinery, raw materials, and labour power) determines society’s economic structure, in the sense that it selects a structure of economic relations that tends best to facilitate further technological growth. In historical explanation, the overall primacy of the productive forces can be understood in terms of two key theses:

In saying that productive forces have a universal tendency to develop, Cohen’s reading of Marx is not claiming that productive forces always develop or that they never decline. Their development may be temporarily blocked, but because human beings have a rational interest in developing their capacities to control their interactions with external nature in order to satisfy their wants, the historical tendency is strongly toward further development of these capacities.

Criticism[edit]

The Marxian theory of history is normally considered the intellectual basis of Marxism, proposing that technological advances in modes of production inevitably lead to changes in the social relations of production.[34] This economic 'base' of society supports, is reflected by and influences the ideological 'superstructure' which encompasses culture, religion, politics and all other aspects of humanity's social consciousness.[35] Many critics have argued that this is an oversimplification of the nature of society; they claim that the influence of ideas, culture and other aspects of what Marx called the superstructure are just as important as the economic base to the course of society, if not more so. However, Marxism does not claim that the economic base of society is the only determining element in society as demonstrated by the following letter written by Friedrich Engels, Marx's long-time contributor:

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.[36]

Regna Darnell and Frederic Gleach argue that, in the Soviet Union, the Marxian theory of history was the only accepted orthodoxy[dubious ], and inadvertently stifled research into other schools of thought on history.[37][unreliable source?] However, adherents of Marx's theories argue that Stalin's distortions of Marxism cannot be attributed to flaws in Marxian theoretics itself.[38]

World historians[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

  • Adas, Michael. Essays on Twentieth-Century History (2010); historiographic essays on world history conceptualizing the "long" 20th century, from the 1870s to the early 2000s.
  • Bentley, Jerry H., ed. The Oxford Handbook of World History (Oxford University Press, 2011)
  • Bentley, Jerry H. Shapes of World History in Twentieth Century Scholarship. Essays on Global and Comparative History Series. (1996)
  • Costello, Paul. World Historians and Their Goals: Twentieth-Century Answers to Modernism (1993).
  • Curtin, Philip D. "Depth, Span, and Relevance," The American Historical Review, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Feb., 1984), pp. 1–9 in JSTOR
  • Dunn, Ross E., ed. The New World History: A Teacher's Companion. (2000). 607pp. ISBN 978-0-312-18327-1 online review
  • Frye, Northrop. "Spengler Revisited" in Northrop Frye on modern culture (2003), pp 297–382, first published 1974; online
  • Gombrich, Ernst "A Little History of the World" (1936 & 1995)
  • Hughes, H. Stuart. Oswald Spengler (1952).
  • Hughes-Warrington, Marnie. Palgrave Advances in World Histories (2005), 256pp, articles by scholars
  • Francis D.K. Ching, Mark Jarzombek and Vikram Prakash and Francis D.K. Ching, ""A Global History of Architecture,"" (New York: Wiley & Sons, August 2006)
  • Mark Jarzombek, Architecture of First Societies: A Global Perspective, (New York: Wiley & Sons, August 2013)
  • Lang, Michael. "Globalization and Global History in Toynbee," Journal of World History 22#4 Dec. 2011 pp. 747–783 in project MUSE
  • McInnes, Neil. "The Great Doomsayer: Oswald Spengler Reconsidered." National Interest 1997 (48): 65–76. Issn: 0884-9382 Fulltext: Ebsco
  • McNeill, William H. "The Changing Shape of World History." History and Theory 1995 34(2): 8–26. Issn: 0018-2656 in JSTOR
  • McNeill, William H., Jerry H. Bentley, and David Christian, eds. Berkshire Encyclopedia Of World History (5 vol 2005)
  • Manning, Patrick. Navigating World History: Historians Create a Global Past (2003), an important guide to the entire field excerpt and text search; online review
  • Mazlish, Bruce. "Comparing Global History to World History," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Winter, 1998), pp. 385–395 in JSTOR
  • National Center for History in the Schools at UCLA. World History: The Big Eras, A Compact History of Humankind (2009), 96pp
  • Neiberg, Michael S. Warfare in World History (2001) online edition
  • O'Brien, Patrick K., ed. Atlas of World History. (2002)
  • Patel, Klaus Kiran: Transnational History, European History Online, Mainz: Institute of European History(2011) retrieved: November 11, 2011.
  • Richards, Michael D. Revolutions in World History (2003) online edition
  • Roberts, J. M., The New Penguin History of the World (2007)
  • Roupp, Heidi, ed. Teaching World History: A Resource Book. (1997), 274pp; online edition
  • Smil, Vaclav. Energy in World History (1994) online edition
  • Tellier, Luc-Normand. Urban World History (2009), PUQ, 650 pages; online edition
  • Watts, Sheldon. Disease and Medicine in World History (2003) online edition

Modern world[edit]

  • Bayly, Christopher Alan. The birth of the modern world, 1780-1914: global connections and comparisons (Blackwell, 2004)
  • Osterhammel, Jürgen. The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century (Princeton University Press, 2014), 1167pp
  • Stearns, Peter N. ed. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World: 1750 to the Present (8 vol. 2008)
  • Stearns, Peter N. The Industrial Revolution in World History (1998) online edition
  • Szulc, Tad. Then and Now: How the World Has Changed since W.W. II. First ed. New York: W. Morrow & Co. (1990). 515 p. ISBN 0-688-07558-4

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Peter Gran (28 February 2009). The Rise of the Rich: A New View of Modern World History. Syracuse University Press. p. XVI. ISBN 978-0-8156-3171-2. Retrieved 25 May 2012. 
  2. ^ see H-World
  3. ^ see JWH Website
  4. ^ History Association - Mission
  5. ^ Sima Qian, Records of the Grand Historian: Qin Dynasty (3rd ed. 1995) excerpt and text search; Burton Watson, Ssu-ma Ch'ien: Grand Historian of China (1958)
  6. ^ S. Y. Teng, "Chinese Historiography in the Last Fifty Years," The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Feb., 1949), pp. 131–156 in JSTOR
  7. ^ K.H. Waters, Herodotus the Historian (1985)
  8. ^ Patrick G. Walsh, Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (1961)
  9. ^ Frank W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, (3 vols. 1957–82)
  10. ^ History of the World Conqueror by Ala Ad Din Ata Malik Juvaini, translated by John Andrew Boyle, Harvard University Press 1958, Project Gutenberg on line edition
  11. ^ Elliot, H. M. (Henry Miers), Sir; John Dowson. "10. Jámi'u-t Tawáríkh, of Rashid-al-Din". The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period (Vol 3.). London : Trübner & Co.. https://archive.org/stream/cu31924073036737#page/n15/mode/2up.
  12. ^ Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History ed. by N. J. Dawood, Bruce Lawrence, and Franz Rosenthal (2004) excerpt and text search
  13. ^ Bradley J. Birzer, Sanctifying the World: The Augustinian Life and Mind of Christopher Dawson (2007)
  14. ^ Michael P. Federici, Eric Voegelin: The Restoration of Order (2002)
  15. ^ Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power: Volume 1, A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760 (1986) excerpt and text search
  16. ^ Neil McInnes, "The Great Doomsayer: Oswald Spengler Reconsidered." National Interest 1997 (48): 65–76. Fulltext: Ebsco
  17. ^ William H. McNeill, Arnold J. Toynbee a Life (1989)
  18. ^ William H. McNeill, "The Changing Shape of World History." History and Theory 1995 34(2): 8–26.
  19. ^ Patrick Manning, Navigating World History: Historians Create a Global Past (2003); Ross E. Dunn, ed., The New World History: A Teacher's Companion. (2000).
  20. ^ See Points 8 and 9. http://www.naab.org/adaview.aspx?pageid=120
  21. ^ Jonathan T. Reynolds, "Africa and World History: from Antipathy to Synergy." History Compass 2007 5(6): 1998–2013. ISSN 1478-0542 Fulltext: [1. History Compass]
  22. ^ See, in particular, Marx and Engels, The German Ideology
  23. ^ Marx makes no claim to have produced a master key to history. Historical materialism is not "an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself" (Marx, Karl: Letter to editor of the Russian paper Otetchestvennye Zapiskym, 1877). His ideas, he explains, are based on a concrete study of the actual conditions that pertained in Europe.
  24. ^ Marx, Early writings, Penguin, 1975, p. 426.
  25. ^ a b Charles Taylor, “Critical Notice”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10 (1980), p. 330.
  26. ^ Marx and Engels, The Critique of the Gotha Programme
  27. ^ Marx and Engels, The Civil War in France
  28. ^ Gewirth, Alan (1998). The Community of Rights (2 ed.). University of Chicago Press. p. 168. ISBN 9780226288819. Retrieved 2012-12-29. Marxists sometimes distinguish between 'personal property' and 'private property,' the former consisting in consumer goods directly used by the owner, while the latter is private ownership of the major means of production. 
  29. ^ T. J. Byres; Harbans Mukhia (1985). Feudalism and Non-European Societies. Psychology Press. pp. 208–9. 
  30. ^ Robert Bucholz; Newton Key (2013). Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History. John Wiley & Sons. p. 213. 
  31. ^ Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
  32. ^ G. A. Cohen, Karl Marx’s Theory of History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. x.
  33. ^ Cohen, p. 134.
  34. ^ "The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist."Marx, Karl. "The Poverty of Philosophy". Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 2008-05-23. 
  35. ^ Marx, Karl (2001). Preface to a Critique of Political Economy. London: The Electric Book Company. pp. 7–8. 
  36. ^ Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Selected Correspondence. p 498
  37. ^ Regna Darnell; Frederic Gleach (2007). Histories of Anthropology Annual. U of Nebraska Press. p. 56. 
  38. ^ [1]
  39. ^ See revised edition
  40. ^ see Philosophy of History
  41. ^ See McNeill, The Pursuit of Truth: A Historian's Memoir (2005)
  42. ^ See excerpt
  43. ^ B. V. Johnston, Pitirim A. Sorokin an Intellectual Biography (1995)
  44. ^ William H. McNeill, Arnold J. Toynbee: A Life (1990)
  45. ^ Jeffrey C. Herndon, Eric Voegelin and the Problem of Christian Political Order (2007) excerpt and text search

Further reading[edit]

  • The Changing Shape of World History, William H. McNeill, Paper originally presented at the History and Theory World History Conference, March 25–26, 1994. Originally at www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/041.html

External links[edit]

Professional groups
Resources