Product Description

John Hobson challenges the ethnocentric bias of mainstream accounts of the "Rise of the West" that assume that Europeans have pioneered their own development, and that the East has been a passive by-stander. Describing the rise of what he calls the "Oriental West", Hobson argues that Europe first assimilated many Eastern inventions, and then appropriated Eastern resources through imperialism. Hobson's book thus propels the hitherto marginalized Eastern peoples to the forefront of the story of progressive world history.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #159965 in Books
• Published on: 2004-07-05
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 392 pages

Review
"We are still at the beginning stage of a much-needed revisionist history of the world, to which this book makes a lively scholarly contribution. Hobson's well-documented argument warrants serious consideration." Janet Abu-Lughod, author of Before European Hegemony

"John Hobson's work is thoroughly researched, enormously wide ranging and well written. It does not merely provide a thoughtful response to recent Eurocentric world histories. It is also certain to play a central role in the new wave of studies demonstrating the substantial contributions to modern 'civilisation' made by so many non-European peoples. The work is a worthy successor to the classic study of 'imperialism' written by the author's great grandfather John Atkinson Hobson." Martin Bernal, author of Black Athena

"This provocative book aims to change the way historians think about the 'rise of the West."
The International History Review

"This is an important book of comparative and historical sociology. It is both a punchy polemic against Eurocentrism and an impressive gathering of evidence on the historical development of Europe and Asia. Hobson argues that the many inventions which supposedly enabled Europe to dominate the world were actually diffused to Europe from Asia (usually from China) and that Asia/China remained as developed as Europe until the 19th century--and mostly he convinces." Michael Mann, author of Sources of Social Power (2 volumes)

"Evidence that Asia's primacy was crucial to the Rise of the West has been accumulating for twenty years. Dr. Hobson has now pulled the pieces together in a compellingly written and most challenging scheme. His grand conception will open a whole new order of debate." Eric Jones, author of The European Miracle and Growth Recurring

"This is an important book of comparative and historical sociology. It is both a punchy polemic against Eurocentrism and an impressive gathering of evidence on the historical development of Europe and Asia. Hobson argues that the many inventions which supposedly enabled Europe to dominate the world were actually diffused to Europe from Asia (usually from China) and that Asia/China remained as developed as Europe until the 19th century--and mostly he convinces." Michael Mann, author of Sources of Social Power (2 volumes)

"The true value of The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization resides in its capacity to reveal the manner in which politically expedient mythology has distorted Western understanding of both history and culture. There will be a need for many more such exploratory books..." - Reg Little

"It provides a nwe set of comparisons of economic and political developments in the East and Europe; and it offers a strong version of the Orient first thesis which it advances on points." - Jam Nederveen Pieterse, University of Illinois

About the Author
John M. Hobson is a Senior Lecturer in Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney. He is the author of The State and International Relations (2000), The Wealth of States: A Comparative Sociology of International Economic and Political Change (1997), and co-author (with Linda Weiss) of States and Economic Development: A Comparative Historical Analysis (1995).

Customer Reviews

Excellent book
Accusations of "sino-centrism" or "one-sidedness" reveal simply that the accuser has not actually read the book (which one would hope to be a necessary pre-cursor to such evaluations). In fact, Hobson specifically argues not only against sino-centrism, but also offers philosophical and empirical arguments against ALL such "centrisms" where history is concerned. In this way, he distinguishes himself as a theoretical and empirical historian of the highest order.
Furthermore, Hobson--all of us--are under no obligation to be "balanced"--only to be honest and to present the evidence--which he has most eloquently done.
I highly recommend this book; it would be especially appropriate for a graduate-level seminar, as it is both rigorously researched and highly accessible.

Did the Chinese Invent Everything?
A great title for a book on a great subject, but simply horrible execution. Cambridge University Press must have forgotten to put this book through the normal refereeing and editing process, and thus it reads like a second-rate dissertation written by an angry Ph.D. student who constantly appeals to the oracular statements of his fellow-travelers rather than presents his own convincing arguments. Simply stated, Hobson's thesis is that nothing good or original ever came from the West; all that is positive and original came from the East. He rests his case on his presentation of an encyclopedia of "preemptions' (Doesn't he must mean "antecedents"?). The heat of his diatribe obscures the depth and true complexity of the (non)?-problem he allegedly studies: "The Rise of the West." By the way, his answer to this issue is as follows: It did not rise (At least until 1800 or so). To Hobson's credit, he constantly emphasizes the growth of a World System, yet overstatement mars his argument. Hobson persistently juxtaposes the most derogatory and pejorative picture of Western society against an uncritical and idealized version of Eastern society. Hobson lacks all subtly and therefore is not to be believed. History is not so simple.

As all historians know, true originality in culture, in ideas, or in technology is rare indeed. Thus agriculture was independently invented only handful of times, written language even fewer times, and almost all technologies have antecedents. However, this fact does not diminish the accomplishments of any society that takes a procedure or thing from elsewhere and "runs with it." This ability to borrow or to be stimulated and to utilize something from elsewhere is surely not a sign of weakness or decadence but of strength. Finding the antecedents to things or ideas is not proof that these were "stolen"--not grounds for the kinds of admonishment regularly meted out by Hobson. Moreover, inter-societal or inter-cultural transmission is much more complicated than Hobson would ever admit and must even allow for independent invention in the face of common circumstances.

Illustrations of Hobson's misunderstandings and mistaken approach can be found on nearly every page of the book. It is true that Su Sung's water driven clock of 1086 in China was a marvelous invention, but precisely where did it lead? Was it replicated widely in market and church towers as the European mechanical clock was a few centuries later? Did it create a new sense of time necessary for new governing ideologies. And is the "good circumstantial evidence" (p. 131) about the influence of the Chinese on the European clock grounds for any historical argument at all? What about gunpowder and the cannon? It is not true as Hobson writes that "Eurocentric scholars often attribute the discovery of gunpowder to the European scientist Roger Bacon in 1267." (p. 186). Actually, they simply state that Bacon was the first one to mention this explosive mixture in Latin manuscripts. Everyone knows that gunpowder was first employed by the Chinese. As for the cannon, its early design and the terminology that described it is really too confusing to determine where the first true cannon was invented (When does some tube-like thing filled with explosive mixture become a cannon? Anyway, wasn't it developed rather than "invented"?). The first drawing in Europe of a cannon dates from 1326. It rapidly evolved into a weapon that revolutionized warfare and gave Europe the means to dominate the seas and coasts of the world.

Furthermore, Hobson writes over and over about the superiority of Chinese junks over contemporary European vessels. Junks were magnificent ships and much much larger than European caravels, but maybe bigger is not always better. After all, the tiny caravel did its job quite well. For Hobson Henry the Navigator "had begun to fumble" (p. 138) his was down the coast of Africa while people from the East heroically explored the world. Hobson never abstains from using pejorative language when referring to Westerners while he always stand in awe of the feats of other cultures.. Chinese agriculture was much more productive than Western agriculture according to Hobson. Well guess what: hydraulically controlled paddy agriculture does yield more per acre than natural-rainfall wheat agriculture, but yield per acre is only one measure of agriculture productivity. The more relevant point is that European agriculture and distribution networks began to liberate the continent from famine mortality at a time when killing starvation still swept periodically through the great kingdom of China. Hobson writes that the Egyptian physician Ibn al-Nafis "fully pre-empted the much heralded work of the Englishman, William Harvey, by no less than three and a half centuries" (p. 179). My little encyclopedia says that Ibn-al-Nafis argued for the pulmonary circulation. Harvey is known not for his discovery of the pulmonary circulation, which had already been proved by Renaldus Columbus at Padua in the sixteenth century, but for the systemic circulation, which he rigorously demonstrated with brilliant and repeatable experiments. Hobson writes that the fourteenth century astronomer Ibn al-Shatir "developed a series of mathematical models which were almost exactly the same as those developed about 150 years later by Copernicus in his heliocentric theory." (p. 180) It is certain that Islamic astronomy was well developed in the Middle Ages and at a time when Western astronomy was scarcely able to replicate the mathematical precision of the ancient Ptolemy, it is noteworthy that an Islamic scholar succeeded in "saving the phenomena" so accurately and with so much simple elegance. But Copernicus's achievement with it heliocentrism ultimately led to a paradigm shift. This is what is important. And Ibn al-Shatir was a geocentrist.

The most disturbing aspect of Hobson's book is not in the multitude of mistakes that he makes and his disregard for conventional historical methodologies but simply his ill humor and name calling. Great historians like Lynn White who pioneered the field of medieval technology a half century ago are dismissed out of hand. Other historians, like David Landes, are characterized not as "the distinguished historian of technology" (which he is) but as "the avowed Eurocentric scholar" (p. 130). (Hobson's book is in part a response to Landes's The Wealth and Poverty of Nations). For Hobson, there is a litmus test to which all scholars must be subjected: Eurocentric or non-Eurocentric?. No matter the quality of the historian's work, the elegance of the presentation, the force of the conclusions. If a historian is not politically correct in this matter, he/she is to be dismissed out of hand and even excoriated. Thank god that Hobson's book is unlikely to exercise much influence on historical discourse. The real story of the East's influence on the West must continue to be told by other scholars of a more level-headed temperament employing more acceptable methodologies.

Excellent polemic
Looking through the reviews above I can imagine the bewilderment of the potential reader. Some of the reviewers hated it, some loved it. So is this book any good? I would answer 'yes': but the book has to be seen for what it is. It is NOT a 'fair' and 'balanced' academic treatise. It is, as someone pointed out, a polemic. What they failed to point out is that it is an excellent polemic, that has to be seen in context. The context is the literally thousands of books that have been published which unthinkingly take a 'Eurocentric' view of world history, asking loaded questions that are carefully chosen to permit only the 'right' answers to be given (E.g. Why did democracy arise only in the West? Why did science arise only in the West? Why is the West so much more 'advanced' than the Muslim world/Africa/South America etc. etc. etc.). Of course no one accuses them of being polemics: if you take the orthodox view, that's simply 'common sense'.

It should also point out that like most polemics (and unlike most academic texts) this book is well written and a pleasure to read. Certainly if one was carrying out an academic study on this subject I would read other books on the subject from more 'orthodox' historians to get the other side of the coin. In other words, not every word of Hobson's book might be the Gospel Truth. He ignores ambiguity and nuance: if something can be related back to China or the Muslim World it is. But on the other hand, it states an important position, which from now on economic and cultural historians are going to have to take note of.