Periodization & regimes expansion

Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:18:22 +0000
Nikolai S. Rozov (rozov@nsu.ru)

I am glad that Randy Groves turned the discussion to interaction
between world ecumenas. In fact the potential of Gerry Bentley's
paper in which he suggests interactions as the basis for
periodization seems not to be sufficiently used in this thread.

I wish here to share some ideas concerning usage of N.Elias's and
F.Spiers ideas of human regimes for solving the
world-wide periodization problem. The primary conceptual sketch is as
follows.

Various populations (that occupy definite world ecumenas) have
various human regimes (including ecological, social, personal and
cultural ones) that differ in infinite parameters but can be compared
by one rough test of efficiency: in cases of encounter the most
efficient regime tends to expand on expence of less efficient ones.
As Daniel Chirot points out namely wars were the main test of
efficient through almost the whole bulk of world history. Economic
and cultural productivity, competition and prestige also existed but
it is only an optimistic dream that they substituted military tests
in last few decades after 1945 (almost non-existent time period in
the scale of thousands years of world history).

Briefly the idea of world-wide periodization based on regimes
expansion includes the following elements. Each world-wide stage
contains various societies (civilizations, world-systems etc) with
regimes of various efficiency. The quality of a stage that
distinguishes it from the previous and following stages is determined
by the most efficient regime that dominates within this stage,
serves as most important geopolitical, geoeconomic and geocultural
factor of historical dynamics of all societies that get in touch
with societies who are happy to grasp this most efficient regime.

The preliminary scheme of world-wide periodization would be as
follows:

40 000 - 10-12 000 BC Mesolitic regimes expand (fire, high-skilled
hunting, etc)

10-12 000 - 4 000 BC Neolitic regimes expand (agriculture,
first metallurgy, ceramics, etc). I agree with R. Collins that
migrations that caused inhabitance of almost all lands of the globe
were determined not by free-floating seeking of better lands but by
tough geopolitical pressure from ethnoses with more efficient
military regimes

4 000 - 800 BC Regimes of states and cities (early despotisms,
nomes, polices) expand (script, laws, markets, protomoney, etc),
Epires like Egypt, Babilonia, etc were few and should be treated
as bizarre and minor form during this stage

800 BC - 1600 AD. Empires expand (but rapidly collapse because
of overextension to provinces: kingdoms and magnacies-princedoms
which become food for new expanding empires). Steel, horsemen
warriors, professional armies, protobureocracy, world religions,
money, vast military and trade expeditions, etc

1600 - 1990 - Parity between capitalist world-economy and
empires-challengers (China,Mogols,Osman Empire, Spain, France,
Russia, Germany-Japan, USSR) world-wide trade, colonization,
nation-states, bureocracy, mass communication and education,
ideologies, etc

since 1991 - the era of dominance of global world economy?

one could imagine the further drama in competition of the following
main actors of this global system: United Europe with her regimes,
USA with NAFTA with their regimes, and Japan with dragons of South
East Asia with their regimes. It is not obvious what will be the
dinamic direction and destiny of past and future imperial
challengers: Russia (still strong by nukes) and growing
economically-demographically-militarily China, but a revival of
parity is very doubtful (both are deeply involved in the global
capitalist economy).

probably world-history experts feel irritation against this scheme,

what about to transform these emotions into argumented criticisms
or questions?

i also seek for allies and would be happy to hear from anyone who
found sense in this sketch worthy for further unfolding

thank you

Nikolai Rozov
Novosibirsk State University
rozov@nsu.ru

On 7 Dec 98 Ken Pomeranz <H-WORLD@H-NET.MSU.EDU> wrote:

> From: Randy Groves,
> Ferris State University
> John_R_Groves@FERRIS.EDU
>
>
> Dear H-World People: I have been following the discussion of periodization
> on and off, sometimes thinking it worthwhile, sometimes not. I think I have
> figured out my ambivalence. It is hard for me to imagine a periodization
> that could apply to the whole world that would be useful. I am more
> inclined to think that we should have separate periodizations for the
> different civilizations. So there would be one for the West, one for China,
> one for India etc. On the other hand, a world-wide perspective is
> useful when these civilizations interact, for example, when Islam expanded
> into the West, India and even CHina. Another case could be in the 18th and
> 19th centuries when the Western countries were exploring and colonizing at
> the same time as other parts of the World, such as China and India were
> undergoing internal problems that left them weak and at a
> disadvantage.Braudel, of course, had a term for this: conjuncture. Thus the
> role for a world-wide periodization would be to identify those key points
> in world
> history when separate processes come together and produce a cumulative
> effect. Thoughts?
>
> Randy Groves, Ph.D
> Associate Professor of Humanities
> Ferris State University
>
>
******************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov, PhD, Dr.Sc. Professor of Philosophy
E-MAIL: rozov@nsu.ru FAX: 7-3832-397101
ADDRESS: Philosophy Dept. Novosibirsk State University
630090, Novosibirsk, Pirogova 2, RUSSIA

Welcome to PHILOFHI (the mailing list for PHILosophy OF HIstory and
theoretical history)
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe/philofhi.html
and
Philosophy of History Archive (PHA)
http://www.nsu.ru/filf/pha/
*********************************************************************