The unusual title of the book introduction "Rio Rient" sheds new light on Orient (the world history of the East), as can be seen in the subtitle "Global Economy of the Asian Era." At the same time as publication, it turned Western intellectual society upside down, and it caused a great sensation in non-European regions, especially China and Japan. It raises significance to the existing historical description and social theory, calls for revising the perspective immersed in European centrism and completely redefining the framework of thinking about the modern economy. This is because it is relentlessly breaking the historical description and social science theory of modern Western studies, which have been nothing short of an iron fortress for the past 150 years. The main theme is that the West is correcting the wrong view of history and also that the East is returning to the center of world history. It provides a fundamental re-recognition opportunity for the rise of the West and the origin of the world system, while inviting innovative and exciting stories.Frank points out that the world history we know and are learning now was written by a European-centered perspective that did not exist before the 19th century, and that the universal social science we pursue was also reborn as a European-centered invention. In other words, the ideology invented by European historians and social theorists to increase European interests is Eurocentrism. It has served as a political, economic, and cultural prop for the reproduction of European or Western hegemony since the late 19th century and to this day, as well as spread throughout the world through colonization. Frank, who sought out the roots of this Eurocentrism, finds it from the perspective of social scientists representing modern Europe. They are convinced that the inherent characteristics of Europe have led to exceptional European development, which is different from the rest of the world. Marx argued that only Europe had a capitalist blind eye that could "transition from feudalism to capitalism," and that Asia, represented by "Asian production styles," had become entrenched, so to break away from it, it must benefit from progress from Europe. Weber explains that Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism are the blood and flesh of capitalism, and that religions outside Europe all had mythical, mystical, shamanistic, and in short, anti-rational elements. According to this statement, the "Western" with the yeast of a rational spirit emerged, and the "rest of the world" that lacked it did not. Even historians like Fernand Brodel, who can be said to have an exceptionally wide view among European historians, said, "China's backwardness was due to its less developed economic structure than Islam or the West. Chinese entrepreneurs were not enthusiastic about making profits. Compared to the spirit of Western capitalists, they were clumsy," he said in an inaccurate statement. As mentioned earlier, Frank also puts a scalpel of criticism on himself and Wallustin, who was an academic comrade. " Both Wallustin and I focused on theoretically analyzing and modeling the structure and process of the modern 'world' economy/'world' system. Wallustin still thinks so, but I believed at the time that the heart of this system was Europe, and as it expanded, the rest of the world was integrated into a 'world' economy based in Europe. That was the limitation of the Wallustin/Frank theory." Not only that. The Europeans also invented geography. This is because the word "Eurasia" itself is European-centered. In fact, Europe is only a frontier far from the great Eurasian continent. Nevertheless, Europeans have expressed the 'progress of history' on the map centered on Europe. For example, in Mercator's drawing, Britain, a small island country, is drawn as large as India. In addition, contrary to geographical facts, India, which has a much larger population, is only a subcontinent, and China is just a "country." Frank's thesis is that in order to crush such deep-rooted prejudice, it is necessary to analyze and grasp the reality of a single global economic system from a global perspective. This is because it is not possible to properly explain how certain parts have developed, including Europe, without analyzing the whole, which is more than the sum of the parts. From a global perspective, the global economic franc of the Asian era affirms this, arguing that Europe's global dominance is only a temporary phenomenon that has lasted more than 200 years since 1800. Economic growth in modern Europe was not achieved by Europe itself, nor by any means achieved by rationality, institutions, entrepreneurship, technology, a warm climate, the European 'exceptionism' of race, and before 1800, Europe was not more important or ahead of other parts of the world economy. If there was a region that dominated the world economy before 1800, it was Asia. If there was a 'central' position and role in the global economy at that time and there was a pecking order among the 'centers', it should be considered that China was at its peak." Europe has long had an eye on Asia's rich products and quality goods. European countries were eager to explore ocean routes to secure a safe route to always get Asian goods such as silk, cotton, ceramics, spices, and tea. However, silver rolled into Europe through the discovery of the New World. Until then, Europe was not able to buy Asian goods to its heart's content because it lacked currency and had no decent goods to sell on the Asian market. Silver quenched this European thirst. Europe "bought a ticket to the Asian economy with the silver of the New World." Europe had a chronic deficit in trade with Asia, but it filled the deficit with silver. Most of the silver that Europe brought from the Americas flowed into China. Without silver, Europe would not have been able to give out business cards in the global economy. Britain later grew opium in India and exported it to China because there was nothing to sell. European products were less competitive than Asian products, so they did not work well in non-colonial areas. China and India overwhelmed Europe in terms of technology, productivity and quality. According to Frank, it is only a myth that Europe gained an upper hand in industrial competitiveness through the scientific revolution in modern Europe thanks to the inherent nature of European rationality. Asia's science and technology levels represented by China and India did not lag behind Europe until at least 1800. Ironically, Asia's competitiveness was high until then, the biggest reason for the reversal of the 1800 crisis. Asia had abundant products and high-quality agricultural technology, and because of its abundant population, labor costs were naturally low. This was directly linked to the competitiveness of the product. Inventions were steadily being made in Asia by engineers working at production sites, but it was more economical and reasonable to inject additional labor rather than innovation in developing labor-saving machines. On the other hand, Europe had a small population and continued to leak population due to the expansion of colonies, which led to a much lower population/land resource ratio than Asia, which led to a high-wage/high-cost production structure. Europe had a desperate reason to build labor-saving machines. But it was mainly field engineers, not scientists, who invented the machine in Europe, too. The curtain of the industrial revolution was raised by them, and Europe began to gain the upper hand in competitiveness from this time. However, Eurocentrists have not looked at history from this global perspective, but evaluated rationality, entrepreneurship, and technological innovation as exceptions that can only be found in Europe and argued that Europe created the world. Frank strongly criticizes this. Europe didn't make the world, but "the world made Europe." Europe's rise is not only explained by Europe's internal factors alone, but Asia has brought much more economic, technical, and cultural benefits to Europe than Europe, which has remained around for most of its world history, has brought to Asia. Frank has an interesting analogy to this. "Europe got on a third-class train called the Asian Economy and rented a whole car shortly afterwards, and in the 19th century, it succeeded in driving Asians out of the train and posing as owners." Andre Gunther Frank was born in Berlin, Germany in 1929. He fled the Nazi regime in 1941 and moved to the United States with his parents, earning a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1957. He was a lecturer and assistant professor at the University of Michigan until 1962. In 1926, he went to Latin America, where he taught anthropological theory as an assistant professor at the University of Brasilia. In 1965, he became a special professor at the National School of Economics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. From 1966 to 1968, he was a visiting professor of economics and history at George Williams University in Montreal, Canada. In 1968, he was a professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chile in Santiago, Chile, and was involved in the reform of the Allende government. After the 1973 Chilean military coup, he fled to Europe and worked as a visiting research professor at the Max-Planck Institute in Starnberg, Germany, from the following year to 1978. In 1978, he left Germany for Norwich, England, where he became a professor at the University of East Anglia at the School of Development Research. Since 1981, he has been a professor of development economics and social science at the University of Amsterdam. At the age of 65, he retired as a professor of economics at the University of Amsterdam in 1994 and worked as a visiting professor at several universities, and is currently a raw material professor at the World History Center at Northeastern University in Boston. In 1999, he received the "Best Writing Award" from the World Historical Society, and "RioRient" received the "Book of the Year" award from the American Society in 2000. He has published numerous research and papers, the most well-known of which is "Development of Underdevelopment" (1969), which is said to be the beginning of "Dependent Theory." Chapter 1 Confrontation of Real World History and Eurocentric Social Theory Holistic Methodology and the Purpose of this book: Globalism Smith: Marx.Weber Modern European Centrifism and Its Critics Economic Historians Global Economic Perspectives in Western Social Theory Chapter 2 World Trade Carousel, 1400-1800 Introduction to World Economy 13th and 14th Centuries Columbian Exchange and Consequently Illustrated Global Economy MapThe World's Currency: Its Production and Exchange The Global Casino's Big and Small Attractions How did the Global Casino Number Game/Gold/Credit Winner spend money? Production currency in the theory of inflation or currency quantities has widened the boundaries between settlements and production Chapter 4 of India/China/Asia, Global Economy-Comparison and Relationship Quantitative Issues: Population.Production, productivity, income.Trade Population, Production, Income Productivity and Competitiveness World Trade 1400-1800 Qualitative Issues: Technology of Science Asia, Technology and Eurocentric Guns/Ships/Printing/Fabric/Metallurgy. Coal.Mechanisms of technological advancement in the power/transport world: Economic.A Comparison of Financial Systems Asian and European Systems A Comparison of Global Systems India/China Chapter 5 Transverse Integrated Macroshistory Concurrency is not coincidental: Transverse Integrated Macroshistory Practice Demographic. Structural Analysis '17th Century Crisis?' 1640 Silver Crisis Kondratiev 'B' Phase: Crisis and Recession Chapter 6 Why did the West win? Was there a long-cycle roller coaster? Did the decline of the East precede the rise of the West? The decline of India and other Asian regions How did the West rise? The demand for technological change and the supply of supply capital and sources of global economic and demographic explanation demographic.Settlement Model Trap Evidence of Higher Balance: Some Considerations of Inversion from 1500 to 1750 Transition India, China, Europe, and the World India/China/West Europe/ Rest of the World Chapter 7 Conclusion of History Description and Theory: Eurocentrism was a naked king Asian Production Style European Exceptionalism European World-System? Is it a global economy? 1500: Continuous?Break-up? Capitalism? Hegemon? The hollow categories of the Industrial Revolution and Procrustes' Bed Theory: Holism vs. Commonality/Similarity vs. Continuity vs. Discontinuity vs. Divided Cycle vs. Disconnectivity Throughout the World.And besides... Jieun... the character Andre Gunther Frank is a scholar who advocates the theory of subordination...Subordination is...It is a newly developed theory that the West has developed as the theory of development, which is "ancient --> medieval --> modern," collapses as the West becomes the basis for controlling the East. (Ancient-->Middle Ages-->Modern Development Schematic Theory--)It collapsed a long time ago.But it's only customary, like the four major civilizations in the world, to put it simply... to the extent that Andre Gunther Frank is a scholar who develops what is the rationale for Western supremacy.It's a scholar who makes a justifiable basis for Western domination of the East.Fantasy about the Orient.I'm not saying that I wrote this book because of the beautification of the Orient. That's why it's even more shocking in Western academia.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기