Scan barcode
beckykeister's review against another edition
4.0
For someone who teaches history at the high school level, this was an awesome way to dabble in some debates of historiography. It is pretty accessible, though challenging enough that some of it went over my head. I appreciated the author's explanations in trying to define the field itself as well as his overview of major critiques of global history.
lukescalone's review against another edition
3.0
In his book, What is Global History, Sebastian Conrad attempts to put forth a definition of “global history” that differs from earlier forms of history. In doing so, he argues that global history can be viewed as both a methodology and a subject of study. This book is much more concerned with the methodology and methodological concerns involved in the creation of global history.
When many historians think about “global history,” they think about global connections above anything else. Significantly, these connections typically cross cultures, nation-states, and other traditional units of analysis. In his book, Conrad does admit that this is a form of global history, but this is not the meaning of global history as he conceptualizes it. To him, global history deals with the increasing integration of institutions, states, and other structures into what we could call the “world-system” (although I use this term more loosely than Conrad or Immanuel Wallerstein). However, Conrad’s definition does not deal with meta-narratives or the history of globalization. There is not necessarily a sense of “progress” in his definition, as the history of globalization is a subject of study for global history, but these two things are not synonymous.
One thing that must be noted is that this book is not a work of history itself, but an introduction to a methodology that only recently (within the past decade) has become to be respected. As such, it is geared more towards undergraduate students (as well as some graduate students) who may be interested in this methodology. While some readers of the general public may appreciate this text, it does not appear to be written with them in mind. Much of the book deals with ways about thinking global issues and how these ways of thinking can be applied to doing history. Ultimately, the book acts as an informative work for historians who are not yet involved in global history and to urge them to participate. Conrad finds a wealth of opportunity in the field and wants to engage more scholars in it.
Despite its promise, there are a number of significant obstacles. The most profound obstacle is that global history stands in the long shadow of European colonialism. Due to the prosperity of former metropoles, the vast majority of historical scholarship on global history occurs in these countries. Former colonies (and former Eastern Bloc countries, which could perhaps be seen as colonized places, to some extent) are still dedicated to using history as a form of nation-building, therefore giving little thought to the greater role of the globe. There is also the challenge of language, where so-called less-developed countries engage with European scholarship, but there is little attempt for Europeans to engage with Indian, Latin American, or Arabic scholarship. As such, global history works are being produced with a Sinocentric perspective, for example. While this is good in that it breaks away from traditions rooted in European hegemony, these new works should instead focus on the processes rather than the countries participating in them.
While aimed at historians, this book is a fairly easy read that can be picked up by nearly any reader if they decided this is a worthwhile book. Unfortunately, there are no lists of further reading or bibliographies, making it difficult to proceed from here.
When many historians think about “global history,” they think about global connections above anything else. Significantly, these connections typically cross cultures, nation-states, and other traditional units of analysis. In his book, Conrad does admit that this is a form of global history, but this is not the meaning of global history as he conceptualizes it. To him, global history deals with the increasing integration of institutions, states, and other structures into what we could call the “world-system” (although I use this term more loosely than Conrad or Immanuel Wallerstein). However, Conrad’s definition does not deal with meta-narratives or the history of globalization. There is not necessarily a sense of “progress” in his definition, as the history of globalization is a subject of study for global history, but these two things are not synonymous.
One thing that must be noted is that this book is not a work of history itself, but an introduction to a methodology that only recently (within the past decade) has become to be respected. As such, it is geared more towards undergraduate students (as well as some graduate students) who may be interested in this methodology. While some readers of the general public may appreciate this text, it does not appear to be written with them in mind. Much of the book deals with ways about thinking global issues and how these ways of thinking can be applied to doing history. Ultimately, the book acts as an informative work for historians who are not yet involved in global history and to urge them to participate. Conrad finds a wealth of opportunity in the field and wants to engage more scholars in it.
Despite its promise, there are a number of significant obstacles. The most profound obstacle is that global history stands in the long shadow of European colonialism. Due to the prosperity of former metropoles, the vast majority of historical scholarship on global history occurs in these countries. Former colonies (and former Eastern Bloc countries, which could perhaps be seen as colonized places, to some extent) are still dedicated to using history as a form of nation-building, therefore giving little thought to the greater role of the globe. There is also the challenge of language, where so-called less-developed countries engage with European scholarship, but there is little attempt for Europeans to engage with Indian, Latin American, or Arabic scholarship. As such, global history works are being produced with a Sinocentric perspective, for example. While this is good in that it breaks away from traditions rooted in European hegemony, these new works should instead focus on the processes rather than the countries participating in them.
While aimed at historians, this book is a fairly easy read that can be picked up by nearly any reader if they decided this is a worthwhile book. Unfortunately, there are no lists of further reading or bibliographies, making it difficult to proceed from here.
orestisgeo's review
5.0
Well-written introduction to the subject of Global History. Covers most (if not all) aspects of the discipline including it's origins, terminology, political implications, theory and problems in theory, all the while offering examples which further elucidate the author's points.
ekul's review
3.0
In his book, What is Global History, Sebastian Conrad attempts to put forth a definition of “global history” that differs from earlier forms of history. In doing so, he argues that global history can be viewed as both a methodology and a subject of study. This book is much more concerned with the methodology and methodological concerns involved in the creation of global history.
When many historians think about “global history,” they think about global connections above anything else. Significantly, these connections typically cross cultures, nation-states, and other traditional units of analysis. In his book, Conrad does admit that this is a form of global history, but this is not the meaning of global history as he conceptualizes it. To him, global history deals with the increasing integration of institutions, states, and other structures into what we could call the “world-system” (although I use this term more loosely than Conrad or Immanuel Wallerstein). However, Conrad’s definition does not deal with meta-narratives or the history of globalization. There is not necessarily a sense of “progress” in his definition, as the history of globalization is a subject of study for global history, but these two things are not synonymous.
One thing that must be noted is that this book is not a work of history itself, but an introduction to a methodology that only recently (within the past decade) has become to be respected. As such, it is geared more towards undergraduate students (as well as some graduate students) who may be interested in this methodology. While some readers of the general public may appreciate this text, it does not appear to be written with them in mind. Much of the book deals with ways about thinking global issues and how these ways of thinking can be applied to doing history. Ultimately, the book acts as an informative work for historians who are not yet involved in global history and to urge them to participate. Conrad finds a wealth of opportunity in the field and wants to engage more scholars in it.
Despite its promise, there are a number of significant obstacles. The most profound obstacle is that global history stands in the long shadow of European colonialism. Due to the prosperity of former metropoles, the vast majority of historical scholarship on global history occurs in these countries. Former colonies (and former Eastern Bloc countries, which could perhaps be seen as colonized places, to some extent) are still dedicated to using history as a form of nation-building, therefore giving little thought to the greater role of the globe. There is also the challenge of language, where so-called less-developed countries engage with European scholarship, but there is little attempt for Europeans to engage with Indian, Latin American, or Arabic scholarship. As such, global history works are being produced with a Sinocentric perspective, for example. While this is good in that it breaks away from traditions rooted in European hegemony, these new works should instead focus on the processes rather than the countries participating in them.
While aimed at historians, this book is a fairly easy read that can be picked up by nearly any reader if they decided this is a worthwhile book. Unfortunately, there are no lists of further reading or bibliographies, making it difficult to proceed from here.
When many historians think about “global history,” they think about global connections above anything else. Significantly, these connections typically cross cultures, nation-states, and other traditional units of analysis. In his book, Conrad does admit that this is a form of global history, but this is not the meaning of global history as he conceptualizes it. To him, global history deals with the increasing integration of institutions, states, and other structures into what we could call the “world-system” (although I use this term more loosely than Conrad or Immanuel Wallerstein). However, Conrad’s definition does not deal with meta-narratives or the history of globalization. There is not necessarily a sense of “progress” in his definition, as the history of globalization is a subject of study for global history, but these two things are not synonymous.
One thing that must be noted is that this book is not a work of history itself, but an introduction to a methodology that only recently (within the past decade) has become to be respected. As such, it is geared more towards undergraduate students (as well as some graduate students) who may be interested in this methodology. While some readers of the general public may appreciate this text, it does not appear to be written with them in mind. Much of the book deals with ways about thinking global issues and how these ways of thinking can be applied to doing history. Ultimately, the book acts as an informative work for historians who are not yet involved in global history and to urge them to participate. Conrad finds a wealth of opportunity in the field and wants to engage more scholars in it.
Despite its promise, there are a number of significant obstacles. The most profound obstacle is that global history stands in the long shadow of European colonialism. Due to the prosperity of former metropoles, the vast majority of historical scholarship on global history occurs in these countries. Former colonies (and former Eastern Bloc countries, which could perhaps be seen as colonized places, to some extent) are still dedicated to using history as a form of nation-building, therefore giving little thought to the greater role of the globe. There is also the challenge of language, where so-called less-developed countries engage with European scholarship, but there is little attempt for Europeans to engage with Indian, Latin American, or Arabic scholarship. As such, global history works are being produced with a Sinocentric perspective, for example. While this is good in that it breaks away from traditions rooted in European hegemony, these new works should instead focus on the processes rather than the countries participating in them.
While aimed at historians, this book is a fairly easy read that can be picked up by nearly any reader if they decided this is a worthwhile book. Unfortunately, there are no lists of further reading or bibliographies, making it difficult to proceed from here.
More...