You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
sense_of_history 's review for:
An original contribution to the Great Divergence Debate, but with some essential weaknesses
I’ll start with the strengths of this book, and also the presentation of his Morris' central theses and method. The charm of Ian Morris' work is that he combines modesty and boldness. His entire book, for example, is based on the view that human history is driven by 3 petty human impulses: that people are lazy, greedy and fearful and always seek solutions to their problems based on those three characteristics. Time and again he explains major changes in history through one or a combination of those characteristics. A bit blunt, he even calls this approach "the Morris theorem". There is a slight sarcasm involved in this, and that brings some lightness into this academic work.
Another merit of Morris is that, unlike others in the Great Divergence debate, he does not limit himself to the last 200 to 300 years of human history, but he covers the whole of human history. Of course that is what you could expect from an archaeologist, but it seems to me that Morris is on this by Jared Diamond who has elaborated an equally broad approach in his [b:Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies|1842|Guns, Germs, and Steel The Fates of Human Societies|Jared Diamond|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1453215833l/1842._SY75_.jpg|2138852] and who has put forward some clever hypotheses about Western dominance, namely based on a combination of biological and geographical elements (the huge size of the Eurasian continent, with its West-East orientation that allows for easy exchange, and which also resulted in much more biological diversity on that continent). Morris fits in with this view in his own way, but he emphasizes more the geographical component and the interaction between core areas and periphery (though absolutely not in the way Immanuel Wallerstein used that model).
Without a doubt the greatest merit of Morris is that he has tried to capture the whole of human development in a theoretical model that makes social development measurable and shows how humanity has realised ever higher levels of development (with ups and downs of course), in different geographical areas. He deliberately kept the criteria on which he based his quantification limited (energy consumption, organizational capacity, military capacity and information technology), and due to his focus on East and West the graphs that he worked out are very transparent and seem utterly relevant. Of course, you can endlessly criticize the choices he has made and the data on which he relies, and Morris himself admits that his model is open to discussion (even though he defends his choices with fervour). I personally think it's great that he did this exercise, and it certainly is a starting point for further discussion.
On top of that, Morris is not afraid to make projections for the future based on his findings. Although as a historian I’m sceptic about this kind of bold approach (see my points of critic), but Morris at least shows that the study of history is not a voluntary activity and that absolutely relevant conclusions can be drawn on the way humanity thrives today and can evolve in the near future.
Just one more positive addendum: the readability of this book. Packing the whole of human history in more than 600 pages (I am not including his projections for the future) is no small achievement, certainly because he succeeds in keeping our attention as a reader. Morris also introduces a lot of new material, especially in the first chapters, while for the more recent periods (roughly from 1600 onwards) he moves much faster, even somewhat more superficial. Also commendable is his relatively much greater attention to Eastern history, as an understandable correction for the eurocentrism of most World Histories. Very occasionally Morris loses himself a bit in the chaotic succession of Chinese dynasties, but all in all this book is very good edited.
Weak points
The first is a very important issue: Morris uses a very broad geographical concept of what the West is, and a very limited one for the East. For him, the West represents all cultures that originated from what was originally the first Western culture in the Fertile Sickle: stretching from the Ancient Middle East (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia), the ancient Mediterranean cultures (Greece and Rome) , Northwestern Europe in the Middle Ages and Modern Era and of course also the entire New World (the Americas, but also Australia). Remarkably he also includes all of Arabia and the Islamic culture; that is original and astonishing, and he has some strong arguments for this, but it also comes with some downsides, making his story of Western History rather less homogenic than he presents it to be. On top of that he limits the East to all cultures that have grown out of the first agricultural cultures in China; in this book it’s China all over, in much detail, and peripheric areas like Korea, Japan, Central and South-East Asia only occasionally pop up. Worse still, Africa and especially India remain almost completely out of the picture, and that is simply incomprehensible and a great distortion of human history.
I think Morris's compulsion to simplify as much as possible is the cause of this omission, because if he had to push Africa and India into his story, his beautiful East-West schedule would have been greatly distorted. In line with that, the entire book also suffers from an East-West myopia that almost constantly leads Morris to highlight the similarities in the development of East and West, reducing his divergence story to a divergence only in pace, not in essence, and also that leads to a very debatable representation of world history.
Some detail criticism is also possible on Morris's treatment of the earliest times. Like so many others he sketches an image of the earliest human history based on very limited finds and sources, although as an archaeologist he must be very well aware of the limitations of his metier. It is also striking that he almost constantly cites climate change as a probable explanation for major shifts in human development, and he attributes these almost exclusively to deviations in the Earth's axis and Earth's orbit; now, the study of these phenomena to me still seem so to be in a pioneering stage, and so it is strange Morris lends so much authority to the few works that have been published on this subject.
In many reviews Morris is accused of determinism, and there is something to be said for that. In my enumeration of the positive aspects of the book, I already mentioned Diamond and his biological-geographic determinism. Morris further reduces this to a geographical determinism: the Western or the Eastern lead in different periods of human history all just come down to the geographical boundaries of those era’s. In his sketch of the constant dynamics between core areas and periphery and the Great Exchange between East and West, he certainly attributes some space to biological and sociological elements, but very strikingly cultural elements are almost completely absent. In his conclusion he’s even very derogatory towards the Western Renaissance and the entire Modernity discourse that emerged from it. Now, I’m aware this concept of "modernity" has its issues, but Morris keeps it practically unmentioned throughout the book. Also, the input of individual choices by leading figures is reduced to an absolute minimum. According to Morris, each culture simply and inevitably developed the obvious solutions to the problems with which that culture was confronted (due to shifts in the geographical horizon); individual creativity, the obstinate will of great rulers or the impact of cultural factors (such as religion) at most played a role in the pace at which the changes occurred, nothing more. Because of that very strict point of view Morris’ story occasionally gets into trouble, and ultimately it also undermines his explanation for the Western domination of the world. And that is an essential weakness.
Finally, there’s that famous "Morris theorem", namely that any historical change can ultimately be attributed to the laziness, greed and fear of humans. These human impulses naturally play a major role in history, there is simply no discussion about that. But here too Morris goes way too far in his simplification. Because inevitably it gives his history a very negative focus: why should only the "low impulses" of man be decisive, and not just the more positive ones such as the urge for excellence, the drive to transcend oneself, to indulge in empathy and altruism? Or, to keep it less elevated: adventurousness, practical utilitarianism and so on? I fully understand that Morris wanted to keep his story manageable, and he really succeeds in that. But he does so at the expense of a number of elements that deny the complexity of human history and of reality itself.
Futurism
In the end, all these weaknesses become clear in the "futuristic" section at the end of his book. Again, it is worthwhile that he tries to learn lessons from history (I know that academic historians are very hesitant about this, but under certain conditions it is worth to try). But because of his geographical determinism and his narrow view of what drives humanity, his look into the future just ends up in open doors: yes, after a period of 200 years of western domination, the east is now coming up, and yes, humanity faces enormous challenges because the nuclear weapons arsenal and the threat of major climate change make the total destruction of our planet conceivable. Morris gets lost in a chaotic, almost endless sequence of "what if" arguments, where he only ends up in a plea for a "Great Singularity" (the merging of all differences between east and west, even in the form of a connected human brain) and a Kantian plea for a world government. The whole of this futuristic chapter, written in 2010, immediately brings at light how quickly such looking ahead can become obsolete.
All these critical remarks do not alter the fact that I think this is a very worthwhile book. At least Morris’ great merit is that he dares to take a broad look, somewhat like the adepts of Big History, but with a closer eye for the historical contingency. And his quantification method may be open to discussion, it is at least a starting point for further adjustments and refinements. Morris rightly quotes Karl Popper: progress in (exact) science is a matter of speculation and refutation, it follows a zigzag course because one researcher suggests an idea and others rush to refute it, and in the process come up with better ideas. So, if there’s one lesson to remember: historians and others, take up the challenge of Ian Morris!
I’ll start with the strengths of this book, and also the presentation of his Morris' central theses and method. The charm of Ian Morris' work is that he combines modesty and boldness. His entire book, for example, is based on the view that human history is driven by 3 petty human impulses: that people are lazy, greedy and fearful and always seek solutions to their problems based on those three characteristics. Time and again he explains major changes in history through one or a combination of those characteristics. A bit blunt, he even calls this approach "the Morris theorem". There is a slight sarcasm involved in this, and that brings some lightness into this academic work.
Another merit of Morris is that, unlike others in the Great Divergence debate, he does not limit himself to the last 200 to 300 years of human history, but he covers the whole of human history. Of course that is what you could expect from an archaeologist, but it seems to me that Morris is on this by Jared Diamond who has elaborated an equally broad approach in his [b:Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies|1842|Guns, Germs, and Steel The Fates of Human Societies|Jared Diamond|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1453215833l/1842._SY75_.jpg|2138852] and who has put forward some clever hypotheses about Western dominance, namely based on a combination of biological and geographical elements (the huge size of the Eurasian continent, with its West-East orientation that allows for easy exchange, and which also resulted in much more biological diversity on that continent). Morris fits in with this view in his own way, but he emphasizes more the geographical component and the interaction between core areas and periphery (though absolutely not in the way Immanuel Wallerstein used that model).
Without a doubt the greatest merit of Morris is that he has tried to capture the whole of human development in a theoretical model that makes social development measurable and shows how humanity has realised ever higher levels of development (with ups and downs of course), in different geographical areas. He deliberately kept the criteria on which he based his quantification limited (energy consumption, organizational capacity, military capacity and information technology), and due to his focus on East and West the graphs that he worked out are very transparent and seem utterly relevant. Of course, you can endlessly criticize the choices he has made and the data on which he relies, and Morris himself admits that his model is open to discussion (even though he defends his choices with fervour). I personally think it's great that he did this exercise, and it certainly is a starting point for further discussion.
On top of that, Morris is not afraid to make projections for the future based on his findings. Although as a historian I’m sceptic about this kind of bold approach (see my points of critic), but Morris at least shows that the study of history is not a voluntary activity and that absolutely relevant conclusions can be drawn on the way humanity thrives today and can evolve in the near future.
Just one more positive addendum: the readability of this book. Packing the whole of human history in more than 600 pages (I am not including his projections for the future) is no small achievement, certainly because he succeeds in keeping our attention as a reader. Morris also introduces a lot of new material, especially in the first chapters, while for the more recent periods (roughly from 1600 onwards) he moves much faster, even somewhat more superficial. Also commendable is his relatively much greater attention to Eastern history, as an understandable correction for the eurocentrism of most World Histories. Very occasionally Morris loses himself a bit in the chaotic succession of Chinese dynasties, but all in all this book is very good edited.
Weak points
The first is a very important issue: Morris uses a very broad geographical concept of what the West is, and a very limited one for the East. For him, the West represents all cultures that originated from what was originally the first Western culture in the Fertile Sickle: stretching from the Ancient Middle East (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia), the ancient Mediterranean cultures (Greece and Rome) , Northwestern Europe in the Middle Ages and Modern Era and of course also the entire New World (the Americas, but also Australia). Remarkably he also includes all of Arabia and the Islamic culture; that is original and astonishing, and he has some strong arguments for this, but it also comes with some downsides, making his story of Western History rather less homogenic than he presents it to be. On top of that he limits the East to all cultures that have grown out of the first agricultural cultures in China; in this book it’s China all over, in much detail, and peripheric areas like Korea, Japan, Central and South-East Asia only occasionally pop up. Worse still, Africa and especially India remain almost completely out of the picture, and that is simply incomprehensible and a great distortion of human history.
I think Morris's compulsion to simplify as much as possible is the cause of this omission, because if he had to push Africa and India into his story, his beautiful East-West schedule would have been greatly distorted. In line with that, the entire book also suffers from an East-West myopia that almost constantly leads Morris to highlight the similarities in the development of East and West, reducing his divergence story to a divergence only in pace, not in essence, and also that leads to a very debatable representation of world history.
Some detail criticism is also possible on Morris's treatment of the earliest times. Like so many others he sketches an image of the earliest human history based on very limited finds and sources, although as an archaeologist he must be very well aware of the limitations of his metier. It is also striking that he almost constantly cites climate change as a probable explanation for major shifts in human development, and he attributes these almost exclusively to deviations in the Earth's axis and Earth's orbit; now, the study of these phenomena to me still seem so to be in a pioneering stage, and so it is strange Morris lends so much authority to the few works that have been published on this subject.
In many reviews Morris is accused of determinism, and there is something to be said for that. In my enumeration of the positive aspects of the book, I already mentioned Diamond and his biological-geographic determinism. Morris further reduces this to a geographical determinism: the Western or the Eastern lead in different periods of human history all just come down to the geographical boundaries of those era’s. In his sketch of the constant dynamics between core areas and periphery and the Great Exchange between East and West, he certainly attributes some space to biological and sociological elements, but very strikingly cultural elements are almost completely absent. In his conclusion he’s even very derogatory towards the Western Renaissance and the entire Modernity discourse that emerged from it. Now, I’m aware this concept of "modernity" has its issues, but Morris keeps it practically unmentioned throughout the book. Also, the input of individual choices by leading figures is reduced to an absolute minimum. According to Morris, each culture simply and inevitably developed the obvious solutions to the problems with which that culture was confronted (due to shifts in the geographical horizon); individual creativity, the obstinate will of great rulers or the impact of cultural factors (such as religion) at most played a role in the pace at which the changes occurred, nothing more. Because of that very strict point of view Morris’ story occasionally gets into trouble, and ultimately it also undermines his explanation for the Western domination of the world. And that is an essential weakness.
Finally, there’s that famous "Morris theorem", namely that any historical change can ultimately be attributed to the laziness, greed and fear of humans. These human impulses naturally play a major role in history, there is simply no discussion about that. But here too Morris goes way too far in his simplification. Because inevitably it gives his history a very negative focus: why should only the "low impulses" of man be decisive, and not just the more positive ones such as the urge for excellence, the drive to transcend oneself, to indulge in empathy and altruism? Or, to keep it less elevated: adventurousness, practical utilitarianism and so on? I fully understand that Morris wanted to keep his story manageable, and he really succeeds in that. But he does so at the expense of a number of elements that deny the complexity of human history and of reality itself.
Futurism
In the end, all these weaknesses become clear in the "futuristic" section at the end of his book. Again, it is worthwhile that he tries to learn lessons from history (I know that academic historians are very hesitant about this, but under certain conditions it is worth to try). But because of his geographical determinism and his narrow view of what drives humanity, his look into the future just ends up in open doors: yes, after a period of 200 years of western domination, the east is now coming up, and yes, humanity faces enormous challenges because the nuclear weapons arsenal and the threat of major climate change make the total destruction of our planet conceivable. Morris gets lost in a chaotic, almost endless sequence of "what if" arguments, where he only ends up in a plea for a "Great Singularity" (the merging of all differences between east and west, even in the form of a connected human brain) and a Kantian plea for a world government. The whole of this futuristic chapter, written in 2010, immediately brings at light how quickly such looking ahead can become obsolete.
All these critical remarks do not alter the fact that I think this is a very worthwhile book. At least Morris’ great merit is that he dares to take a broad look, somewhat like the adepts of Big History, but with a closer eye for the historical contingency. And his quantification method may be open to discussion, it is at least a starting point for further adjustments and refinements. Morris rightly quotes Karl Popper: progress in (exact) science is a matter of speculation and refutation, it follows a zigzag course because one researcher suggests an idea and others rush to refute it, and in the process come up with better ideas. So, if there’s one lesson to remember: historians and others, take up the challenge of Ian Morris!