Monday, March 12, 2007
Imperialism #3: Geography
Foreshadowing a discussion we will have in our week on globalization and development, the former Harvard, now Columbia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In a certain respect, he discusses geography as a signifier of distinctions in other cultural sectors. It is not geography, itself, that causes different patterns of development (not the prevalence of neighboring countries or access to water or just that they're not European) but rather it can express the differences in the relationship of the public, private profit and religious sectors in different areas. On pg 205, he says, "Institutions conducive to a politically liberal order in one part of the world were the instruments of authoritarian control elsewhere." Geography is one factor that limits the generalizability of a theory on strategy for Imperialism because geographic differences often correpond to differences in the relationships between differences in the relationships between formal and informal institutions. -Katie
According to Abernethy, geography figures as a "conducive condition" of imperialism (180). The relationship between voyagers and rulers was particularly strong in Europe, by virtue of the risky distance to different lands: "This gave European overseas operations the empowering combination of institutional backing, strong and complementary motivations for aggression, and tactical flexibility" (182). Abernethy contrasts the strong linkage between voyagers/settlers and their original benefactors/states with the minimal relationship between these actors in China. Thus, European settlers "were advance agents of distant polities" (182). A particularly strong economic incentive existed for Europe to reach the East, whereas a similar incentive did not exist for China.
Post a Comment