| ID | 110480 |
| Title Proper | What's at stake in the neo-Trotskyist debate? towards a non-Eurocentric historical sociology of uneven and combined development |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Hobson, John M |
| Publication | 2011. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | This article seeks to appraise the direction that historical sociology has undertaken within Millennium in the last four decades while simultaneously laying out the groundwork for a 'thirdwave' historical sociology of international relations. In particular, I intervene in the current neo-Trotskyist debate concerning whether the concept of uneven and combined development (U&CD) should be historically generalised or merely confined to the modern capitalist-industrial era that emerged as late as the 19th century. My aim is to support the former position. I argue that failure to historically generalise the concept - at least to a certain extent - leads ultimately into a Eurocentric cul-de-sac. To advance my third-wave non-Eurocentric historical sociological approach, I apply U&CD to the rise of the West in general and to British industrialisation in particular. By extending U&CD back to at least 800 CE, I argue that the West was a late developer that enjoyed the advantages of backwardness. That is, only by borrowing from, and assimilating the technologies, ideas and institutions of, the key early developers - China, India and the Islamic Middle East/North Africa - could Europe rise up from its tiny promontory on the far western edge of the vast Afro-Asian economy to eventually overtake its Eastern predecessors some time during the 19th century. |
| `In' analytical Note | Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol. 40, No.1; Sep 2011: p.147-166 |
| Journal Source | Millennium: Journal of International Studies Vol. 40, No.1; Sep 2011: p.147-166 |
| Key Words | Eurocentrism ; Historical Sociology ; Neo - Trotskyism ; Rise of the West |