Miguel Angel Centeno
Department
of Sociology
Princeton Institute for International and Regional
Studies (PIIRS)
Princeton
University
In
that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of
a Single Province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the
Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps
were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of
the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it
point for point.
—Jorge
Luis Borges
In historical analysis . . . the
long run always wins in the end.
—Fernand
Braudel
Globalization is everywhere. States, economies,
and societies are increasingly integrated; flows of goods, capital, humans, and
cultural objects now link us in a global web. There is little doubt that we are
undergoing a process of compression of international time and space. Globalization is also nowhere. Lacking a
coherent empirical or theoretical underpinning, the concept is in danger of
becoming an academic “one-hit-wonder” with little to show for the attention[1]. What
does globalization mean? Does it
represent a revolutionary change in human history? What can we learn from
similar historical phenomena and epochs?
To address those questions, the Princeton
Institute for International and Regional Studies (PIIRS) of Princeton
University proposes a new way to study globalization and to place it in its
appropriate context. The two quotes above suggest the dilemma facing analysts
of contemporary global relations. While Braudel advises attention to the longue
durée and the need to place modern developments in the appropriate
historical context, Borges cautions against providing so much background, so
much detail, as to create an undiluted portrait of precisely what we are trying
to understand. The proposed project will allow for both analytical
comprehension without oversimplification and comprehensive accounting without
excessive specificity. We propose to foster a better understanding of
contemporary reality and the historical process that accounts for it through a
collaborative project that will: include cartographic and data-graphic
representations of historical transregional flows, produce a succinct analysis
of the development of these links over
the past five thousand years. and promote further systemic study
of historical globalization.
Specifically, PIIRS seeks support for its Project on Historical
Globalization (hereafter “the project”), which, as a whole, aims to support
collaboration among researchers studying globalization through increasing the
availability of data that will facilitate greater interdisciplinary
communication. We propose to achieve those ends through two distinct scholarly programs:
1) The International Networks Archive (INA, hereafter “the archive”), a
website (www.princeton.edu/~ina) that provides sophisticated interactive
capabilities and complete access to the data collected by project researchers.
The archive will serve largely as a resource for scholars and advanced
students. It will function as a central location for data sets relevant to
empirical research on mapping the global web. Through the archive, the data
sets can be assembled and standardized so that the various indicators can be
combined. The archive, established in 1999, has already collected information
covering the past three decades on exchanges by countries, organizations, and
individuals throughout the globe. We seek to expand these data sets
chronologically and offer mapping and other analytical tools for end users. A
central innovation of the project is the simultaneous availability of data and
representations thereof, as well as mechanisms that allow for the use of
network analysis and mapping techniques on a custom basis.
2) The Historical Atlas
of Globalization (hereafter “the
atlas”), a stand-alone product providing a thorough and graphically
exciting overview of the materials gathered. The book that will feature roughly 200 four-color maps generated
through INA data. Each two-page plate will include: (a) a global map giving a
context to the specific transaction being described, (b) a more detailed map
focusing on the most important areas and connections, and (c) a graphic
spotlight on a significant aspect of this transaction (e.g., volume over time).
Following a group of maps defined by region or form of transaction, a short
essay and suggested bibliography will provide readers with scholarly context.
The atlas will serve as a pedagogical
tool to introduce and disseminate information to the widest possible audience,
an audience that is still extremely book-oriented.
The
project combines two critical strategies. First, no single scholar or institution can achieve a truly accurate
portrayal of contemporary global transactions due to their complexities. To
address the intricacies of both the transactions and their analysis, we propose
to assemble a project team comprising an international and multidisciplinary
cohort of scholars that is committed to and capable of producing the requisite
scholarly mosaic.[2]
Second, we recognize that the term “globalization” is fraught with political
meaning. Some link it to an imperial neoliberal project; others see it as an
inherently critical perspective on a natural evolution. To aid both public and
scholarly discussions of the phenomenon, we seek to create an empirical product
that will provide solid information and historical and geographical context.
We propose a
paradigmatic shift in how both globalization is analyzed and how it fits into a
more general history. More specifically, this long-term project will make
contributions at the following levels:
Why such a project? The new communication technologies provide
opportunities that were largely unimagined by earlier cartographies. The
Internet frees us from the constraints placed on both libraries and paper
publications. The audience for our archive is global. Moreover, by not being
limited to a single publication date or even a single product, we will be able
to update our data perpetually. With information management techniques, we will
also create searchable databases that will allow scholars to create their
individualized research projects. Linking these searches to Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) technology will permit users to design and draw their
own maps. Examples of those maps will be available to future users permitting
progressive accumulation of knowledge and analysis. While other sites are
available for simple data retrieval on global issues, ours is different in that
it focuses on the phenomenon of globalization, provides data on transactions
between countries, and allows for graphic manipulation of the data.
But the promise of the project is much more than a technological innovation.
How does our printed atlas differ from excellent efforts such as The Times
Atlas of World History (1993) and Oxford University Press’s Atlas of
World History (1999)? Our atlas will be the first to focus on globalization
as an important way of looking at world history. With the volume, we hope to
make clearer the substantive improvements our archive will make to a greater
understanding of the past. Despite the new attention to world history over the
past two decades, approaches to global geographic remain mired in sometimes
outdated misconceptions. Ever since McNeill’s Rise of the West,
historians have come to appreciate more and more the critical role played by
connections, diffusions, and interactions between different parts of the world.
It is no longer enough to tell the story of everything (or alternatively, to
define a teleological structure). Rather, world history has more recently
attempted to define the “global web” of various periods, to place locales
within this web, and to determine how this position and its accompanying
interactions produced the next historical stages.[3]
By focusing on the interaction between locales, societies, and nations we can
provide a better understanding of how global integration has developed over the past five millennia.
This proposal outlines the importance of this area of research in the
social sciences, the educational benefits of the project, the specifics
concerning the administration of the archive, and a list of existing projects
already affiliated with the project.
A major obstacle to our understanding of
globalization has been that theoretical treatments have raced far past
empirical evidence. Key distinctions between globalization and
internationalization, for example, lack a concrete basis. Despite the ubiquity
of the term globalization, we have remarkably little data on increasing
international integration. Specifically, we lack a systemic capacity to compare
the current process of globalization with previous periods of greater or lesser
integration. Moreover, we lack the capacity to determine how the structure of
participation in this global net affects and helps determine political,
economic, or cultural outcomes.
The limited empirical work that has been done
to date shares a series of common faults.[4]
First, few projects have actually studied globalization as a phenomenon in
itself. Second, analyses of international integration have often been limited
to the OECD or to large regional groups. The specific relationships between
countries across the globe remain
under-studied. Similarly, attention has focused on contemporary developments
with limited efforts to compare them with previous stages of international
integration. Thus, the study of globalization has attempted to explore this
phenomenon outside of its geographical and historical context. Third, most
research has focused on a single form of integration. Yet globalization, if it
is a significant social phenomenon in its own right, involves much more than
the intensification of a single form of exchange. It is the possibility of interaction between a variety of
interchanges across the globe, the complexity of these interactions, and the
density of the ties between previously distant societies that may be truly significant.
To appreciate the particular
qualities of globalization, the metaphor of a network may be appropriate. Most literally, networks are
arrangements of connections into nets, or openwork systems linking groups of
points and intersecting lines. Obvious examples are the body’s circulatory
network of veins or a country’s arteries of rivers, canals, railways, and
roads. Networks may also be interconnected chains or systems of immaterial
things, events, or processes. A focus on networks allows us to examine the integration of economic, social, political,
and cultural regimes as a process in and of itself. Viewing globalization as a
network allows us to combine different forms of interaction (e.g., trade,
migration, conflict) into a cohesive portrait of international integration.
Finally, network methods operate under the assumption that structural position
and associated characteristics are determinant, allowing for a clearer analysis
of the consequences of globalization for individual societies over and above
endogenous factors.
Yet, network analysts confront some difficulties in communicating their
approaches and findings.[5]
Operating in a multidimensional causal universe, network models often are
reduced to abstract measures of centrality or require an intensive familiarity
with sophisticated methods. Defining the underlying geography of globalization
offers a potential and perhaps clearer alternative as it serves as a common
denominator across periods and forms of transactions, and arguably it plays a defining
role in the shaping of these relationships.
Mapping offers a possible solution to the dilemmas posed by the
complexity of both network analysis and globalization. The tradition of data
mapping has been popularized through Edward Tufte’s beautiful books (e.g., The
Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 1983). Interestingly, many
accounts of earlier periods of globalization relied on such devices; there is a
long tradition of using maps to tell a multilayered story encompassing time and
space, exemplified by the work of Charles Joseph Minard.[6]
Maps are far from neutral representations of a reality.[7] In
fact, our understanding of globalization is shaped by the cartographic politics
and conventions that define our image of the globe. But mapping has the
advantage of requiring an explicit definition of geographical limits, foci, and
units of analysis. With the development of computer graphics and GIS
technology, the advantages of maps can be expanded through the addition of data
layers that allow ever increasing levels of complexity. Despite the
epistemological dangers inherent in mapping, no other technique so effectively
and efficiently captures masses of data and relational positions.
Explicitly recognizing the
active intervention of our project, we propose to remap the world and shift our
geographical understanding from one dominated by geographical and political
parameters to one defined by transactions and networks. By providing a multimap
history of globalization, this project explicitly hopes to redefine our
conception of this phenomenon and its future. The atlas and the archive will
provide a coherent and analytical means with which to explore the development
and structure of globalization. It will
serve as an “instrument for reasoning about quantitative information.”[8]
While we possess some information on the growth of exchanges and
transfers for some items between certain actors, we have little comprehensive
information on how far the web extends, what is being exchanged and transferred,
and to which actors the web extends. We also know very little about how the
situation has changed over world history. The project is thus guided by a set
of empirical questions reflecting a set of theoretical interests. What is the
shape and structure of the global web? To
what extent has the shape of the global web changed over time? Are there
cyclical patterns in these transformations? Have the number and variety of
participants changed? Can we define the major actors in such a changing web
over time? How has the nature of the transported units changed over time? Can
we identify a set of structures associated with the dominance of this global
web? Do all empires look alike at the network-structural level? If yes, what
are the patterns of rise and fall of such structures? If not, how have these
evolved across time?
While the major goal of this part
of the project is to gather and present data, we are also driven by some
theoretical concerns. Rather than formal hypotheses to be tested, these are
well-informed conjectures for which we seek confirmation.
1.
If scales are
defined as consisting of both the size and velocity of transactions, we believe
that the integration of various parts of the world has occurred in a series of
asymmetrical cycles.
2.
Within
these cycles, patterns of increasingly complex interaction between the various
forms of transactions (e.g. trade, telecommunications, and travel) remain
little understood.
3.
The
contemporary world now exchanges, travels, and communicates on an unprecedented
scale. Yet a constant and perhaps increasing share of these transactions is
concentrated in the OECD and among the elite of the rest of the world. The
United States occupies a central position in almost all global networks.
4.
This
is not the first time the globe has been so connected or that a single power
has played a central role. Whether Rome in the early Christian era, China in
the fourteenth century, or Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
empires have served as the central node of international transactions on a
regional if not a global level.
5.
The
focal point of globalization shifts from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean,
westward to the Atlantic, and further on to the Pacific. The commodities that
serve as the linchpin of the system have also changed from wheat to sugar and
slaves to oil and cash.
6.
Despite
significant differences, these stages of global interaction share a network
structure that serves to create, change, foster, and eventually challenge them.
Each of these periods and the systems has been characterized by a pattern
resembling the spokes of a wheel, with each historical empire at the center and
the various provinces barely attached to each other except through their
connection to the center.
Alternatively, as suggested by one of the readers for PUP, global
networks may better resemble a set of gears, each with a central axis, but
interconnected at peripheries.
7.
In
analyzing the international structure of any era, close attention must be paid
to historical legacies which may explain the existence on apparently
non-functional or non-optimal connections (e.g. with ex-colonial powers).
If confirmed, these findings
would have significant theoretical implications. First, the rules of the longue
durée of international transaction remain constant even as the scope,
scale, and intensity of these transformations increase. Second, a centripetal
force pulls exchanges and transactions to a centralizing pattern. While we
might expect integration to produce a multipolar world, it may actually
contribute to the elevation of a single hegemon. Conversely, we may find that
such increases in integration occur only under hegemonic authorities.
In addition to its value as a
research tool, the atlas and
its underlying archive will serve as a pedagogical resource for teaching about
globalization at many levels. While intended for use by scholars, our primary
audience is broader and includes students and the non-university public. For
this constituency, the atlas will serve as an introduction to the contemporary
structures of globalization while also giving a bird’s-eye view of historical
developments in international integration and diffusion. The atlas and its underlying archive will
also serve as a pedagogical resource for those wishing to teach classes on
globalization. The atlas will
be a popularizing tool with which to make broad parts of the population more
sophisticated analyzers of current global trends and will also give greater
historical and geographical contexts in which to place current events.
The archive will also facilitate
hands-on learning for students by supplying much needed global-scale data. The
archive will fill a gap with respect to such educational resources. By
presenting network data at a variety of levels, the atlas and archive will
contribute resources to a new dimension in network analysis in the classroom.
This project will make data available to a much broader group of scholars than
the one that is currently working on globalization.
Obviously, no single individual possesses the expertise to produce even
a handful of the maps and databases we have in mind. The core of the project’s
mission is to coordinate efforts by the appropriate historical, regional and
topical experts. As a first stage in the process of finding and contacting such
experts, the project named an advisory board to oversee the project. [9] In collaboration with the advisory board, we
will be contacting likely candidates to produce the data required, in turn, to
generate the maps and databases.
Obviously, as we move back in time, the concept of “datum” will need to
be stretched. The archive will feature
either partial records, or basic scholarly consensus regarding the direction
and intensity of connections.
During 2003, PIIRS will make
proposals to several foundations requesting research support. We would use
resulting funds to sponsor research projects covering our various areas. The largest portion of our requested support
will go towards grants to appropriate experts who will be charge of producing
the actual data. Researchers donating
data sets will be named associates of the project. Upon donating data, they
will be asked to sign testaments as to the authorship of the data sets and the
rights to control them. The project will fund associates’ projects to either
improve or create data sets. Funding will be competitive among associates with
annual application cycles. The project will nominate a six-person board from
the advisory board who will serve a two-year term during which they will not be
eligible for archive funding. We will post an announcement calling for
proposals in the appropriate websites and journals and will also recruit for
particular eras and regions. The board
will make the final selections of proposals to be supported. Special emphasis will be placed on
supporting graduate student involvement as well as the participation of
underrepresented groups and researchers from institutions without significant
research funds.
Archiving Data
In the first stage of the project,
most of our attention will focus on the archive and on ggathering
athering and cataloguing of
data and interacting with our virtual public to produce some
preliminary maps. To assure the
most efficient use of the information, data will be catalogued according to
several criteria (e.g., author, countries, variables, years). As is standard, we will document all
databases with the standard metadata information. Once complete, data sets will
be able to provide users with at least four types of information:
1)
Distribution of
geographical points of origins and destination as well as the distribution of
requested attributes.
2)
Exchanges
between points by time and form of transaction.
3)
Topology of
exchange networks as well as other bounded objects (e.g. nation states).
4)
Maps and
graphics with differing layers of temporal frames, periods, degrees of
resolution, and synchronic layers.
Displaying Data
We have
also been working on the structure of the website as a whole and the generation
of some sample maps based on contemporary data. To give an idea of what the
final INA online mapping system might look like, we are developing a sample web
interface for interactive mapping http://www.princeton.edu/~ina/interactive_maps/index.html,
and http://gisserver.princeton.edu/website/miguel21, examples of the kinds of graphics that the
archive might produce http://www.princeton.edu/~ina/infographics/index.html,
and short presentation on relevant themes http://www.princeton.edu/~ina/thematic_presentations/index.html.
(Note that these require or are better viewed with Internet Explorer).
At its first meeting in April 2003, the advisory board discussed
problems inherent to mapping. We will need to make choices regarding
representation of the flows. For example, we may wish to illustrate the
velocity or ease of flows depending on the technology available and the
complexity of accomplishing such. We will need to determine if we wish to
maintain a single global view or if we can focus on particular areas. Place
names have changed and even the geographical meaning of the same names may also
change; geographical nomenclature is far from neutral and often carries
significant historical and political connotations. We, therefore, will need to
construct a “historical gazetteer” that will reference across epochs. To the
extent possible, we are committed to producing a multicultural and
multilinguistic set of representations.
The dilemma caused by the contradiction between precision and
parsimony haunts all scientific enterprise. As the project proceeds, we will
need to make many decisions regarding what to map and in what detail; we will
need to distinguish between data that haves nothing to do with globalization and
that which is are
relevant to the project.
The following general guidelines will define the earliest stages of
the atlas:
1.
While
the project will seek to create new
data sets, our major emphasis will be on gathering and organizing already
existing information.
2.
While
the heart of the project will be quantitative information, we also will need to
highlight qualitative or episodic elements in this history of globalization.
One obvious example is the fall of two cities, Constantinople and Tenochtitlán,
which heralded a radical shift in the direction of European trade and conquest.
3.
Where
quantitative information on a phenomenon is not accessible, we will first make
available whatever partial data is available. When mapping such phenomena, we
will be guided by expert advice on the historical consensus.
4.
We
are wary of an inherent Eurocentric and modernistic bias in the selection of
data and maps. Such bias may be due simply to data availability, it but could
also stem from the makeup of the board. Possible s[SCS1]olutions may include
an emphasis on pre-sixteenth century developments, a conscious effort to
explore what is going on outside the “usual suspects” of globalization, and,
most importantly, a broader recruiting effort for our associated scholars.
5.
We
will need to distinguish between the process of globalization and its product.
Similarly, we must distinguish between flows and resulting stocks, between
incidence and infection. Ais [SCS2]
balance, then, must be struck between maps that focus on transactions in and of
themselves and those that address the results of transactions. We may, for
example, wish not only to document the flow of the materials and technologies
needed to make a factory, but also to present a count of factory locations at
particular moment
s in time.
6.
The
multinodal flow of influences and transactions must be recognized. No matter
how asymmetrical these may appear, the interaction between the different flows
and the directions thereof makes globalization worth studying
in and of itself.
7.
Methods
and visualizations that can take into account both geography and chronology
must be developed. Possible ways of categorizing the different forms of
interaction include:
a. the structures along which interactions take place; the natural
and fabricated geography of globalization;
b. the machines that fuel the interaction, or
the means through which this integration takes place: transport and
communications systems;
c. the processes involved in the interaction, or the actual forms
of interaction: trade, invasion, and migration;
d. the c[SCS3]ontent
of integration: goods, services, ideas, and people; and
e. the network of interactions themselves or the resulting pattern
of interactions.
Mapping Historical Globalization
With these issues in mind, we propose the following, nonexhaustive
list of maps. Note that there may be significant redundancy across some of the
maps as we will sometimes be using the same data to indicate different
processes. Railroads and air links, for example, are simultaneously the product
of globalization, the carriers of globalized products, and the symbols of a new
international integration and will thus be represented on those maps and
perhaps others.
Geology: We will begin with relief maps of the basic geographical
terrain with special attention to significant geological shifts from volcanic
explosions to silting of ports. A map of temperature zones (and shifts therein)
will accompany this section. Given the critical importance of water navigation,
we will also include a map of the major wind currents as well as indications of
the direction and navigability of river flows. Finally we will include a
series of maps indicating deposits of critical minerals for different time
periods (e.g., copper in the second millennia BCE, oil in the twentieth
century).
Fauna and Flora: Using archeological and historical sources, we will map
the availability of different animals and agricultural goods in different
periods. We will also include maps of the diffusion of such resources.
Candidates for mapping include the diffusion of major cereals and other
foodstuffs and the transfer of animal stocks (and their elimination).
Transport and Communications: Depending on the period and the
relevant technology, we will provide maps of transport routes (caravans,
sailings, roads, railroads, air links). A connected set of maps will produce
indications of the time of travel and associated costs. A similar set of maps
will provide equivalent information for various forms of communications.
Examples of these would include a map of major monsoon-driven routes, mountain
crossings, the Silk Road(s), and contemporary transport systems.
Empires: These maps will be similar to the standard offering in
historical atlases. A series of maps will document the creation and dissolution
of empires that have played a significant role in global integration. These
include the Macedonian, Roman, Chinese, Arab, Mongol, Spanish, and
nineteenth-century European empires.
Wisdom and Health:
Since the first centuries of the Common Era, various sites have played a
critical role in defining and diffusing scientific and artistic knowledge.
Cambridge, Constantinople, Cordoba, Cairo, and Chicago have served as the
centers of a global network of experts and adherents. We will map these links
and the transitions from one era’s scientific capitals to others. Examples will
include leading universities, flows of international students, major hospitals,
contemporary medical tourism, flows of pharmaceuticals, and the establishment
of leading museums and the flow of art to and from them.
Services and Factories: Urban centers have also served to provide provisions for markets of
goods and services. These “middle-urbs” have served as key nodes in global
exchanges. We will map those major markets as well as more contemporary
versions such as leading stock markets and the headquarters of global firms. A
parallel set of maps will display central production sites in global commerce.
Examples would include offices of early banking houses and more contemporary groups
such as American Express and McKinsey Consultants as well as the manufacturing
locations of critical manufacturing inputs (from looms to transistors).
High-value/Prestige Goods: Certainly during earlier stages
of global trade, luxury goods led the development of exchange networks. In some cases, these still represent
important parts of global trade, particularly in the case of the illegal drug
trade. We will map exchanges in such goods as obsidian, gold, silver, gems,
feathers, spices, and cocaine. Maps will offer information on
creation/manufacture, transport, and consumption.
Low-value/Bulk Goods: Such goods are important in defining the effects
of globalization on the mass population. Perhaps the first elaborate exchange
network was in tin and copper (ingredients for bronze). Bulk food goods such as
wheat/maize/rice also developed early. More recently, industrial commodities
(as well as foodstuffs) have become predominant. The choice of which goods to
map will be partly driven by historical significance (e.g., cotton) and by
theavailability of data.
Manufactured Goods: At different stages, various forms of manufacture have
been central to global trade. In the earliest form of a trade network, weapons
were perhaps the most critical good (and the arms trade remains an important
part of world trade). Later, textiles were central but were then supplanted by
heavier industries and capital goods. The two most important contemporary
exchange networks are in electronic goods and automobiles. For the latter, we
will create maps detailing the international integration of production.
Coinage, Investment, and Capital Flows: Trade has often
benefited from the creation of a global currency standard accepted across a
variety of regions. International transactions would be practically impossible
without such accepted tender. We will map several examples, including Roman
coins, Spanish silver pesos, British pounds, and American dollars. We will also
attempt to map the earliest incidence of institutions such as letters of
credit. Foreign investments and lending are almost as old as trade in actual
goods. We will map “capital centers” for different eras as well the general
flow, direction, and forms of financial resources.
Mass Migration: Beginning with the initial move north and east from
Africa, global history has been shaped by mass migrations. In the first set of
maps in this category, we will track prehistorical mass migrations through
recent research using DNA mutations. We will then concentrate on several specific
examples, including the Indo-European invasion and that of the “barbarians”
into Europe around 300–500 CE, the flows of migrations into South Asian, the
“Hansization” of China, and the predominance of Bantu groups in sub-Saharan
Africa. Another set of maps will concentrate on the peopling of the Americas
and the Pacific. A final group will look at the special case of historical and
contemporary nomadism.
Ethnic and Political Diasporas: This section will include maps
of ethnic-specific migrations, such as the Jewish, Chinese, Indian, Lebanese,
and Armenian exoduses. A related group of maps will focus on the great
migrations across the Atlantic and Pacific in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. Another set will concentrate on flights from political and religious
persecution that have had a significant effect on global developments. Some of
the latter include the Protestant expulsions and migrations in the seventeenth
to eighteenth centuries, the intellectual exile from Nazi Germany, and more
contemporary examples such as Soviet refuseniks, and Cuban and Chilean
exiles.
Slavery: This set of maps will concentrate on forced migrations
with special attention devoted to both East and West African slave trades. We
will also look at the special case of the Ottoman Empire. Contemporary maps
will focus on a wider array of forced migration with special attention to the
flow of sexual labor.
Free Labor and Travel: The free movement of labor is a relatively new
phenomenon, and these maps will therefore concentrate on contemporary labor
flows. A parallel set of maps will focus on the creation of contemporary
tourism. Examples will include the network of Filipino guest workers, the labor
markets of the oil-rich Middle East, the postcolonial movements to Europe, and
the special case of the Rio Grande frontier. On tourism, we will identify macro
flows to global sites and the location such institutions as Club Meds and
amusement parks.
Diseases: The transmission of diseases has been one of the most
obvious examples of globalization. We will examine only those with major
historical impact such as the sixth- to seventh-century plagues, the Black
Death, the “American Genocide” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
cholera, influenza, as well as more recent examples such as Aids and SARS. We
may also wish to map other health-related diffusions including obesity and
antismoking legislation.
Conquests and Wars: This set of maps will analyze the expansion outside
centers of military power and pay special attention to the creation and
development of frontier zones. As with the maps of empires, this section will
look very much like a standard historical atlas. More contemporary maps will
also include peacekeeping and forward deployments of units.
Religions: This section will map the expansion of major global
religions with special attention to missionary movements and the creations of
“conversion frontiers.” It will also include maps that represent the diffusion
of foundational texts (translations, publishing, etc.) and trace major
pilgrimage sites from Mecca to Compostela.
Languages: The maps in this segment will begin with the initial
appearance of writing systems and then proceed to the diffusion of alphabets
and writing (and printing) technology. Some will depict shifts in global
distribution of languages and the creation of “world languages.”
Aesthetics: This section will map the spread of literary and
artistic styles across the globe, including architectural developments, musical
styles, and mass media. Examples include Greek amphitheatres, Hindu and
Buddhist temples, the development of Gothic and Baroque styles, the diffusion
of Islamic art forms, the globalization of opera in the nineteenth century, and
the “Americanization” of mass media.
Politics and Policies: These maps will track the diffusion of ways of seeing and
understanding the material world as well as prescriptive strategies. Candidates
include the Communist International, Islamic fundamentalism, contemporary
neoliberalism, environmental protection regulations, new global jurisdictions,
and extradition treaties.
Animals, Steam, and Nukes: These maps will show the
distribution of animals and appropriate technologies for transport and
agriculture. We will pay special attention to how the diffusion of these resources
and technologies makes integration possible.
Technology: This section will map the diffusion of certain
techniques and forms of engineering knowledge. It will include maps on
navigation and production technologies (e.g., sailing ships, the compass). A
subsection will map differing travel times and connectivity between critical
parts of the globe.
Weapons: Beginning with the chariot through the development of
tanks and missiles, weapons have been at the forefront of technological and
political diffusions. This set of maps will document the process across the
millennia.
Cultural Carriers: Beginning with the diffusion of writing, particular
forms of expression have carried ideas across the globe. We will give
particular attention to contemporary technologies, such as newspapers and
television.
Consumption Centers: Markets and locales where new consumer goods
become available also serve to diffuse global cultures. Early examples might
include monasteries and the publication of special texts. We will pay special
attention to central markets and, in more contemporary times, global chains
(e.g., Gap) as well as ethnic restaurants. For the modern period, we will focus
on the penetration of information sources such as CNN and the Wall Street
Journal, as well as media in opposition to these trends.
Maps of Networks: This set of maps will provide a summary of the
connections described above. A subset on power configurations will feature
informal empires and alliance systems, such as those seen during the Reformation,
the Anglo-French wars, and the cold war. A section on commodity chains will
describe global assembly lines and marketing systems. Another set on trade
cycles will describe links between production and exchanges across the globe.
Another on cultural zones will define areas interlinked by a series of
exchanges and the diffusion of cultural standards and norms. A set on
technological grids will focus on telephone, telegraph, and Internet
connections.
Schedule
The first meeting of the advisory board was held in Princeton in April of 2003 and produced many of the ideas discussed above. Subcommittees of the board will meet periodically and a full meeting will be held in 2005. We are awaiting a preliminary contract from Princeton University Press for the atlas which has already received three very positive reviews[10]. During the coming year, we will focus on contacting scholars for possible production of data as well as on applications for funding. The design work on the website will continue. Beginning in 2004, we will begin preparing the data model for all future archive entries and hopefully begin loading the data sets. The selection of maps for the published atlas will begin in 2004 in conjunction with our efforts to recruit scholars. As the data come in and we begin the design process, we will also work on the production techniques and editorial protocols. The archive should be well functioning by 2005 at which point we will also have some map plates ready for inspection. We expect completion publication of the atlas by 2008.
|
Preliminary Schedule |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 |
2004 |
|
2005 |
|
2006 |
|
2007 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
July |
Jan |
July |
Jan |
July |
Jan |
July |
Jan |
July |
Jan |
July |
|
Data |
Research |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applications for funding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive Website |
Design |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data Standardization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data Upload |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlas |
Selection of Maps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electronic Production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production of Print Maps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Final Manuscript |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Print Production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton University is uniquely
qualified to host this project. The University has provided the startup funds
for the project and has made available considerable overhead support. The
University will continue to do so in conjunction with the new Princeton
Institute for International and Regional Studies. PIIRS will house all
personnel associated with the project. The University’s Social Science
Reference Center at Firestone Library, the Academic Services unit of the
Princeton Office of Information Technology, and the Educational Technologies
Center are currently assisting in the further development of the archive and
will also participate in the preparation of the atlas.
The P.I., Miguel Centeno,
possesses the scholarly and editing experience to guide the project. He has
managed several organizations, has produced several academic volumes, and
created a six-hour CD-ROM based on his course on “The Western Way of War.” He
has also managed the INA website for the past three years.
The project also has an
advisory board. Roughly half of the project’s advisory board consists of
Princeton University faculty and staff, and the other half, an international
group of scholars. As currently constituted, the board is U.S.-dominated with a
small European presence, but we will seek to broaden representation (see
footnote #9).
The project will also hire a
Publication Project Manager and a Website/Database Manager. Each of these two half-time positions will
be responsible for the production of the atlas and the archive
respectively. For the first, we will
seek a publishing expert with considerable editing experience. For the second, we will look for someone
familiar with both GIS and database design.
At critical points in the project, we will also hire more experienced
technical consultants to oversee the development of the website. Once we have begun to receive historical
data, we will also hire someone with mapmaking experience (in conjunction with
the likely publishers of the atlas, Princeton University Press). Finally, we will be hiring undergraduate and
graduate students to assist with the functioning of the project’s offices and
with the processing of data as it becomes available.
We are requesting $1,283,945 over five
years. Nearly half of these funds will be used to support direct research by
archive associates and will result in data for the archive and maps for the
atlas. The other half will be used for technical and support personnel at the
INA office in Princeton. None of the
requested funds are intended to supplement or replace the salaries of any of
the academic investigators involved.
References
Bentley,
Jerry H. Shapes of World History in 20th Century Scholarship. Washington: American Historical Association,
1997.
Bentley,
Jerry H. “Cross Cultural Interaction and Peridoization World History”, The American Historical Review, 101, 3,
749-770, 1996.
Bentley, Jerry H. Old World Encounters. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Black, Jeremy.
1997. Maps and History. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Black, Jeremy. 1997. Maps and Politics. London: Reaktion Books.
Bordo
Michael, Alan Taylor and Jeffrey Williamson, eds. Globalization in Historical Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Breiger, Ronald. 1981. “Structures of Economic Interdependence among
Nations” in Peter Blau and R. Merton, eds. Continuities
in Structural Inquiry. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Burt, Ronald S. 1980. “Models of Network
Structure”. Annual Review of Sociology
6:79-141.
Carnoy, Martin, M. Castells, S. Cohen, and F.H. Cardoso. 1993. The New Global Economy in the Information
Age. University Park: Penn State Press.
Castells, Manuel.
1996. The Rise of the Network
Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Peter Grimes. 1995. "World Systems
Analysis". Annual Review of
Sociology, 21, pp. 387-417.
Chase-Dunn,
Christopher and Thomas D. Hall. 1997. Rise and Demise: Comparing World Systems. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Clark, Ian. 1998. “Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the
Theory of International Relations”. Review of International Studies 24,
479-498.
Cooper,
Frederick. “What is the Concept of
Globalization Good For?” African Affairs,
2001, 100, pp. 189-213, 2001.
Crosby, Alfred W. Ecological Imperialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986.
Curtin, Philip D. Cross-cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Curtin, Philip D. The World and the West.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Emirbayer, Emir and Jeff Goodwin. 1994. “Network analysis, Culture,
and the Problem of Agency”. American
Journal of Sociology 99, 6:1411-54.
Epstein, Gloria, James Crotty and Patricia Kelly. 1996. “Winners and
Losers in the Global Economics Game”. Current History, 95, 604, pp. 377-381.
Fligstein, Neil. 1998. “Is Globalization the Cause of the Crises of
Welfare States?” EUI Working Paper SPS
No. 98/5.
Garrett, Geoffrey, "The Causes of
Globalization”, Comparative Political
Studies, 33, 6/7, pp. 941-991.
Gereffi, Gary and L. Hempel. 1996. “Latin America in the Global
Economy: Running Faster to Stay in Place”.
NACLA Report on the Americas,
XXIX, 4, 17-41.
Gereffi, Gary and Miguel Korzeniewicz, eds. 1994. Commodity chains and global capitalism.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Geyer,
Michael and Charles Bright. “World History in a Global Age”, The American Historical Review, 100, 4,
1034-1060, 1995.
Gould, Roger V. 1991. “Multiple Networks and Mobilization in the
Paris Commune, 1871”. American Sociological Review 56:716-29.
Granovetter, Mark. 1995. Getting
a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers (2nd. ed). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Guillén,
Mauro F. “Is Globalization Civilizing,
Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of
Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature”. Annual Review of Sociology,
27, pp. 235-260.
Hargittai,
Esther and Miguel A. Centeno, eds. Mapping
Globalization. Special Issue of American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 10,
2001.
Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson. 1996. Globalization in Question. London: Polity Press.
Hirst,
Paul Q. and Grahame Thompson. Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the
Possibilities of Governance.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hodgson, Marshall G.S. Rethinking World History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993.
Huntington, Samuel. 1996. The
Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon and Shuster.
Keck, Margaret and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Lewis, Martin w. and Kären E. Wigen. The Myth of Continents. Berkeley:
University of California, 1997.
Louch, Hough, E. Hargittai, and M. Centeno. 1999. “Phone Calls and Fax
Machines". Washington Quarterly
22, 2.
Manning,
Patrick. “The Problem of Interaction in World History”, The American Historical Review, 101, 3, 771-782, 1996.
McNeill, J.R. and William H. McNeill. The
Human Web. New York: Norton, 2003.
Meyer, John W., D.J. Frank, A. Hironaka, Evan Schofer, and Nancy
Brandon Tuma. 1997. “The Structuring of a World Environmental regime,
1870-1990.” International Organization,
51, 4, 623-51.
Mittelman,
James H. 2000. The Globalization
Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
O’Rourke,
Kevin and Jeffrey Williamson. Globalization and History: the Evolution of
the 19th Century Atlantic Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.
Padgett, John and Christopher Ansell. 1993. “Robust Action and the
Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434”. American
Journal of Sociology 98:1259-1319.
Pomeranz, Kenneth and Steven Topik. The
World Trade Created. Armonk, NY: ME
Sharpe, 1999.
Powell, Walter W. 1990. "Neither Market nor Hierarchy." In
Barry Staw and L.L. Cummings, ed., Research
in Organizational Behavior. v. 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Robinson, Will. 1996. “Globalization, the World system, and
‘Democracy promotion’ in U.S. Foreign Policy”.
Theory and Society, 25/5 pp.
615-665.
Rodrik, Dani. 1997. Has Globalization
Gone Too Far? Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.
Rosenthal, Naomi, Meryl Fingrutd, Michele Ethier, Roberta Karant, and
David McDonald. 1985. “Social Movements
and Network Analysis: A case Study of Nineteenth-Century Women’s Reform in New
York State.” American Journal of
Sociology 90: 1022-54.
Sassen, Saskia.
2001. The Global City. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 1999. “Global Financial Centers”.
Foreign Affairs, 78.
Scholte, Jan Aart. 1997. “Global Capitalism and
State”. International Affairs, 73, 3,
427-452.
Schwartzman, Kathleen. 1998. “Globalization and
Democracy”. Annual Review of Sociology,
24 159-181.
Smith, D.A. and D.R. White. 1992. "Structure and Dynamic of the
Global Economy: Network Analysis of international Trade 1965-1980." Social Forces, 70, pp. 857-893.
Snyder, D. and E. Kick. 1979. "Structural Position in the World
System and Economic Growth, 1955-1970.”American
Journal of Sociology, 84, pp. 1096-1126.
Tignor, Robert et al. Worlds Together, Worlds Apart. New York: Norton, 2001.
Tufte, Edward R. 1983. The Visual Display of
Quantitative Information. Cheshire,
CT: Graphic Press.
Tufte, Edward R. 1990. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
VanBergeijk, Peter and N. Mensink. 1997. Measuring Globalization. Journal of World Trade, 31:3 159-168.
Wallerstein, Emmanuel. 1979. The Capitalist
World-Economy. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wolf,
Eric R. Europe and the People without
History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
[1] For some representative pieces
see Mittelman 2000, Hirst and Thompson 1996, Sassen 1991, Castells 1996, and
Guillén 2000, Garrett 2000 . The closest we have come to a systemic
understanding of globalization is through the World System tradition
(Wallerstein 1979, Chase-Dunn and hall 1997, Chase-Dunn and Grimes 1995).
[2] The closest model for the
aspirations of INA is the human genome project and its successful efforts to
unite a scientific community behind an empirical target. For the PIIRS project,
relevant models are the Interactive Mediterranean Project at UNC
(http://iam.classics.unc.edu) and the resulting Barrington Atlas of the
Greek and Roman World.
[3] For discussions see Bentley 1996, 1997; Manning 1996;
Geyer and Bright 1995; and Hodgson 1993. Some recent example of this type of
work include Crosby 1986; Wolf 1982;
McNeill and McNeill 2003; Bentley 1993; Curtin 2000, 1984; Pomerantz and Topik
1999; and Tignor et al. 2001. For excellent examples of a historical approach
to globalization, see O’Rourke and Williamson 2001 and Bordo, Taylor and
Williamson, 2003. For a critical perspective on globalization from a historian
see Cooper 2001.
[4] See Clark 1998; Robinson 1996;
Huntington 1996; Scholte 1997; Epstein, Crotty, and Kelly, 1996; Rodrik 1997;
Carnoy et al. 1993; Fligstein 1998; Gereffi and Hempel 1996; Hargattai and
Centeno 2001; Hirst and Thompson 1997; Louch et al. 1999; Smith and White 1992;
Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994; van Bergeijk
and Mensink 1997; Meyer, et al. 1997;
Keck and Sikkink 1998; Schwartzman 1998; and Sassen 1999.
[5]
For a
delightful exception, see Watts 2002. See also http://www.theyrule.net. Critical references in the network tradition
include Burt 1980; Breiger 1981; Emirbayer and Goodwin 1994; Gould 1991;
Granovetter 1995; Padgett and Ansel 1993; and Powell 1990.
[6] For illustrations of some
graphic principles, see http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/historical.html.
[7]
See the
discussion in Black 1997, and Lewis and Wigen 1997.
[8] Tufte 2001, 10. There are already some related efforts available on the
Internet. In terms of variety, the
Cartography Department of the Sciences Po in Paris is perhaps the most
impressive (http://www.sciences-po.fr/cartographie).
INA differs from this effort in making more explicit a network model and by
allowing access to the relevant data. Lothar Krempel and his colleagues have
focused more on representations of networks, specifically those involved in
global trade (http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/~lk/netvis/trade/WorldTrade.html).
While these graphics may be the best representations of the networks underlying
globalization, they suffer from the
unavailability of data and from the exclusion of much of the world not relevant
to global manufacture. Other relevant sites include http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/links.html
and http://www.iscgm.org.
[9] Members include Princeton University History, Politics, and Sociology faculty as well key staff from the Library and the Office of Information Technology. External members include Richard Appelbaum (UCSB), Jerry Bentley (Hawaii), Jeremy Black (Exeter), Manuel Castells (UC Berkeley), Christopher Chase-Dunn (UC Riverside), Saskia Sassen (Chicago), and Charles Tilly (Columbia).
[10] These have given the Press permission to provide their names: John Campbell (Dartmouth), J.R. McNeill (Georgetown), and Kenneth Pomerantz, UC Irvine).
[SCS1]Didn’t we also consider recruiting some more people from elsewhere? Is that worth mentioning here?
[SCS2] I don’t really get this sentence so I don’t think I fixed it well.
[SCS3]Are these always “transactions” per se? Migration or the spread of disease is not necessarily a transaction, but they may be relevant to map (or not)