Abu Lughod, "Before European Hegemony" pt.1

In the first few chapters of Abu Lughod's book covering global trade networks during the middle 13th to 14th centuries, the author repeatedly notes that it is an examination of "a moment in history" rather than a "fruitless" attempt to explain European hegemony over the world trade system in the later years of the twentieth century. Despite this disclaimer, Lughod notes her belief that it was because of a temporary state of disarray in Asia that allowed for Europe to pull ahead before the start of the early modern period, effectively enabling it to establish its dominance. She discusses several cities in this section that were major players in the period she features heavily in her book, most notably Champagne, Bruges and Ghent of Flanders, and Venice and Genoa of Italy. According to Lughod, The rise and fall of the fairs of Champagne and the textile industries of Flanders teach us that successful international trade centers provided three things: 1) safety and security to those who came to sell, trade, and buy, 2) availability of money changers and enforcement of reasonable contracts and exchange rates, and 3) a certain "pull factor" that made the region or location especially attractive for traders to bring luxury items with an expectation of high profitability. The third factor is considered the most important, as Lughod notes that even today, it is the small, luxury items from afar that earn more than the heavier, more mundane products that can be procured anywhere. After all, these items are not worth the risk and effort of long distance travel if they are to be found in plenty and sold for less from more local sources - there is simply no money in it. In Lughod's discussion of the lessons we learn from Venice and Genoa, it is that in order to become an international economic power, the importance of industrial supremacy and the ability to meet supply and demand through access to the best markets cannot be overestimated. As stated in her introductory chapter, Lughod's telling of history reflects her argument that the world trading system was much more egalitarian during this period, as nobody was able to establish more than a fleeting control over an entire market: as noted in the discussion of the Champagne fairs, because of circumstances that are beyond "blame" or "deserving," the world market simply comes to outgrow certain established practices or powers. I think that this is very telling of the trend we have been seeing in the past several years, as China, India, and Brazil (amongst others) have truly begun coming into their own as world powers that compete directly with the U.S., Japan and Europe.

I found Lughod's discussion of her approach to historical sources (accounts and data, specifically) to be very interesting. The idea that for the majority of history (and even today) historical accounts cannot be separated from the subjectivity of the individual who recorded them is both reasonable and practical. Not only must one take into account the experience of that person, but what they may have left out or exaggerated. However, I am a big fan of using that bias as an indication of the values that individual held, and what that says about their class or larger society as a whole. Information can be gleaned not just from the literal interpretation of an individuals writings, but of what they highlighted, and why.

I was a little frustrated that the focus of this section of the book was on Europe. I understand that these are important areas of the world to cover, and that Lughod moves on to the world systems later, but it seemed interesting to me that for a book that focuses so heavily on the world prior to European hegemony, she would choose to begin with a discussion of Europe. Unfortunately I read a book on this exact subject last semester, but I am looking forward to Lughod's views on what caused the shift in control over the world systems.