Abu Lughod pt. 2

In this second section of "Before European Hegemony," Abu Lughod focuses on the Middle East and its critical role in the world system prior to the dominance of European colonial powers. She begins by describing the Mongol hordes and their far-reaching impact on this world system, literally stretching from Korea, through China and to the very doorstep of Western Europe. Despite this impressive extent of their rule, her writing reveals that the Mongols were the cause of their own downfall, fragmenting in the absence of powerful Khans to lead the entire hoard and in allowing themselves to become influenced by the local cultures and people they ruled over. The overall explanation for this seems to be the fact that the Mongols were largely a parasitic empire, conquering others in order to leech resources, goods and services from them, but continually needing to conquer additional lands to ensure a consistent surplus -- this system Lughod argues, was simply doomed to fail from the start, and was all a matter of time. Before their empire broke, the Mongols succeeded in playing an important role in spreading the bubonic plague, perhaps one of their most enduring legacies, although it led to the rebellion of many of their territories and their subsequent loss of control. The Black Death continues to be heavily featured in these chapters, and truly decimated the world system, affecting all areas in one way or another. The many world cities, as the connection points for important trade routes traversed by many people were the primary sufferers in this legacy, and Muslim empires like the Mamluk Egyptians, though not completely destroyed, were severely weakened. To this extent they never again returned to their previous strength and were unable to maintain their dominance over their monopolies in the world system.

I found Lughod's discussion of the recurring expanse and decline of civilizations in this world system interesting, because it is a persistent theme throughout her book (as well as history, of course). Like the Romans and Macedonians before them, the Mongols overextended themselves, and in such a fashion as to essentially ensure their own demise. Certainly this trend in her writing is more a product of the history in this period -- after all, it is a book that chronicles the fall of the original, somewhat egalitarian world system and the rise of a new European world order (at least up through the middle of the 20th century). I also found her discussion of the relationship between the West and this Middle East to be interesting, especially the story of Marco Polo and his brothers, who served the Mongol Khan and in the process saw the world.

I wonder now after reading this section whether our world can ever achieve a truly egalitarian trade system, when everyone has something to contribute and to look for from others. It seems to me that in this system, although Europeans were still relatively minor players when compared to the major powers of the day, still had extreme inequalities perpetuated either by war or by unfair agreements and monopolies. This is the natural process of even the most basic economics, I know, but I still wonder about what a world in which every country was a productive player in the global economy would look like. Personally I doubt such a system will ever arise, because it would not be to the benefit of those currently in power, and should this change it will be because those dominant nations will lose their positions and create a vacuum for new power brokers rather than simply adding more chairs to the global bargaining table. I'm curious as to what you all think, though: can an equal system in regards to economic input ever be achieved (meaning every country contributes and consumes to a relatively even extent)? Can we call this system one, moreso than the system we find ourselves in today?