Early Modernity: An Idea in Need of Greater Depth

Abstract

Early Modernity: An Idea in Need of Greater Depth James Grehan (bio) Keywords Early Modern, Ottoman Empire, Social History, Urbanization One common complaint leveled against the term “early modernity” is that it carries too much baggage. Historians who try to apply it to Ottoman history, or any other part of the “non-Western” world, will immediately have to fend off the accusation that they are, unwittingly or not, smuggling a “Eurocentric” framework into places where it does not belong. If we are to use this term outside European history, then, the fundamental task will be to fashion a definition which is suitable for the entire globe. Yet sensitivity to Eurocentrism, fueled by debates about orientalism, will not be enough for the job. A more insidious problem within conventional narratives about early modernity is a preoccupation with social elites. Receiving nearly exclusive stress are trends at the “top” of society, e.g., the diffusion of firearms, the subsequent creation of “gunpowder empires,” the growth of long-distance trade, the huge expansion in the worldwide stock of bullion, the resulting impulse towards commercialization, etc. All these observations are undoubtedly part of the story, but leave out far too much. It is a way of writing history which returns, again and again (like much of Ottoman historiography itself), to the state, its army and bureaucracy, and well-to-do merchants. The rest of society appears as idle bystanders, at best marginal to the discussion and distant from the real motors of historical change. The path to a more suitable definition therefore lies squarely (though not exclusively, of course) within social history. In no other way can we bring the question of “early modernity” down to street level. Indeed, if we cannot find signs of it here, then it will always seem like a cheap knock-off from European historiography, and worse still, have almost nothing to say about the experiences of the vast majority of Ottoman subjects (and people elsewhere). Thus, social history will supply the sternest test for any “early modern” periodization. [End Page 34] It will commit us to a search for “deep structures.” Without this requisite social depth, any notion of “early modernity” will forever totter over narrow and shaky foundations. How should such a social history proceed? One theme which ought to be at the forefront is urbanization. Nearly everywhere from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, towns grew larger and more numerous. This shift towards a relatively more urban population has to be one of the decisive boundaries between the early modern and medieval eras. If we look at the Ottoman experience, we immediately find intriguing parallels. Most dramatic, especially during the sixteenth century, was the sprouting of new towns and the revival of old ones across Anatolia and the Balkans. In the Arab provinces, too, the urban population grew substantially (in the range of sixty to eighty percent for the biggest Arab towns between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries). The conversion of villagers into townspeople and the creation of self-consciously urban social zones have to rank as achievements of the first order. We have hardly come to grips with all this far-reaching upheaval, which was hardly unique to the Ottoman Empire. Early modern societies throughout Eurasia were nurseries for towns and fostered the dim beginnings of what would later, under more favorable circumstances, mature into modern bourgeois culture. A more urban population necessarily generates greater social dynamism. By their nature, towns accelerate social mobility and innovation. One result of Ottoman urbanization was the formation of a more articulated social hierarchy whose various ranks, manners, and status symbols have yet to be analyzed in detail. A more obvious departure from medieval times was the rise of a more sophisticated material culture. Most famous are the early modern recreational drugs, coffee and tobacco (joined by tea, chocolate, and sugar in other parts of the world). We might imagine that these commodities conquered new markets by virtue of their chemical charms alone. Their diffusion, though, is inconceivable without the growth of towns, which accounted for the greatest “market share” and were most active in fostering a new leisure culture—most notably in the invention of the coffeehouse...