The Problem of Interactions in World History

Abstract

JERRY BENTLEY, in proposing a periodization of world history, offers us more than a set of periods. He defends a specific criterion for evaluating world-historical change, develops his set of periods out of that criterion, and utilizes the periods to suggest long-term interpretations of history. His criterion focuses on cross-cultural interaction. More precisely, he identifies three main of (mass migration, empire building, and long-distance trade) as having had significant repercussions across the boundary lines of societies and cultural regions. In applying his criterion to develop a periodization, Bentley relies on documented changes in the scale and character of these three kinds of processes to identify six major periods in the history of the Afro-Eurasian land mass.1 Then, within the framework of this periodization, he offers a narrative of periodic expansion in scale and transformation in character of cross-cultural interactions. The latter point is worthy of underscoring: if Bentley's interpretation focused mainly on expansions in the scale of cross-cultural contacts, we would have yet another narrative of progress. Instead, he sidesteps a linear interpretation of world history by emphasizing successive changes in the character of cross-cultural interactions along with their growing magnitude.2 I find Bentley's presentation to be elegant and comprehensive, and I am inclined to accept cross-cultural interaction as an appropriate criterion for periodizing world history. But the implications of Bentley's scheme may be broader than they first appear.3 For if one accepts cross-cultural interaction as the criterion for periodization in world history, one tends at the same time to accept such interactions as the main subject matter of world history. This big step requires some discussion.