Note to Readers: This file contains the complete transcript of the World History Research Agenda Symposium, November 11 and 12, 2006, as recorded by court reporter Myriam Maracas. It includes the two separately numbered transcripts for November 11 (268 pages) and for November 12 (210 pages). The transcript has been partially edited to correct errors, especially in proper names (for instance, in citation of book titles and authors). 1 1 VOLUME: I PAGES: 1 to 268 2 EXHIBITS: None 3 4 THE WORLD HISTORY NETWORK 5 RESEARCH AGENDA SYMPOSIUM 6 7 RESEARCH IN WORLD HISTORY: CONNECTIONS & GLOBALIZATIONS 8 9 10 Boston, John Hancock Conference Center 11 40 Trinity Place 12 Boston, Massachusetts. 13 14 Saturday, November 11, 2006. 15 8:58 a.m. 16 17 (Myriam A. Maracas, Court Reporter) 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. McKEOWN: All right. Good morning. 3 Welcome to the conference for the Research 4 Agenda in World History. Can everybody hear me 5 okay? Yes. All right. This is, I think, for 6 many of us a, perhaps, different kind of 7 conference. I think the fact that we're here 8 and the idea of world history, we could all 9 agree that on the need for collaboration, 10 although I imagine that as historians, most of 11 us are actually quite rusty on the actual 12 process of collaboration; and I think even so, 13 as world historians living with a disapproval of 14 many of our colleagues, also tend to be better 15 individualistic by nature in any case so even 16 more rusty; and the ultimate goal of the 17 conference, a consensus statement on the 18 research project of world history, I would 19 imagine for all of us at the idea and process of 20 the consensus statement is, indeed, an 21 unfamiliar one, an unfamiliar at best, at least. 22 So I mean, for many of us, the general 23 mode in a conference is to call, give your 24 paper, show off how smart you are, show off all 3 1 of your new perspectives, of your new ideas, how 2 you're thinking about different ideas; and while 3 I hope that all of us continue to demonstrate 4 and show off how smart we are, perhaps the 5 second aspect can be modified a touch instead of 6 start looking for how some of our ideas and our 7 interests are, indeed, similar to the other ones 8 being presented; and if, indeed, there is 9 disagreement and debate, how could we set up 10 questions, issues, a research framework or some 11 kind of other framework that might help us reach 12 some kind of answer or formulation of the debate 13 so looking for modes of cooperation here. 14 On a practical level, this means that 15 everybody in the panels will be rigidly limited 16 to five minutes. I will make noises at about 20 17 or 30 seconds, which means end essentially now. 18 And I hope that while you are, in addition to 19 presenting your own ideas, you may want to also, 20 I would suggest, present your ideas in terms of 21 a dialogue, what the other presenters and in 22 what sense you see yourself interacting with the 23 other people on the stage. 24 And let me also point out to you, 4 1 introduce you to Myriam Maracas behind me. She 2 is our court reporter who will be transcribing 3 everything that we say, which means that she 4 wants us all to speak loudly and clearly, and 5 she will let us know if we're not speaking 6 loudly and clearly, which also means that when 7 you speak, please introduce yourself, where 8 you're from, and hopefully even stand up so 9 everybody can see and hear you. 10 And Parker said that there might be 11 microphones available. Indeed, if you have 12 laryngitis or your voice is quiet, please do not 13 hesitate to ask for a microphone. 14 And one last piece of evidence. As we 15 heard last night, Libby Robin, who's supposed to 16 be on this panel from the Australia National 17 University, will not be able to attend. So I 18 just want to remind you about Libby Robin's 19 paper. It's Libby Robin and Will Steffen were 20 co-authors of it and they were coming from 21 something that is already in place so that the 22 project for the International geosphere and 23 biosphere programs running out of Sweden which 24 biophysical scientists are getting together to 5 1 understand change in the earth's climate, and 2 they've developed this idea of the apropos 3 scene, which is the stage within which human 4 activity has begun to affect the biophysical 5 processes of the planet in a big way. And they 6 came and invited historians to participate in 7 this project because when you get into an 8 apropos scene, this means we must start 9 understanding the institutions and practices of 10 humans, and they would like humans to become or 11 those of us who study the history of humans, to 12 become part of this large project. 13 And I think that this sets up two 14 issues that I think in many ways frame this 15 whole first panel. The first one, I think, that 16 most of us on this panel do agree that some kind 17 of collaboration between the hard sciences and 18 historians is a desirable objective; and yet, I 19 think it is still very, very much an open 20 question on what terms such a collaboration 21 could possibly take place. And even, I think 22 it's still up in question what exactly is it 23 that we historians do in the first place, if, 24 indeed, we're going to collaborate and add 6 1 something to the collaboration. So to start 2 off, I think these are some of the broader 3 questions that come in this panel, but let us go 4 forward with our five-minute comments from each 5 of the participants. I'm just going to go down 6 the list as they are presented in the symposium 7 program here. So let's, please, begin with on 8 that side, Marnie Hughes-Warrington, who is from 9 Macquarie University and very much on the 10 historiography. 11 MS. MARNIE HUGHES-WARRINGTON: Thank 12 you very much. I'm first here this morning. My 13 dear queenie wrote this to her daughter in 1776. 14 "When one writes on the prodigies happenings of 15 the world, the eternal difficulty is to judge 16 where to contract most and where to amplify. 17 One should resemble Samuel Johnson, whom he sent 18 a long time ago -- Samuel Johnson said to write 19 a geographical dictionary and look it over. He 20 said he spent far too little time writing on 21 Athens. Our good doctor said, if I make so much 22 writing on Athens, what room will there be to 23 the Duke of Abington?" This quote from a letter 24 to the daughter in April of 1776 is actually 7 1 illustrative beyond its immediate context. The 2 world debate on the exclusiveness or 3 inclusiveness of world history continues and 4 rages around the globe today. The 19th Century 5 world histories of people like Piotsi, Mary 6 Atkin, Sara Joe, C. Hale, William Quinn, and 7 John Newbury are all but forgotten; and this is 8 not simply because as one reviewer said of 9 Piotsi's retrospection published in 1801. This 10 is a history cooked up as a novel reduced to 11 light reading for boarding school misses and 12 lounges (inaudible) place. 13 It is rather because of a common 14 expectation, an expectation expressed by 15 Osterhammel, Patrick O'Brien, Jerry Bentley, 16 (inaudible), Mottman(?) and Wuda Meta(?) that the 17 field of world history was and, perhaps, still 18 is a modern masculist enlightenment project, 19 which even when it tries not to, depermalizes(?) 20 those outside of the west. I call their views 21 an expectation for their understandings of base, 22 not upon historical research, but on rounding up 23 what Hobbes, Michaels, the usual suspects, and we 24 know who they are. Kant, Hegel, and Marx. We 8 1 tell a story about our field, a story which 2 rests on very little historical evidence. This 3 expected history is important because it feeds 4 both celebratory narratives of a field redeemed 5 through professionalization or as forever locked 6 within what Bentley calls the gravitational 7 field of enlightenment. It's a story that leads 8 us to doubt the past, the present, and the 9 future capacity of world history as an 10 international field. 11 World history, let us be clear, has 12 always been and is and will be an international 13 field. It's simply that we do not expect it to 14 be one. The way to move beyond this expectation 15 is to, like Mr. Piotis, amplify not on Athens or 16 in this case Hegel, Marx, and Kant, but on 17 Abington, which are the many, many world 18 historical writers which can to date have 19 eluded our surveys. It is an historical 20 endeavor which will take in by parallel 21 traditions the likes of China and Islam, of 22 course, but also variations, appropriations, and 23 a subservience of what we always call the 24 Western tradition, which has become too 9 1 monolithic a thing to be helpful for us. When I 2 opened the door to 19th Century world history, 3 as I did two years ago, I was hit on the head by 4 hundreds and hundreds of volumes and discovered 5 at that time, as Piotsi noted herself, that 6 doing the historiography of world history is a 7 (inaudible) task, one way beyond the capacity of 8 a single researcher, it is beyond the capacity 9 of anybody with one or two languages. 10 My statement this morning and my 11 statement in print, therefore, says with nearly 12 all of the others in this conference, an 13 expressed desire of collaboration, one that I 14 would like to make practical through suggesting 15 the idea of a historiography research cluster, 16 one that works together to seek funding 17 opportunities beyond the often national 18 boundaries of funding bodies, one that also 19 takes opportunities to encourage the existence 20 of who to tell Ph.D. arrangements. This 21 collaboration, I think, is important not just 22 because I'm a historiographer and I look to work 23 with other historiographers. I think it's 24 important because it gives the ability to recast 10 1 how we think about the field of world history. 2 It takes us away from being vexed about an overly 3 narrow cultural base and takes us to a new 4 future where we presume always international 5 engagement, where we presume variation and 6 differences in understanding of world history, 7 where we presume those differences are not just 8 national but supra(?) national, along the lines 9 of religion, of culture, of education, of 10 economic background. This shift in view, I 11 believe, not only makes us better historians and 12 historiographers. It makes us better able to 13 engage with pressing international problems at 14 present, because we presume that we are an 15 international field and that we have 16 international participants. When we have this 17 view of ourselves, we can more readily engage 18 with the most pressing problems; and I've 19 identified a number of them: Environmental, of 20 course, social, economic, and religious and 21 political, many of which, of course, are in the 22 statements scattered across this conference. 23 So what do I want? I want a practical 24 outcome of walking away from this conference 11 1 knowing, having more names and want to 2 collaborate internationally to try and expand 3 our understanding of what we are in this field. 4 Not presuming that we can come up with a single 5 definition, but understanding that we have a 6 rich historical tradition, one that we can be 7 proud of. 8 MR. McKEOWN: Thank you very much. 9 Perfect timing. Next we have David Christian, 10 who brings us another Australian accent, 11 although he's currently located in San Diego 12 State University and this period of historical 13 specialization is the one from the big bang into 14 the future. Thank you, David. 15 MR. DAVID CHRISTIAN: Thank you very 16 much, and thank you very much to the organizers 17 of this conference to bringing together such a 18 genuinely gathering of world historians. I want 19 to make -- the basic argument I want to make is 20 that I think it's extremely important that world 21 historians collaborate on the project of 22 constructing a unified history of humanity. The 23 proposal is very general, that we desperately 24 need to construct such a project collectively 12 1 together. We need to do it in a way that 2 balances the large narrative against the 3 specific, the personal, the private. This is 4 not a project for ignoring all of the 5 specificity of modern historical research at 6 all. And as Marnie has taught me and many of 7 us, this is actually what world history always 8 used to be until about a century ago, so this is 9 not something new. It's a return to a way of 10 thinking about world history but with modern 11 data. 12 Now, why do this? I'm going to offer 13 two sets of reasons. The first I'll refer as 14 intellectual reasons. The third is ethical 15 reasons for this. The first -- and this is what 16 I talked about in my written proposal -- human 17 history regarded as a coherent story covering at 18 least 250,000 years. We can quibble about that 19 date but that's not relevant here. It's much, 20 much more, in sum, of the past. That's one of 21 the reasons we need to grasp it. I say that 22 because world history has emergent properties. 23 There are qualities that emerge when 24 you look at it, at human history, as a whole 13 1 that cannot be seen when you look at specific 2 histories, and I've described some of them in my 3 written statement in talking about strange 4 parallels. There are convergences that cannot 5 be explained through diffusion. They, 6 therefore, must be telling us something about 7 the deeper nature of human history as a whole 8 and those are issues we can only tackle in 9 Alaska. So human history is much more than some 10 of the past and if we think we can construct it 11 by just putting together lots of small history, 12 it won't work. We can't do that. 13 Secondly, comparison. World 14 historians almost by definition are comparative 15 historians. My own feeling is that if you're 16 serious about comparison, you need as complete 17 and rich a database as possible. In the case of 18 human history, that means taking very seriously 19 the whole of human history and the absence that 20 I notice most of all is the absence of the 21 paleolithic. There is kind of -- we talk about 22 Eurocentrism a lot. There is modern centrism, 23 and I think that is something we need to 24 overcome. We need to understand that we have a 14 1 huge amount to learn from a better understanding 2 of paleolithic societies and understanding the 3 differences in similarities between our 4 societies and theirs. 5 Third, we can tell the story now in a 6 way that we couldn't have done even 50 years ago 7 and the reason is because when I'm increasingly 8 thinking of chronometric evolution, a whole 9 series of new techniques, most of which were 10 developed since the second World War that allows 11 for the first time in several thousand years to 12 tell an historical story about the past with 13 absolute dates. We've been captives of the 14 written record until the chronometric 15 revolution. That has transformed our 16 understanding of the past. We can now tell a 17 good story, a coherent one, so we can do it. 18 Now, these are the reasons why world 19 history is different, I think. This large 20 project is what makes world history different. 21 Secondly, ethical reasons. My strategy, as you 22 can see, is to talk fast to get through the five 23 minutes. Ethical reasons why this is crucial. 24 Imagine yourself in a post-apocalyptic world. I 15 1 just read -- (inaudible) -- McCarthy's 2 astonishing novel, "The Road." Then think what 3 were the historians doing. This is the 4 experience we had at the end of the first World 5 War. Were they telling the story that they need 6 to be told? That's a story about humanity as a 7 whole, tearing itself apart, becoming more and 8 more powerful and tearing itself apart, and the 9 answer will be no. We are in a position that we 10 can start telling that story and constructing 11 the unified human identity that we will need to 12 construct if we are not to tear ourselves apart 13 as a global species. That is why world history 14 matters profoundly at the moment. I'm sorry. 15 MR. McKEOWN: Thank you very much. 16 Next we have Silvia Pappe, who was born in 17 Switzerland and comes to us via the Universidad 18 Nacional Autonoma, Mexico, and she is interested in 19 methodologies, histographies, and theory of 20 doing history. Thank you very much. 21 MS. SILVIA PAPPE: Thank you very much. 22 I think that my form didn't get here on time so 23 I -- the main purpose of my participation is to 24 question certain options of significant world 16 1 history, considering the social and cultural 2 place of any historian, his or her such 3 activity, cultural memory, and 4 self-understanding accepted in all theoretical 5 discussions on time: discourse, narrative, 6 reception and histography, common differences. 7 I want to put two fields of research together in 8 the first one. Historical knowledge and 9 research are based on social experience, memory, 10 self-understanding, which allows us to point out 11 cultural and symbolic differences, historic and 12 social self as different from others. 13 On the other hand, we have a lot of 14 debate in theory which talks about continent of 15 the social of historians and after the death of 16 the great narrations, we have orientation of all 17 kinds of these courses. The modernity, which is 18 linked to modern history, has been subdivided in 19 multiple modalities and of continuity and 20 discontinuity. 21 As a result, we have diversification 22 and multiplication of all kinds of points of 23 mood, which today is not only a cultural right 24 but also an academic must. It is, however, 17 1 almost untouched. The concept of space seems to 2 be granted when it comes to its implications for 3 world history. In my opinion, there has not 4 been enough deliberation on these two challenges 5 related to spaces. In the first, we have the 6 lack of a point of view, both cultural and 7 scientific, which would allow you to observe or 8 see the spaces related to world history. When I 9 talk about the scientific points of view, I'm 10 conscious also of cultural points of view; but I 11 want to remember that when we talk about science 12 in a natural science way, we are talking about 13 non-historic points of view, symbolic with the 14 mathematical measuring. 15 Remember that when we are talking 16 about science, natural science, we just could -- 17 (inaudible) -- historical and cultural elements. 18 On the second hand, we have the risk 19 and weight of a so-called socialist(?) of world 20 historians whenever social stands in opposition 21 to others. Both questions left to a point where 22 an increasing number of cultural horizons which 23 determine our vision related to the past are no 24 longer experienced. The problem of space can no 18 1 longer be to problems linked to our objectives 2 of interest. It should also include process of 3 self-observations of historians when it comes to 4 understanding of his or her identity. In other 5 words, whatever seems to be relevant when it is 6 a social and cultural place of historians, we 7 have views to a problem not of space but of 8 substantivity(?) . Acknowledge, lack of one's 9 so-called scientific on the contrary, as crucial 10 for both recommendation and self-expression of 11 others. If there is no social place, literal or 12 symbolic, based on experience on a specific 13 cultural horizon or memory on self-identity and 14 consciousness from where to observe, 15 conceptualize, and organize whatever we create a 16 significant past for ourselves, as well as on 17 the historian societies. If this is happening, 18 then we have to ask at least three questions. 19 Can we speak of world history in the same way as 20 we traditionally speak of local, regional, and 21 natural histories? 22 Well, the questioning of the world 23 historians' place give back on any other history 24 to point that such activity and cultural points 19 1 of view are nothing but a rhetoric assumption of 2 doubts of these cultural places we claim. And 3 the third question, if historians place their 4 point of view participating in the process of 5 documentation and multiplication, be observed in 6 theoretical discussions, should we not think the 7 bounds, a new bound, and we think it between 8 space and subjectivity. Thank you very much. 9 MR. McKEOWN: Thank you very much. 10 Next we have Peter Gran from Temple University, 11 and I think he has a most entertaining biography 12 of all of us, so I think you're well to read it. 13 MR. PETER GRAN: Thank you very much, 14 Adam. As I said in the biography, I have no 15 experience writing biographies so I don't 16 encourage people who are looking for that. As a 17 holding of this conference, it implies world 18 history has an advantage re-inventing itself as 19 a new field having, therefore, a certain lack of 20 recognition as a research field and thus, being, 21 perhaps, in a position to try in a new 22 direction. My remarks are addressed 23 accordingly. I thought about various different 24 possibilities before I came up here in terms of 20 1 where this field might go. Some along the lines 2 of augmentation of what exists, some along the 3 lines of charting a new scientific agenda above 4 and beyond the nation's state and beyond where 5 we are today; and I have -- (inaudible) -- with 6 great many of the initiatives suggested in the 7 various papers, but I came to the conclusion 8 those are insufficient somehow to stand alone, 9 not being a road for new information and going 10 beyond the nation's state, that is training 11 students who, perhaps, don't feel so comfortable 12 in their own countries, perhaps not seen as a 13 totally positive outcome. 14 Where could one imagine, therefore, 15 that world history could fit in the American 16 research framework at this time? This is the 17 framework of these remarks. It's, perhaps, not 18 a very original observation that our society in 19 the world community as a whole is on the verge 20 of a tremendous crisis, political, economic, and 21 ecological; and we are certainly among the 22 causes of them. 23 It could also be observed that our 24 history departments are not set up with a 21 1 significant nature of these crises to address 2 them, crises being both societal, crisis of 3 different countries and groups around the world. 4 As matters now stand, world history is a field 5 which potentially gives research access to world 6 affairs but in practice, however, only the very 7 of these two generations in -- (inaudible). 8 Rather than preparing the next generation of 9 students for this eventuality could we radically 10 alter the direction of research in teaching to 11 address real world problems. 12 Could we introduce such an agenda 13 alongside the mandated facts that governments 14 want taught? This is not the game set. The 15 obvious point that there are, of course, 16 worthwhile possibilities in many other 17 trajectories that could be documented in this 18 conference but simply to say that what I'm 19 addressing speaks to the rather basic issues of 20 any profession, that of science, politics, 21 and -- (inaudible). 22 If, for example, we persist in 23 picturing the past as Millenia of cultures 24 connected by trade groups, how this has helped 22 1 our students who may be unemployed because of 2 outsourcing. Are we implying they should 3 migrate or agree to be unemployed? If so, why? 4 Are we implying that our colleagues, too, cling 5 to their national limits under these conditions 6 are altogether wrong? I don't think we can 7 present such a claim or at least present such a 8 claim without at the same time thinking first -- 9 (inaudible). To think this would be an 10 interesting challenge for us to undertake 11 simultaneously that we live in the nation's 12 state that we are striving about world history. 13 As late as 1981, you all would know 14 Stavrianos wrote, "Global Reach," and in that 15 book, he portrayed to the United States and 16 other countries in the west as having -- 17 (inaudible) -- future about a challenge of their 18 world but -- (inaudible). This is what I got 19 from the book. By 2005 on Frederic Cooper 20 (inaudible) -- of comparable stature published 21 "Colonialism in Question," the attorney(?) of the 22 book was begging people in post-colonial 23 discourse to consider some of the words they 24 used because they are so -- (inaudible) -- 23 1 today. He's one of our most intellectual 2 voices. One doesn't know if there is a vision 3 of the American future anymore or not, and this 4 would be something, I think, that would be 5 interesting. Is there a vision in countries 6 like the United States that do have a future? I 7 conclude these remarks by drawing attention that 8 there is possibly still ongoing threat on H 9 World on this exact subject. One would seem to 10 be asking for something more real world 11 oriented. 12 It began recently when a student, 13 whose name seems to be Cherry Wellinger, asked 14 about connection of world history at the public 15 forum and how connection could be brought about. 16 Rod McClassner(?) replied -- he mentioned Ernest 17 Maselesson(?) of the past. This Harvard historian 18 advised the Government. Then Dwayne Corpis of 19 Cornell replied, noting a special issue of 20 Radical History Review which became a book, 21 another world with possible essential movements. 22 (Inaudible). Does world history suit the aims 23 of western and corporate globalizers by -- 24 (inaudible) -- for new world but on continuing 24 1 fearless projects or does world history open a 2 space for opposition of resistance? This 3 suggests to me there may be a basis in the 4 profession for looking -- defining our research 5 trajectory somewhat in terms of these world 6 issues and in considering the possibility that 7 the function of the field would be, in part, at 8 least that of intellectual engaged to wider 9 social issues, capitalizing on the works of 10 connections that we're so easily so able to set 11 up. Thank you very much. 12 MR. McKEOWN: Thank you. Next we have 13 Boris Stremlin, who comes recently graduated 14 from the Department of Sociology at SUNY Binghamton, who 15 also is a research associate at the Fernard 16 Braudel Center by -- (inaudible). 17 MR. BORIS STREMLIN: I want to talk 18 about The Production of World History Outside 19 the West. And basically, I want to start out by 20 asking why we should be interested in it; and I 21 think it has already been mentioned several 22 times, that the kind of world history that most 23 people here subscribe to, the kind of world 24 history that's promoted by the World History 25 1 Association is essentially the pre-history of 2 globalization. This has been admitted by some 3 of the leading -- (inaudible) -- of the World 4 History Association on numerous occasions. 5 World history is the pre-history of these 6 networks connecting the streets of 7 civilizations, and I think even McNeill has 8 acknowledged that this kind of history 9 essentially represents an imperial US point of 10 view. 11 Now, I think in all fairness, we have 12 to note the fact that the World History 13 Association and the World History perspective is 14 very transdisciplinary and its membership is 15 incredibly transnational as compared to any 16 other professional, academic organization; but 17 nevertheless, it is not only dominated by 18 western scholars but it's dominated by western 19 institutions. In other words, there are a lot 20 of people from non-western countries who 21 participate in the activities of the World 22 History Association but the institutions where 23 they are employed, where they teach, tend to be 24 western institutions. So what we call in 26 1 Binghamton, the structures of knowledge tend to 2 be overwhelmingly located in western countries 3 and in the US in particular. 4 So the general story, which is usually 5 told by world historians about themselves, is 6 that once upon a time, we used to have these 7 grand narratives back in the 19th Century where 8 philosophy of history going back to Botaire and 9 even earlier and then sometime in the mid-20th 10 Century, we got -- (inaudible) -- perspective, 11 which essentially set a field up for us and 12 subsequently, only then we started doing real 13 world history or global history. 14 So the question I want to pose is, is 15 there a world history outside the west in light 16 of what has just been said? What makes world 17 history world history? Are kind of world 18 histories that are done outside of our -- 19 (inaudible) -- real world histories or are they 20 really just a reaction to the kind of global 21 histories which the WHA does? Is it just a 22 reaction or does it emerge from its own 23 epistemological contact, which isn't necessarily 24 simply a product of western US -- (inaudible) -- 27 1 of knowledge? So how do we find this kind of 2 history? And my suggestion is that we find it 3 by analyzing the networks of world historical 4 scholarships in the major regions, and I have a 5 short list here. This is entirely schematic and 6 I'm certainly prepared to break it down further 7 or to incorporate regions which are not on this 8 list, but I think it's a good starting point. 9 So what exactly are we going to be 10 analyzing if we study the product of world 11 history outside the west? The first thing to 12 look at, I think, is the volume of world 13 historical production. It has been 14 well-established that the volume of scholarly 15 production in the west, in Europe, and in the 16 countries of the -- (inaudible) -- started 17 growing exponentially around the year 1500 of 18 the common era; and as it grew, there was, to 19 some extent, disarticulation of native networks 20 of world historical production elsewhere in the 21 world. 22 However, I think beginning sometime in 23 the 20th Century, this trend began to be 24 reversed and the amount of production in other 28 1 areas began to increase, and I think we're 2 coming to the point where a lot of the world 3 history that is written will no longer be 4 written in western languages. So analyzing the 5 volume of world history produced another 6 language, I think, is something we should be 7 looking at. 8 Secondly, the low side of 9 institutional production of world history. Are 10 there other programs, other professional 11 networks, other universities around the world 12 where world history is being taught, or is it 13 more of a network and enterprise where people 14 are coming into the field as amateurs and sort 15 of putting together, you know, what we might 16 call grand narratives anew. 17 Also, I think it's important to look 18 at the relationship of world history to the 19 social sciences. In the west, world history was 20 kind of a poor relative for a very long time. 21 It wasn't something that you were allowed to 22 talk about in public, and it basically didn't 23 fit into the disciplinary structure where on the 24 one hand, we had what we call history or 29 1 historiography; and on the other hand, we had 2 the social sciences and it was only, of course, 3 in 1982 that the World History Association came 4 into being. Is this experience something that 5 was shared by other regions of the world? Was 6 world history eliminated so early that during 7 the 19th and the bulk of the 20th Centuries or 8 did it survive through a greater degree than it 9 did in the west? And relatedly, what is the 10 relationship between people who are 11 investigating world history in these regions now 12 and western scholarships? How much access do 13 most people doing world history in these areas 14 have to western scholarships, to western 15 institutions, lecture tours, grants, et cetera? 16 Lastly, what's the significance for 17 the World History Association? I think the 18 first thing that we have to note is reflect on 19 focus. Traditionally there have been a lot of 20 arguments about what world history really is and 21 I think that the place to begin to investigate 22 what world history is is what world historians 23 say rather than imposing definitions and then 24 getting into arguments about it. I think also 30 1 if we look at the production of world history 2 outside the west, we may shed new light on 3 intellectual history. We may establish new 4 watersheds and intellectual history, different 5 from the ones that we are used to. 6 In other words, different from the 7 sort of globalistic perspective where we say 8 that world history is really born in the 1970s 9 or the 1980s. Perhaps we'll see something 10 different. 11 Also, I think the possibility for 12 transdisciplinary collaboration, because what 13 I'm proposing is the use of social scientific 14 techniques to study world history networks 15 around the world, going back into the past. 16 And, of course, the possibility of transnational 17 collaboration, how much access do we have to 18 world historians working in other regions? 19 Certainly the world historians are part of the 20 WHA; but to some extent, they end up gravitating 21 towards the west because what they say interests 22 people in the west. Does what most world 23 historians say in these regions interest people 24 in the west? What sort of dialogue can be 31 1 established? And lastly, the collaborative 2 project that I proposed investigating the 3 production of world history in the different 4 regions of the world, what I'm looking at is, 5 perhaps, a project which encapsulates additive 6 monographs where people with expertise in 7 different regions of the world are looking at 8 the production of world history in Latin 9 America, in Africa, in South Asia and East Asia; 10 and for my own part, the former Soviet Union so 11 basically, I'm looking for people who may be 12 willing to undertake this kind of project with 13 me so we can put out an edited monograph of 14 which I think may be of interest for people in 15 the World History Association. So thank you. 16 MR. McKEOWN: Thank you very much. 17 Next we have Katja Naumann, who is a Ph.D. 18 candidate of the Leipzig University program on 19 transnationalization and regionalization from 20 the 18th Century to the present, co-authored 21 with Matthias Middell, who organized and created 22 the program. 23 MS. KATJA NAUMANN: Thank you very much 24 for that notation. Let me bring you to the 32 1 discussion of which actually our results from 2 research to the university and the European 3 network in the university, global history. 4 Matthias is now in Budapest trying to promote 5 broad history so he cannot be here at the same 6 time, but he asked me to tell you many readings 7 and wishes, successes, actually ending up with a 8 statement because it's very badly needed and so 9 in this regard, also thanks to the organizers 10 for bringing this meeting together. 11 Since a couple of people spoke 12 already, some arguments, which I don't want to 13 repeat, the two areas of research we suggest are 14 on the one hand, history of historiography. 15 That means intellectual traditions, but also the 16 institutions of writing about world history and 17 teaching world history; and the second is to put 18 on the historical examination of processes of 19 territorialization, two arguments for both 20 areas. A world history of history is not only 21 necessary for all of those points that were 22 mentioned, but it's also necessary as an 23 intellectual history of reality. Since 24 historiography is one expression of how people 33 1 can see what is happening around them, modern 2 global history tells us something about how 3 people perceived worldwide phenomenons and put 4 them into frameworks that make sense to them. 5 Secondly -- (inaudible) -- 6 international collaboration, that seems to be 7 our aim, needs to know about the institution, 8 different resources, and the traditions of world 9 history. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to make 10 useful of that for a common work together. 11 Process of territorialization actually describes 12 spaces and places with various social political 13 economical and cultural actions according to 14 different spacial frameworks. 15 So world history is also the history 16 of the interplay of these special frameworks and 17 we can tell world history in such a way and this 18 has the advantage that we actually also 19 understand a bit more about our conceptions and 20 our systems of ordering these histories. 21 And second, the advantage of this is 22 one of the things that were mentioned in a lot 23 of papers, that it seems to be a commonality. 24 It actually starts from the point we are right 34 1 now because a lot of regions in the world now 2 are struggling with this changing territorial 3 framework. So if we take these histories at the 4 starting point of understanding what's going on 5 in the world right now, we can also change it 6 back to the historical origins. 7 Let me end -- my five minutes are 8 probably gone already. Let me end with two 9 points about funding. And this is something I 10 would not necessarily agree with what Marnie 11 said. Funding agencies follow specific purposes 12 and they are most likely national ones or 13 regional ones. That means that we are away of 14 general aims of world history that can send 15 these natural familiar agencies we somehow have 16 to translate these aims into arguments and 17 strategies that make us actually able to write 18 these applications. So maybe we should keep 19 that in mind. 20 And the second point about funding, 21 German research and European funding foundations 22 are eagerly right now to support modern 23 international, also in areas in the humanities 24 of social sciences, so ideally we come up with 35 1 networks that Marnie suggested where scholars 2 from Europe and non-European countries work 3 together in specific topics and then also get 4 into the process of actually writing 5 applications. 6 MR. McKEOWN: Thank you very much. And 7 finally, we have Debin Ma, who comes to us 8 indirectly from Shanghai and via the University of 9 Japan to the London School of Economics where he 10 teaches now and he's an active participant in 11 the global economic history network. 12 MR. DEBIN MA: Thank you very much. 13 Thank you for inviting me. I felt it was a 14 great honor. I felt like myself being somewhat 15 fake. I was an economic historian and training 16 and focused, and so on, so this is really a good 17 opportunity for me to broaden my purpose. 18 I want to talk about mainly two 19 projects that I'm affiliated with, and I hope 20 that could also give some ideas for all of the 21 history agenda. One is partly inspired by the 22 great divergence debate publication of Ken Pomeranz. 23 There have been efforts by quantitative 24 historians to, in some sense, measure or to give 36 1 some kind of global comparison. We have a 2 project there, I think, headed by Peter Lindert, 3 University of California-Davis. This is 4 a project trying to put together prices and 5 wages, and so on. So we are hoping to create 6 data prices, wages, consumption, as well as 7 currency information. 8 One of the things we have already is 9 some working papers, but I think the file is not 10 there so I couldn't show you one of the papers, 11 but we are really hoping to put together on a 12 standardized comparable basis -- for example, we 13 have a data file list that Africa -- well, this 14 is in the third year and we applied for new 15 funding by the National Funding Foundation. So 16 the data will come more as it moves along. So 17 this is one sort of it to really try to see if 18 we can, I think, as one of the speakers 19 mentioned earlier, but the kind of global 20 comparison living standards, relatively rigorous 21 basis that people do today according to the 22 national comparison. 23 There are a lot of problems and so on 24 that need to be addressed. What some of the -- 37 1 (inaudible) -- have come out. For example, as a 2 way of testing the great divergence to the 18th 3 Century standards seem to be quite comparable to 4 the relatively background part of Europe, and so 5 on. 6 And with this particular project, we 7 are able to -- for example, I was able to work 8 with some colleagues in Bejing. We discovered 9 some in account books that have very detailed 10 merchant records of prices, particularly 11 interest rates, which is very interesting, to 12 give us some idea about how the financial market 13 operated in that sense. 14 Now, this is a relatively quantitative 15 part and in connection with this, and this is a 16 lot of -- you probably already know. Is the 17 global economic history network based at -- 18 well, started up from the Londen School of 19 Economics. There have been already ten 20 conferences for the past two years. Some 21 members -- Matt Pickman(?) is one of them and she 22 is also here as well. These ten conferences 23 have seen some cultural State institutions. 24 They are working papers. They are also on this 38 1 particular website. It has a big Chinese 2 character. It's not my idea but probably that 3 was before I joined. So we have these 4 different -- (inaudible). We have conferences 5 with working papers and there is a German -- and 6 I think what is, of course -- (inaudible). The 7 thing that will last beyond the conference is we 8 have a master's program in global history that's 9 been in its third year and we will see how that 10 goes. 11 Now, there are several things related 12 to that. We also did conferences focusing on 13 commodities, commodities around the world. I 14 think there was a very small mini conference on 15 the case. There is clearly -- (inaudible). And 16 this network, I think the funding has been over 17 so as a follow-up to that is we have done, for 18 example, some follow-up conferences in 19 association with the University of -- 20 (inaudible). We focused on comparing -- 21 (inaudible) -- around the world, trying to get 22 some ideas of how merchants organize around the 23 world so it's specifically focused on 24 organizations. 39 1 The next conference, which is 2 something I organized, is focusing on the legal 3 institution around the world, looking at how the 4 formal mechanism of enforcing contracts and how 5 they operate, and so on. So these are in some 6 sense what sort of my report of -- the whole 7 thing is too involving and certainly we're 8 looking forward to get feedback and see how we 9 fit in this world history. Thank you. 10 MR. McKEOWN: Thank you very much. 11 And maybe as a prelude to discussion and 12 reflections, just my own brief comments on what 13 I heard, is that in a sense, I'm hearing two 14 kinds of things. I'm not entirely sure that 15 they are compatible. One, we have at least two 16 presentations that very much already started 17 work on the data base, on scientific methods, 18 asking the historians to take part in this; or 19 another formulation is we have present concerns. 20 World historians should surely have something to 21 say about these present concerns. And yet, very 22 often we listen to the historians talking, what 23 the historians have to offer, are very 24 concerned, is this very kind of reflective 40 1 method. It's sort of, wait a minute. Don't 2 jump into this so quickly. Let's step back and 3 figure out what historical knowledge is in the 4 first place? How do we produce historical 5 knowledge? If we stand from a different or we 6 look at the history of world history writing, 7 perhaps we're going to see something very 8 different, which I think the potential 9 implication is that, perhaps, the data coming in 10 these data bases, are these present conceptions 11 will be at the extreme, as Marnie suggested, may 12 just be reproducing modern masculinist 13 enlightenment, Eurocentric kinds of histories, 14 and I'm very sympathetic both to the sorts of -- 15 (inaudible). 16 Let's be careful about what our 17 knowledge is and how our producing knowledge 18 kind of things; but I'll tell you, too, I love a 19 good database and a good chart and I realize 20 we've just got to begin a certain assumption. 21 If we're going to start putting anything 22 together at all and even my own work, I'm not 23 quite too sure how to reconcile both of these 24 impulses. So let me present that as I think one 41 1 of the, perhaps, tensions that we're starting 2 out with in the first hour here and open it up 3 to any other -- when you give a comment, please 4 stand up and identify yourselves for the 5 transcriber. Yes, please. 6 MR. LESLIE WITZ: Yes, I'm Leslie Witz. 7 I'm from the University of Western Cape, South 8 Africa. Just two very quick comments. One is 9 that you talked about quite extensively, we put 10 in a collaborative in the University of 11 Hannover, which was rejected primarily because 12 we were going to study German society, as well 13 as them studying them. We were going to study 14 them and so reversing this sort of was a 15 problem. I think for the funders, for the 16 national funders and the -- (inaudible) -- 17 Foundation. 18 The other thing to this about is the 19 issue of science. I think that's come up and 20 what is the scientific method and how do we as 21 historians interrogate that as not imperical? I 22 mean, David mentioned this archaeological thing. 23 How do we interrogate that as not empirical 24 evidence? How do we deal with that and think 42 1 about and -- (inaudible) -- scientific 2 assumptions as world historians? I think it's 3 absolutely crucial. 4 MR. McKEOWN: We'll go through a few 5 comments here and see if we have a response. 6 MR. WILLIAM Clarence-SMITH: I'm William Clarence-Smith 7 not from the London School of Economics, but from the School of 8 Oriental and African Studies in London. And I'm 9 also chief editor of the Journal of Global 10 History for which there are some copies people 11 can look at them. 12 It seems to me from what I've heard 13 this morning, there are two things that struck 14 me. We want to reach out beyond the recent world 15 and through the natural sciences to paleolithic 16 that David Christian said. 17 I would say one thing. I've done work 18 on history with natural scientists and have 19 enormous cultural problems involved with science 20 so anybody who wants to rush into this and must 21 remember that one of the things we need to do is 22 in a sense iron out these problems. 23 The second thing which struck me very 24 strongly was Boris Stremlin's argument about 43 1 world history being done outside of the west of 2 which we know nothing. Now, I was brought up in 3 Africa. My wife is Asian. I've had a fair 4 amount to do with African and Asia and even 5 Latin American universities. What strikes me is 6 that there are some traditions which are very 7 strong, very dominant. National history, 8 Marxist history, which virtually disappeared in 9 the west, and religious history. And most 10 recently, Islam, and there are undoubtedly 11 indigenous historians of Islam who have 12 continued to work almost without reference to 13 the western tradition and for whom this is a 14 history, the submission of man to God and much 15 of that submission goes through extending the 16 land which is under the rule of the aria. 17 So in a sense, this can be extremely 18 aggressive and imperial and kind of history. So 19 I'm not saying we shouldn't reach out to these 20 people. What I'm saying is, let's not 21 overidealize the kinds of world history which 22 are being produced outside the west. Thank you. 23 MR. McKEOWN: Over here, Jack Wills. 24 MR. JACK WILLS: Jack Wills, University 44 1 of Southern California. Again, on Boris 2 Stremlin's plea, I was wondering if one way to 3 start with some of us would be to just put out a 4 call and each world for people who know about 5 networks and interactions centered outside 6 Europe, Western Europe, and North America and 7 get some preliminary statements and just some 8 identifications of where stuff is. I don't 9 think we should be too fussy when we do that. I 10 think that if it turns out that the language of 11 that interaction is a European language, fine. 12 One just stumbled along the graces of some form 13 of what looks like a very lively franco form 14 network involving scholars in France, in 15 Indonesia, Algeria, and Morocco. 16 I think there is still a Francophone 17 network and somebody can tell us around what 18 used to be IFAN and now has a more -- and which 19 I'm sure now has a less old-fashioned name. I 20 was involved last year with a network of young 21 scholars at Leiden from all around the Indian 22 Ocean all the way from Cape Town to Kyoto, 23 working with Dutch documents but doing their own 24 history and talking to each other, which was 45 1 phenomenal. Tony Reid's Asian -- (inaudible) -- 2 at Singapore is basically Anglo but Tony is 3 very, very much committed to making Asian 4 scholars the center of that. There are 5 promising beginnings in Keoto and Osaka that are 6 involved with people in China where even the 7 Chinese and Japanese languages are becoming 8 primary. So here's a whole range of stuff 9 that -- and I don't know a thing about Oxon(?), 10 Boris, but it would be fascinating to find out, 11 to hear, but inquiry network involving the 12 Kazakhs and the -- (inaudible) -- all of the 13 rest of them out there who I would assume as 14 much of the dialogue is going on in Russian and 15 so what? Do a first sweep across this stuff and 16 I will bet you that at the second or third 17 removed, that the current audience of H-World 18 would pick up quite a bunch of it. Thank you. 19 MR. McKEOWN: You're next. 20 MS. ANNETTE HANSEN: I'm Annette 21 Hansen, and I just wanted to address those 22 issues that Leslie Witz just brought up in terms 23 of funding and which was also brought up by 24 other people here; and I think that it's a real 46 1 challenge because I also see it very much as, 2 they are regionally bound, the funding 3 opportunities, and certainly my experience in 4 Europe when I returned from the States, and I 5 proposed -- well, I had proposal where I was 6 collaborating with colleagues in Japan and the 7 US, they were not interested because what they 8 were interested in was globalizations from a 9 European perspective; and so I think it will be 10 interesting in a forum like this because I 11 welcome this very much. We are speaking across 12 regions to try and find ways in which we can 13 circumvent that at least in the European 14 context. 15 MR. McKEOWN: Let me ask first, if 16 anybody would like to respond or comment in the 17 panel? Peter? 18 MR. PETER GRAN: The scene that came 19 this morning in this panel, which was in several 20 of the interventions which we just heard, had to 21 do with whether or not we are striving to create 22 an alternative and a narrative to what we 23 currently have, which would unify a wide group 24 of people in the kind of common enterprise or 47 1 whether we are striving to simply represent and 2 incorporate and include or at least acknowledge 3 a wider group so that the final outcome would be 4 one of complex diversity. I think this is the 5 traditional conflict between Marxism and 6 liberalism reappearing in a sort of contemporary 7 form. I think liberalism does for kind of a 8 pluralist approach and I think Marxism strives 9 to characterize what is power, along with the 10 idea for this power because what is resistance 11 to power structures. And I think that the 12 choices have already, to some extent, made by 13 sort of a layout of papers and comments that 14 I've heard so it's not really a debate here but 15 if it were stacked the other way, in other 16 words, if there was discussion of power, 17 resistance to power, we would have many 18 Palestinians here, many Iraqis, many Syrians 19 from each -- (inaudible), and so on, and the 20 issue of whether or not there was an interest in 21 world history would be a subject matter, would 22 be taken for granted and the presumption would 23 be that people would do a great deal and 24 probably could talk us under the table. So what 48 1 I think is, in effect, we've already made up our 2 minds about one thing. In other words, the 3 terms of the direction we're going, which is the 4 pluralization. That's where we are and I think 5 that we could do a good deal of conclusion 6 without necessarily collapsing into dialogue, 7 which somebody pointed out could have its 8 downsides. Maybe if you have been to the 9 dialogue center, you would know what I'm saying. 10 MR. DAVID CHRISTIAN: I'm David 11 Christian. Can I just pick up the issue of the 12 close relationship with the sciences? I agree 13 completely that the challenges are huge, but I 14 would say that the question is so important that 15 we faced and, in fact, I think both of these 16 discussions about how one moves from a -- the 17 focus of a particular discipline, a broader 18 perspective in relationship on the one hand to 19 the sciences; and secondly, how one moves from a 20 world history based in a particular region to a 21 broader global world history. Both of those 22 issues actually bring up the same deeper issue. 23 We know that the challenge is really important. 24 Something like this has to be done. The same 49 1 challenge as globalization. It's going to 2 create friction and the more urgent we try to do 3 this, the more friction we're going to create. 4 I mean, I've seen this in relation with the 5 sciences. We've had good discussion about the 6 sort of frictions that would be created if we 7 pursue the sort of agenda Boris proposes, but 8 that's not a reason for not doing it. It 9 absolutely has to be done. And ultimately, I 10 feel that the history discipline has been so 11 concerned with getting the details right and so 12 nervous about getting the generalities wrong, 13 that it's lost something that I think most 14 scientists understand very, very well, which is 15 the -- (inaudible). 16 It's extremely difficult and it 17 actually gets the grand generalities and gets 18 the details and the two say something to each 19 other. So this is my pitch for getting a more 20 global perspective and a more global story, one 21 that involves the sciences. It's partly because 22 I think the history profession as a whole has 23 been so good with detailing and so nervous about 24 the big picture, that there is an imbalance 50 1 there and it's profoundly important for world 2 history. 3 MR. BORIS STREMLIN: Just to follow up 4 on that, follow up on Adam's synthetic comments, 5 I think it's true that some of us do seem like 6 they are pulled in the direction of producing 7 this more totalizing, more generalizing 8 perspectives and putting together these data 9 bases of knowledge, whereas others of us are 10 asking, what's our standpoint? How do we 11 produce world historical knowledge? I think 12 that's absolutely true and I think it depicts 13 the fact that world history, as this new 14 transdisciplinary in the field of knowledge is 15 still caught up in this traditional two cultures 16 divided between the sciences and the humanities 17 and I think what Adam said is a perfect 18 representation of the fact that we are still 19 caught up in this technique and one of the 20 reasons why I'm interested in investigating the 21 production of world history outside the west is 22 precisely to see if people who produce world 23 historical knowledge in other parts of the world 24 are caught up in this critique to the same 51 1 extent we are. Just to respond to the issue 2 that was raised about romanticizing these sorts 3 of what we see as nationalists, Marxists, and 4 religious forms of knowledge, I agree that we 5 shouldn't romanticize them. I mean, in fact, 6 what's going on is that a lot of them are coming 7 back and turning this whole debate about 8 globalization against us; and basically, what 9 they are saying with the sub-studies people in 10 India, they are saying what the Asians in Russia 11 are saying and what many of the Islamic 12 fundamentalists are saying, yes, indeed, there 13 was globalization, but we invented it, not you, 14 and we invented it long ago. 15 So I agree that they shouldn't be 16 romanticized, but I think we have to remember 17 that following up on what Silvia Pappe said, 18 that world historical knowledge is essentially 19 produced from a position of power. I think 20 that's the social standpoint of world history 21 and of world historical production. But I do 22 think that we have to enter into the dialogue 23 with them because the fact of the matter is that 24 the volume of knowledge which they produce is 52 1 going to go up. So sooner or later, we are 2 going to be confronted with a situation with 3 what they say matters worldwide. We're going to 4 have to come to terms with it somehow so we 5 shouldn't be romanticizing them, but we should 6 be talking to them. 7 MR. McKEOWN: Okay. The woman in blue, 8 please. Identify yourself, please. 9 MR. HANS NOLTE: My name is Hans Nolte 10 and I'm from Hannover. I think I'm talking 11 loud. I've been talking to many audiences all 12 the time. I want to extend on what Boris 13 Stremlin said. He was a guest from the Spanish 14 language, e-mail community, historian last year 15 and in San Diego. And I think 1,000 members of 16 it in all over Spanish language countries of the 17 world; and by the way, we are publishing three 18 lectures from that conference in German 19 translation. 20 By the way, one of the articles and 21 lectures was about against globalization as that 22 is called. Thank you. 23 MR. McKEOWN: The one in blue. 24 MS. ANNE CHAO: My name is Anne Chao 53 1 from Rice University. My question is based on 2 what you wrote in the abstract. What you didn't 3 touch on this morning is the question of whether 4 or not we should have a unified theory of world 5 history. And I'm just wondering what the 6 audience thought of this? Is it possible to 7 have theory? Is it necessary? And another 8 small point is your interest in creating some 9 happiness quotient in world history. I would 10 like to know about that as well. 11 MR. DAVID CHRISTIAN: David Christian. 12 The best way, I think, in responding to the 13 question about unified history of humanity, I 14 share the nervousness, I think it's universal 15 amongst historians, about oppressive totalizing 16 narratives, but the truth is it's all 17 narratives. It can be oppressive, too. So it's 18 just not the fact that it makes them oppressive 19 and there are situations in which we cannot just 20 completely avoid the large narrative and I think 21 this is one where -- in a world, to put it 22 bluntly, in a world of nuclear weapons and I 23 only recently discovered that the US'S 2000 24 nuclear weapons are still on alert. In other 54 1 words, 15 minutes to launch them. We're in the 2 same situation we were in during the Cuban 3 missile crisis. We got so used to it, we don't 4 notice it. In a world like that, tribal 5 narratives or national narratives are just 6 getting very, very dangerous. So I think the 7 analogy I see is with the analogy of the great 8 national histories. This is astonishing, 9 rhetorical. And it's dominated in modern 10 mystery profession. There is a saying, if 11 you're a citizen of the US, you hear some kind 12 of essence, despite your background, your family 13 background, and all other citizens, and so on. 14 So my argument is, as the world gets 15 more interdependent, as there are more and more 16 problems that can only be solved through global 17 cooperation, it's more and more vital that we 18 start constructing the identity of human beings 19 and there have been similar projects -- 20 (inaudible). The identities of a national 21 identity but it would be global. It's 22 absolutely vital that we start thinking of 23 ourselves as human beings. It sounds 24 romanticized at the moment, abstract, but what 55 1 national historians did is flesh out the 2 stories, make them powerful. And I feel we need 3 to do something like that for the identity of 4 humanity and world historians is the best way to 5 do it. 6 The other issue of happiness, my 7 problem for this conference, I came up with 8 about 20 projects and that was one of them. I 9 thought I better not try and talk about it but 10 there is -- psychologists are increasingly aware 11 of the fact that the psychology profession has 12 spent most of their time talking about misery 13 and drawing the realization that actually this 14 is how the story is. 15 The other side is happiness and they 16 do want to talk about happiness scientifically. 17 And it's a serious thought but this is something 18 humans, you know, world historians ought to be 19 talking about and, of course, leads to the issue 20 of progress. I loved Marshall's famous article, 21 the original, and that's really the hidden 22 agenda. Is it possible people are better off in 23 the paleolithic era than they are? Is he right? 24 He probably overstated it. It had profound 56 1 consequences, as far as our understanding, as 2 far as this large story of humanity, so that's 3 my pitch. If we could construct the story of -- 4 I'm taking too much time. Very briefly, when I 5 started teaching history, I was talking to a 6 classroom in Sydney and told to teach my 7 students in 13 weeks about 300 years of Russian 8 history. It's a country with millions of people 9 undergoing -- (inaudible). And I had 13 weeks 10 to do it. It was completely ridiculous, the 11 idea of constructing such a story and yet, 12 historians take it for granted that this is what 13 we do all of the time. So quite frankly, 14 teaching 200 years of Russian history is a vital 15 project. (Inaudible). 16 MR. McKEOWN: Go ahead. 17 MR. ERIC MARTIN: I'm Eric Martin at Lewis- 18 Clark State College. I wanted to talk about Professor 19 Wills' comments about we can use that for this 20 forum. Also, is involved with similar e-mail in 21 groups and connecting ourselves electronically 22 is probably a good idea. But also I wanted to 23 bring up the folks who aren't here, with Libby 24 Robins and Will Steffen. They talked about epic 57 1 of the Africa Scene. In particular, they talk 2 about we're looking at a history and 3 particularly environmental history that's being 4 done without historians. And I think that this 5 is an issue that comes up with Peter and David's 6 concerns about policy issues. Their concerns 7 about public intellectuals and also these 8 concerns about how do we merge the natural 9 sciences and social sciences and humanities. We 10 have a very large environmental science program. 11 To the best of my knowledge, there are no 12 environmental historians involved so we have 13 folks going through biologists and going through 14 stuff like, you know, Jared Diamond's latest 15 work, Collapse, with knowledge, historical 16 perspective, and so whether that's simple as 17 whether showing up in our colleagues' hall with 18 a beer, or whether at least to be more 19 formalized, I don't know, but this issue 20 particularly on environmental history, I also 21 wonder about the environmental history 22 departments. Where the big problems in 23 environmental history are, they may not consider 24 themselves well historians but they are doing 58 1 what we need to do and establishing those kinds 2 of connections. I'm glad to hear it. 3 MR. McKEOWN: We have Pat, then David, 4 our colleague in the back and then Jack Wills. 5 MR. PATRICK MANNING: Thanks. Pat 6 Manning. And it's a little early for trying to 7 generalize, but I left my apology and thought I 8 would try to mention the categories in which I 9 try to fit the things we heard this morning and 10 working from the most general to most specific 11 level. When we talked about structures of 12 knowledge in society as a whole, I think Peter 13 and Boris are the two who intervened most 14 explicitly on the ideas that are governing our 15 work in the society as a whole and then within 16 that, we talked about the framework or the 17 standpoint and viewpoint of historians. 18 So this is specific to our profession, 19 and so Silvia Pappe introduced that sort of 20 thinking and most others addressed it in one way 21 or another. As we got later on in the 22 discussion, you had a distinction in approaches 23 to framework, which I've labeled as those who 24 dive into the research and those who want to 59 1 look before they leap. So Adam characterized 2 this distinction and all of this is before we 3 get to formulating our projects explicitly but 4 it's the framework of what we're going to study 5 that as a big issue. And the more specific 6 issue is the organization and conduct of 7 research. So collaborative research, Marnie 8 began the discussion on that at the level of our 9 individual projects, but we also learned, I 10 think, from Boris that there are general models 11 of the organization of research in society as a 12 whole or in the sciences versus history so 13 that's a topic for discussion. 14 And then once we start our research, 15 this is a smaller point, a difference between 16 what I would call the "follow the data" and "impose a 17 framework" sorts of approach. So Debin gave us a 18 look at a follow the data approach, especially 19 with regard to finding a crisis and waste 20 levels, following the data where they are 21 richest and trying to explain the world from 22 that point of view. I got introduced to the 23 other approach of trying to understand the 24 demographic impact of Atlantic slave trade on 60 1 African populations. The data will never do 2 it. You have to pose framework and construct 3 data within it. I think these two approaches 4 will balance off one another. And then the 5 issue of funding is another set of specifics 6 that have been highlighted for us very well. We 7 haven't gotten into the African subject matter, 8 world historical analysis, for the rest of the 9 week, I think. 10 MR. ADAM McKEOWN: David? 11 MR. DAVID LEWIS(?): David Lewis, 12 (inaudible) University. This may be stating the 13 obvious, but it seems the structural approach 14 that was outlined in David Christian's papers 15 and many of the others and the cultural approach 16 that Silvia Pappe exemplified is, in a sense, 17 one issue and the notion that the relationship 18 between the scientists and the humanities is 19 problematic. I'm not so sure we're going to 20 solve that one or that we may really be getting 21 ourselves into a dead end if we try to. I think 22 the problem comes that if we ally that with the 23 question of power struggles and the question of 24 local, regional, national identity on the one 61 1 hand versus a broad picture on the other, that's 2 a real issue. That's something that we have to 3 deal with, but that does not invalidate the kind 4 of research programs and big picture approaches 5 that we have heard here; and I think any kind of 6 statement of research priorities really has to 7 do justice to both of those levels. Not 8 necessarily to try to come with the synthesis of 9 one or the other, but to allow both of those 10 approaches to go forward. 11 MR. ADAM McKEOWN: And in the back? 12 MR. JACK OWENS: I'm Jack Owens from 13 Idaho State University; and I find that we 14 repeatedly used what I think is a very tired 15 term, and we ought to get rid of it. We keep 16 talking about the west and western, which is 17 a -- (inaudible) -- category. It's probably not 18 very useful. I, however, am a real western 19 historian because I come from a place where 20 there are real cowboys and I didn't wear my hat, 21 but I could have, and Eric is in the wrong side 22 of the State because we have the largest 23 concentrations of historians probably in the 24 world who are actually members of geographic 62 1 information science and we are putting together 2 now a funding proposal which is a comparative 3 study of the impact of raising on land use, 4 comparing Mongolia, Idaho, of course, and 5 Northeastern Spain; but one of the things that 6 you run across when you do this kind of work is 7 something that I think ties together things that 8 Adam felt were separate streams in this panel 9 and it's the issue of scale, which both cut and 10 Silvia and David, in fact, mentioned implicitly 11 because it's not easy to make transformations 12 between different scales of examination. And 13 one of the things that you have to do, and I was 14 thinking in terms of data basis here, one of the 15 things that you have to do is think very 16 carefully about how you represent your data in 17 the data basis; and the one thing that you don't 18 want to lose in the world history is the kind of 19 thing that those speakers who talked about 20 dealing with history writing and historiography 21 all mention it one way or another, that other 22 people see the issues related to scale and scale 23 here both in terms of time and in terms of 24 space. And so that you have to define very 63 1 carefully first the spacial and temporal -- 2 (inaudible) -- by those people. In other words, 3 how they actually classify things, and then the 4 other issue is semantics, because they 5 oftentimes use specific words, and I'm not 6 talking about here simply because they use 7 different languages but different words to talk 8 about these things. And when you do a real 9 database, a digital one, you have to have some 10 way to search. And the only way to be able to 11 do that is that you have to take into account 12 all of these different ways of talking about 13 these specific things that you might want to 14 look at, explore, or assemble in a database; and 15 I think that's an important way of the kind of 16 work that's been talked about in this panel. In 17 fact, pulls together or at least for me. 18 MR. ADAM McKEOWN: Jack Wills? 19 MR. JACK WILLS: Yes. I'll do this 20 without the benefit of the microphone. If you 21 can hear me. If you're going to go around the 22 corner to your scientist colleague with a beer 23 in hand, take some pizza, they are always 24 hungry. They have always been up all night 64 1 watching TV. They take a copy of J.R. 2 McNeill's "Something New under the sun" and 3 say, "here. Read this and tell me what you 4 think," because I think this is a lovely 5 baseline for interaction between scientists and 6 historians on what has happened in the 20th 7 Century and what historians can bring to it. A 8 year ago now, I was teaching a short course, 9 fourth year student in Leiden, on the new big 10 books in world history. We read David. We 11 read -- (inaudible). We read Vic Lieberman. 12 We read Chris Bayly. But it was McNeil's book 13 that really grabbed these very smart 22-year-old 14 northwest Europeans and they were really ready 15 to run with this thing and to talk about all 16 they see, the environmental crisis as the crisis 17 of their adult lives. And I think that this is 18 a -- (inaudible) -- that we ought to embrace and 19 that we just happen to have a very smart single 20 volume as a place to start by it. 21 MR. ADAM McKEOWN: Howard Spodek, and 22 then see if the panel has responses. 23 MR. HOWARD SPODEK: Howard Spodek, 24 Temple University. What we haven't spoken about 65 1 so far is how our audiences -- we are talking 2 about what we are doing. Some of us are talking 3 about what we might be doing and some of us are 4 talking about what we should be doing. But we 5 also have to talk about what we perceive our 6 audiences to be. I've worked a lot with school 7 teachers and university professors who are 8 designing their curriculum and one first 9 question is, what do our students and what do 10 our colleagues need to know and what do they 11 think they need to know? 12 I was struck, as you were talking also 13 about the narratives, of resistance and the 14 narratives, religious narratives also, which 15 oftentimes do have world histories. A couple of 16 the papers in the next couple of days talk about 17 narratives of resistance. Peter was mentioning 18 them as well, sort of, well, narratives, 19 resistance of -- they have an idea of what world 20 history is composed of and many of the people 21 who articulated those narratives were political 22 leaders and they understood their audiences very 23 differently from the way in which professional 24 historians and teachers and writers understand 66 1 our audiences and maybe we do need to think -- I 2 don't think any of the papers address this. But 3 we do need to think of who the audiences for 4 world history might be and why and then how we 5 individually want to interact with it. I won't 6 say influencing necessarily because as Japanese 7 saying they have their own ideas about which of 8 the subjects we touch on that is most important. 9 Sociological symptoms of the world is the most 10 important issue or they may think that earning a 11 living in light of outsourcing is the most 12 important issue. So we need to spend some time 13 on that as well. 14 MR. TOM SANDERS: I'm Tom Sanders, US 15 Naval Academy. I just had a couple of comments 16 on a very interesting presentation here. One 17 was in terms of historiographies. I think 18 Marnie worded it last year, mentioned the first 19 people and their visions of things. I think if 20 you're going to look at alternatives to the 21 western enlightenment, that reaching out to 22 other areas and, perhaps, other disciplines so 23 anthropology, comparative religion and things 24 like that, that might be something else. I said 67 1 the same thing in terms of search for happiness. 2 My wife is a sociologist. I'm a Russian. All 3 of her books are all so horrible. I don't know 4 how you can be involved with that all day. I 5 asked her what about sociology of happiness? 6 Does anybody write about that? So this is what 7 I encountered in work and, perhaps, if not 8 sociology of happiness, the sociologies of 9 unhappiness. The other side of the equation 10 there. 11 In terms of some of the issues of 12 identity, again, with Russian background, 13 comparing Russian empire, there is a special 14 world for Russian empire. I'm Russian. Yeltsin 15 actually used the term Rosiani, which he is 16 trying to bridge the difference between ethic 17 Russian and -- (inaudible) -- Russian empire. 18 But I wonder if there are identities like that. 19 I heard of something called 20 Hispanadad, which is identity to the Latin 21 American people to Spanish and things like that, 22 which can be used as a subcategory for 23 investigating kind of global purposes. I was 24 talking to them before during the break and he 68 1 was discussing the use of the imperial realm as 2 a unifying region for students in South Asia. 3 And then just in terms of funding, which is the 4 most important question, I believe that SSRC, 5 Social Science Research Council, will at least 6 look in an interested way at collaborative 7 projects, and my experience with these -- I'm 8 not a great fund-raiser, but I'm an ardent 9 one -- is that you can get a little bit from one 10 pot than you can get somebody else to match 11 that; and if somebody else is doing it in 12 Europe, then they more likely would like to 13 cooperate with that, if they see that out there. 14 And another idea that occurred to me 15 was the Sorus Foundation, especially for trying 16 to reach the global world history community and 17 people who aren't like us who can get funding 18 from these kinds of places. The Sorus 19 Foundation, they are interested in ways that are 20 creative but not expensive that don't benefit us 21 but benefit the people we're trying to 22 communicate with and that may be somewhere else 23 to look. That's all. Thank you. 24 MR. ADAM McKEOWN: Let me give the 69 1 panel members the privilege of comments. 2 MR. DEBIN MA: Debin Ma. I just want to 3 make a quick comment. I want to emphasize there 4 is a lot of possibility for fruitful cooperation 5 in economists and historians; and what I find, 6 for example, historians have known for a long 7 time, these are the books but picked only a 8 couple of volumes so I think the economists may 9 be better assembling today, putting them in a 10 systematic way of interpreting it. On the other 11 hand, it comes as a real benefit from historians 12 to history and also the ability to work with 13 archives. So I think in that sense, it is 14 really in this whole idea of cooperation and 15 science to try to think that scientists -- but 16 anyway, incorporate between economists and 17 history, I think, is really a good possibility. 18 MS. MARNIE HUGHES-WARRINGTON: World 19 history in the 19th Century were produced in 20 institutions but they were also produced outside 21 of institutions. Most commonly I found in moral 22 reform associations, and there are many hundreds 23 of them, of course, in the US, in Europe, across 24 Australia, so that's the context in which they 70 1 were produced and the audience was often 2 intended to be that kind of audience. One thing 3 that's interesting for me as a historian is to 4 not only look at the works themselves but was 5 reading them and how they received them is 6 extraordinarily important. Now, some things 7 haven't changed. I think that long history has 8 a moral imperative about it that it expects to 9 communicate moral expectations about what the 10 world should be like. And I don't think that's 11 changed since the 19th Century. (Inaudible). 12 These little institutions, these little 13 societies might have morphed themselves, but 14 it's moral activity in many ways. 15 MR. ADAM McKEOWN: Would anybody else 16 like to comment? Some comments from Boris. 17 MR. BORIS STREMLIN: I just wanted to 18 address the issue of the west, which was raised. 19 I think that the sentiment behind jet testing, 20 the west is a positive sentiment, but I think we 21 have to remember that the west is a reality 22 because people talk about the west. Not only in 23 the west but outside the west. It has something 24 to react against; and I think if we do try to 71 1 map out the networks of world historical 2 productions, we will see that there is a 3 territorial reality so we can change the term. 4 We can use something else but we can't just get 5 rid of it. I think the better thing to do is to 6 try to -- (inaudible) -- the category a little 7 bit more. I think people like Huntington don't 8 really do it justice because they make a lot of 9 assumptions about what civilizations are, but I 10 think just dumping civilizations just overboard 11 and pretending that they don't exist is not 12 really the way to go. 13 MR. ADAM McKEOWN: Okay. One last 14 comment from Silvia Pappe here. 15 MS. SILVIA PAPPE: Thank you. I think 16 we can't just separate west from non-west 17 because a lot of countries, a lot of spaces, a 18 lot of regions are both. Take, for example, 19 what Tom mentioned. There should be probably a 20 term, a conflict for America, Portugal, Spain, 21 Latin America; but when we talk about -- 22 (inaudible) -- Hispano or Latin America, we have 23 not including all of the indigenous people. And 24 we can't compare just easily countries like 72 1 Argentina, which have almost non-digenous 2 people, with Ecuador or Mexico. When we talk 3 about Latin America, it's a concept created by 4 the west from outside. When you talk about 5 inner America, then we have an inclusion of the 6 indigenous people. When we hear how people 7 talk, for instance, in Mexico, we were 8 concurred. They identify themselves not with 9 Spanish routes but with indigenous routes. I 10 think we can't just separate the both. We have 11 to talk about both in one territory. 12 MR. ADAM McKEOWN: Okay. I think it's 13 been a very productive panel. I think we were 14 open to more questions than answers, as the 15 initial panel should. Thank you. 16 (Short recess) 17 MR. ZVI BEN-dOR BENITE: Welcome back. 18 I am Zvi Ben-dor Benite from NYU, and I'll be 19 chairing this session. I would like to make two 20 technical comments that are important. Please 21 speak a little slower and as clear as possible. 22 Particularly those of us, and I live with this 23 all of the time, is those of us who have heavy 24 foreign accents, put them on a diet, make them a 73 1 little lighter, because I think we're talking 2 about communications. It is very important if 3 one is understood. Okay. It's always sometimes 4 neglected. So I think that is it. The other 5 thing is, when we are going to have the 6 discussion, I would like people who wish to 7 speak to identify themselves as clearly as 8 possible, like raise your hand, because they 9 know I'll be able to point out to people who 10 hand the microphones. Our session will be 11 smooth. 12 We are going to have -- this session 13 is going to be the social sciences and world 14 history, and it is around carving different 15 topics for world global research; and we have a 16 cluster of distinguished scholars by pure 17 chance, and the US and Germany are represented 18 here. And without further adeu, I would like to 19 hand the microphone first to George Dehner from 20 Wichita State. 21 MR. GEORGE DEHNER: Thank you very 22 much. First I want to say thanks to the 23 committee for organizing such a great panel and 24 I am very excited to be part of this. As I was 74 1 sitting through the first session, I realize 2 that my particular proposal is much more modest 3 than the first panel, and I'm okay with that 4 because I was thinking about that, that I 5 thought I was thinking very broadly and very 6 large; and then it turns out to be I'm arguing 7 really on a quite tiny section of it. But what 8 I want to point out about the proposals is that 9 we need to think carefully about what we do and 10 what we are going to do because there is a 11 sense, or at least I had a sense, that we're 12 thinking about reorganizing or reconfiguring 13 world history and that there is a chance, albeit 14 a small one, but a chance, nonetheless, that we 15 will lose some of the work we have done before. 16 And in my particular interest, which 17 are disease in history, it's been what I would 18 consider a pillar of the world history canon, 19 that it's been an area of investigation that 20 some real great works have been done, but the 21 thing I want to emphasize is that there is a lot 22 more work to be done in that field. And it's 23 one that I think that world historians are 24 particularly suited for this type of work and 75 1 it's one that I think we can carve out a more 2 prominent niche in this area of the 3 investigation. So I have three points that I 4 want to emphasize. The first one is diseases in 5 history, is something that we do well. And it's 6 particularly suited to the skills that world 7 historians bring to discussion that is different 8 than on the skill sets that historians of other 9 types do. So I want to make sure we don't lose 10 the senses that, hey, we do some very tough -- 11 well, let's keep doing it and do more of it and 12 take it into new fields in which it hasn't been 13 done before and related to this is that we have 14 some natural collaborators and allies that exist 15 out there that we use in some senses, but I 16 think we can be more efficient in making these 17 connections for them. 18 My sense is that we're not trying to 19 discard other historical interpretations. We 20 are just arguing that maybe that style of 21 historical interpretation is not suitable for 22 the large scales that we are trying to address. 23 And so I think that my sense on this is that 24 these folks are more willing to work with us 76 1 than we really recognize; and in many ways, 2 these disciplines are evolving into a type of 3 world history interpretation that is growing 4 towards us as opposed to being demarcated from 5 us. The one I'm most familiar with and one I 6 think is most explicit about this is 7 environmental history, so it's very interesting 8 that Jack Wills brought that up and also Eric 9 Martin, in that environmental history has really 10 evolved, that one that has begun to examine 11 larger and larger regions and to make really 12 strict comparisons between regions that are 13 localized in previous discussions and it's a 14 model for evolution saying that from Kansas, by 15 the way, is some -- but it's a model of 16 evolution for the field developing that I think 17 is particularly well-suited for world 18 historians. 19 When Jack Wills mentioned something 20 new under the sun, and I'm particularly fond of, 21 I was thinking something new under the sun when 22 I was constructing my thought about how world 23 history can interact with the sciences; and I 24 think it's a marvelous book and he really does a 77 1 nice job of bringing that discussion in; but 2 what I think is one of the strengths of that 3 book is that he reaches out to the sciences and 4 speaks to them in their languages. My work is 5 on influenza. And Edwin Killborne, who's a 6 virologist and makes vaccines and has for a very 7 long time, was at a conference in South Africa 8 on Spanish flu and he marveled at how little 9 science the historians knew. He recognized as a 10 scientist he didn't know much about the mystery 11 but he knew a heck of a lot about influenza, and 12 the folks who were writing about -- he continued 13 that some of the folks writing about influenza 14 didn't even know how the virus is transmitted, 15 which seems to me a basic sort of information 16 that if your historian tries to integrate that 17 type of scientific research, you at least have 18 to know some of the language. So I think those 19 natural collaborators and allies -- and so I 20 thought of this in terms of Eric Martin's 21 question about the environmental sciences. I 22 wonder if anybody has approached them because my 23 sense is that environmental scientists would 24 love to talk to historians about change over 78 1 time in these types of things, things that 2 historians bring to the table that others do 3 not, or at least we do much more efficiently. 4 So that the final point I want to bring up of 5 the three points is that this issue of 6 relevancy, which is one that in the 1960s and 7 1970s was an epithet but without using the swear 8 word that some folks associated with it, I think 9 that relevancy in this issue is something that 10 world historians bring to the discussion. And I 11 think it's a sense for diseases in history, 12 particularly that they are open to new views and 13 that want some sort of connection or 14 globalization or whatever term you want to put 15 in there, which means assessing large scales of 16 information in diverse locations and making 17 sense of them. That we can bring these skills 18 to investigations that are lacking them. And, 19 again, I have some examples in the paper, sort 20 of what I was thinking is that this opens up new 21 funding opportunities. 22 For example, through the NSF -- and if 23 I can make the final point, I think of this in 24 terms of how sociologists have carved out a 79 1 space at the table for the CDC. Sociologists 2 bring something to the CDC in terms of 3 investigating disease that other folks do not 4 and I see a comparable role for world historians 5 in these types of investigations. 6 MR. ZVI BEN-dOR BENITE: We have 7 Professor Ingo Heidbrink from Deutsches 8 Schiffahrtsmuseum. 9 MR. INGO HEIDBRINK: Thanks a lot for 10 the invitation to the symposium; and when I 11 heard the papers of the first session, I decided 12 to change my paper totally and to give you a few 13 remarks. As announced in the program, you can 14 see I'm a maritime historian and maritime 15 historians means by its very nature that it's an 16 international infected global history, but it's 17 easy to see that very few contacts between 18 maritime history and -- (inaudible) -- 19 association of networks, and I think it's 20 absolutely necessary to bridge these gaps, and I 21 think I would propose you three arguments or 22 three lines of, let's say, future proposals for 23 corporation. First, I want to introduce the 24 concept of the oceans as a common heritage of 80 1 mankind. That's a basis of today's laws and it 2 was interused by Pridal Marty's book, 3 "Ambassador of the United Nations in the 1960s." 4 I think this concept of the oceans has become 5 heritage of mankind is at the same time one of 6 the basics for future maritime and -- 7 (inaudible) -- concept, and I think corporation 8 between nature and sciences and the humanities 9 in the word of the maritime or marine arm, this 10 corporation is very nature and we have a lot of 11 projects dealing with this, and I think the 12 background for this is that those scholars and 13 scientists dealing with the marine bird, they 14 have to cooperate with each other because 15 normally, the oceans are an area uninhabited by 16 humans and, therefore, those few people dealing 17 with the oceans have to cooperate and, 18 therefore, those corporations between nature and 19 sciences and the humanities is pretty nominal in 20 this world; and I think those -- (inaudible) -- 21 of corporation that are developed into marine 22 bird, maybe they can be an example as a 23 corporation, other corporations between nature 24 and sciences and the humanities. 81 1 Second, two-thirds of human life in 2 more or less an area close to the coast all over 3 the world. That means the oceans and the nature 4 effects of the oceans heavily influence all 5 human popularity; and that means, again, to talk 6 about this marine realm, we create a basic 7 understanding of the development of human in 8 general. 9 Third, and I think that the most 10 interesting argument, if you talk about the 11 period before the 1960s, then the maritime trees 12 was more or less the only tree that could 13 connect the world, that could make connections 14 between continents. That means the development 15 of maritime tree and the forces that dominate 16 the development of, for example, certain 17 shipping routes, heavily influence the concept 18 of which nations or regions got in contact or 19 that are not in contact. And, therefore, I 20 think this development of the -- (inaudible) -- 21 before the 1950s should be not forgotten in the 22 context of, let's say, examinations or anything 23 else because those private interests by world 24 private operated companies heavily influence the 82 1 possibilities of contact. I think these are 2 three points and there are many others, to give 3 you an idea of why those close birds of maritime 4 history as we have today should be named to the 5 world of historians. Thank you. 6 MR. ZVI BEN-dOR BENITE: Next we have 7 Professor Hans-Heinrich Nolte from the 8 University of Hannover. 9 MR. HANS-HEINRICH NOLTE: Thank you 10 very much for the invitation. I like very much 11 being here and enjoy the discussions. Now, to 12 put a long story short, I propose global 13 research on questions of violence. Why 14 violence? We are experiencing global attempts 15 to curb our outflow violence, at least some 16 forms of it. As violence, for instance, in the 17 fight against the death penalty, which fathered 18 in the 18th century in attempts to outlaw war, 19 which started in the late 19th Century and went 20 on in the 20th, or in the fight to outlaw 21 torture, which also started in enlightenment, 22 but also form of non-governmental violence, 23 trying to eliminate violence as a means of 24 education, private and public, classify all 83 1 killings, especially of women, as murder and 2 find ways to prosecute these as crimes. And 3 also another fear of violence, public but 4 non-governmental in villages and factories, 5 interethnic violence communities against people 6 of other religions, race, et cetera. We do not 7 know much about the context of the thing we are 8 just outlawing. We use concepts like -- 9 (inaudible) -- and yet, do not feel able to tell 10 many of the histories of these. That's why we 11 need more research. 12 Why global? We all have assumptions 13 that certain other countries are more violent 14 than our own. For instance, the movement 15 torture. If you read the book of Lewis or the 16 Russians, which is a common assumption in 17 Germany, the record in violence isn't so forth 18 either. 19 These assumptions influence what our 20 world views and politics, but we do not really 21 know many cases. We may be able to tab murder 22 rates per 10,000 habitants. But what about 23 violence in families of school? Therefore, 24 global research is necessary, establishing 84 1 common questions, working on comparisons, 2 looking for interactions. I put down some of 3 the literature in my paper. What makes research 4 difficult? As you know, still today there are 5 abuse even for governmental violence, some of 6 the genocide, as in the case of Armenians. 7 There are -- (inaudib