|
|
|
The Indian Ocean in Eurasian and African World-Systems before the Sixteenth Century*
PHILIPPE BEAUJARD
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre d'Études Africaines, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France
Une nouvelle connaissance de l'organisation est de nature à créer une nouvelle organisation de la connaissance.
New thinking about organization can lead to a new organizing of our thinking.
|
| —E. Morin |
|
|
| Writing of the Mediterranean, Fernand Braudel has remarked, "It isn't water that links its shores," but "seafaring peoples." From a very early date, the Indian Ocean, too, was traversed by sailors, traders, religious men, and migrants moving in search of goods, new lands, or the great unknown. Their movements were shaped by numerous factors, both geographic and social in origin. Over the centuries, these exchanges transformed the Indian Ocean into a unified space.1 Trade —above all, long-distance trade—played a central role in this process. A study of the history of trade networks, together with political and religious factors, allows us to understand the creation of particular societies, as well as the larger area to which they were linked. |
1
|
|
Trade implies not only an exchange of goods, but also an exchange of knowledge, beliefs, and values. The power of trade to unify, create, and transform cultures can be appreciated only by viewing it from the widest possible angle. The Indian Ocean, our case in point, became a unified space through exchange networks that went far beyond its own borders, reaching from China to Europe and Africa. Gradually over time, transcontinental networks—both maritime and terrestrial—linked the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean, turning it into a unified zone wherein events and developments occurred interdependently. Therefore, the Indian Ocean should not be considered as a discrete case that underwent processes similar to those of the Mediterranean, as K. Chaudhuri has suggested, but rather as an area that was integrally tied to the Mediterranean. The fact that the different regions of the ancient world united by trade experienced a demonstrable synchronization in their development suggests (but is not yet sufficient proof for) the systemic nature of their relations. |
2
|
|
It is not only the interconnections or the size of the networks but the regularity, intensity, and speed of the exchanges that resulted in the different regions being progressively integrated and shaped into a world-system. This notion was originally conceived by I. Wallerstein in 1974, in a holistic perspective that "looks for an explanation at the level of the whole." This perspective, which E. Morin has rightly pointed out the limits of, has not clearly defined the concept of "system" itself. Before proceeding with the discussion, I should identify what I mean by the term "system." I follow the definitions established by Morin, namely, (1) a system represents a "complex unit and the complex of relations between the whole and its parts," (2) a system is made up of cumulative interactions, (3) which constitute the organization of the system.2 The character of this organization is, in essence, both complex and dynamic. The system generates both order and disorder, unity and diversity. Taking into account these general characteristics of all systems and their implications can aid the interpretation of the available historical data for the Eurasian and African zone. The systemic approach provides a new "logic," and leads to a new understanding of world history. |
. . . |
There are about 20903 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
