Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Full Access Shmuel N. Eisenstadt and the Comparative Political History of Pre-Eighteenth-Century Empires

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Shmuel N. Eisenstadt and the Comparative Political History of Pre-Eighteenth-Century Empires

  • PDF
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Asian Review of World Histories

This essay critically analyses the legacy of Eisenstadt’s The Political Systems of Empires for the comparative political history of preindustrial empires. It argues that Eisenstadt has given us a rich toolkit to conceptualize the formation, maintenance, and dissolution of empires by theorizing the structural relationships between social groups in large-scale polities and among such polities, and by analysing global patterns of development in the distribution of the sources of social power. The Political Systems of Empires provides an inventory of key questions and dynamics that a comparative history of power relationships in empires cannot ignore. This essay, furthermore, discusses three methodological problems in Eisenstadt’s work which have had a significant impact on comparative empire studies between the 1980s and the 2000s. The essay argues that certain shared features of comparative studies of pre-industrial empires help perpetuate Eurocentric analyses: the foregrounding of select empires and periods as ideal types (typicality), the focus on macro-historical structures and dynamics without the integration of social relationships and actions in historical conjunctures (the lack of scalability), and the search for convergence and divergence. These features need to be overcome to make Eisenstadt’s legacy viable for comparative political history.

Affiliations: 1: Leiden University h.g.d.g.deweerdt@hum.leidenuniv.nl

10.12773/arwh.2016.4.1.133
/content/journals/10.12773/arwh.2016.4.1.133
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.12773/arwh.2016.4.1.133
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.12773/arwh.2016.4.1.133
Loading
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.12773/arwh.2016.4.1.133
2016-06-29
2017-11-21

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation