American Exceptionalism and Technological Development

Berglund Authority Level 4

by Jeffrey Barlow <barlowj@pacificu.edu>
Editor, Interface

Introduction

This is the second of a three-part editorial dealing with how best to understand long-term historical patterns of economic development. We believe that these are not merely esoteric intellectual questions, but are directly relevant to our understanding of our present, and of our immediate future.

In Part I we laid out the issues involved and introduced two conflicting paradigms or perspectives. [1] The first we termed the “Eurocentric.” It argues that first Europe, then later America, was possessed of unique advantages that gave it the ability to lead the world in the development of not only technology, but of the process of modernization itself.

This unique pattern consisted primarily of cultural attributes that gave Europeans and their American descendents critical traits of creativity, curiosity, and a drive for excellence that gave them the lead in developing the key institutions, machines, ideas, and values most conducive to industrial development.

By implication, these cultural values are enduring ones woven into the very fabric of American life, and will continue, despite temporary fluctuations in patterns of growth, to guarantee continued American dominance.

Moreover, these Euro-American cultural values, it is argued, are the only model that leads to full economic development.  Nations that adopt it succeed; those that do not, fail.

However, there has developed over the last several decades a second paradigm, a series of critiques of this model.  In the next issue we will consider it. Here we flesh out the Eurocentric argument for American Exceptionalism.

Our Approach

For our framework for presenting the Eurocentric argument, we utilize David S. Landes’ work, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are So Rich and Some Are So Poor. It was published in 1998 and an Epilogue added for the paperback edition in 1999. [2] Landes’ work met astonishing critical acclaim for both content and style. [3]

Landes’ expertise, as the author of a series of earlier books on economic development, was beyond reproach.  Landes, moreover, is ideal for our purpose because he met the critics of the Eurocentric Exceptionalist position head-on, in an often acerbic and confrontational manner that nicely highlights the differences between the two positions.

Landes’ argument, as well as his style, is evident in this summary:

Until very recently, over the thousand and more years of this process that most people look upon as progress, the key factor--the driving force---has been Western civilization and its dissemination: the knowledge, the techniques, the political and social ideologies, for better or worse.  This dissemination flows partly from Western dominion, for knowledge and know-how equal power; partly from Western teaching; and partly from emulation.  Diffusion has been uneven, and much Western example has been rejected by people who see it as aggression. [4]

The very purpose of Landes’ work was to explain “Why some are so rich and some are so poor.” To do so he began with a discussion of geography and its impact on development, but like Landes himself here we will pass quickly onto those elements for which the Europeans can themselves rightly be praised.

Key Elements in Western Economic Development

Landes view, and that of the Euro-Centric Exceptionalist position in general, is that key elements in European culture created unique advantages for economic development.  As we all know, the European story begins with the Greek city-states, particularly with Athens, fountainhead of democracy itself.  For Landes, as for many others, the foundation of democracy was the concept of private property, inextricably linked to the rights of free citizens. The very concept of economic development was, then, in Landes’ view, a “Western invention”. [5] The genius of Europe, while clearly visible, was not permitted free rein, however, until the 11th century A.D.  It was only then that Europe could defend itself against alien invaders and concentrate upon economic progress as opposed to mere existence.

This new era was to see five centuries of an economic revolution without precedent since the Neolithic era. Progress was both technological and ideational.  It saw the rapid development of new technologies such as the wheeled plow, new agricultural techniques such as different forms of crop rotation, and creative forms of business organization such as new modes of association, contract, and exchange.  The latter, and much of the inspiration for the former as well, came not from rulers or states, but from the mercantile community. [6]

The true genius of Europeans could be seen in this era with the “invention of invention”--- the rapid development of technological devices which liberated labor for more pleasant and productive pursuits. Among the examples which Landes feels particularly noteworthy are included [7]:

  • the water wheel

  • eyeglasses

  • the clock

  • printing

  • Gunpowder

This dynamic start was to give Europeans a lead that they were never to relinquish. The blossoming of their true creativity, however, was to come in the 15th century with “The Great Opening,” the age of European exploration.  In this new era, Europeans did no more than give play to a fundamental element of human nature, the desire for conquest. [8] This era gave Europeans access to new resources and new lands for political and economic expansion. One of those, of course, was America, which would later become the vessel into which European creativity would be poured.

The next great period of European creativity, and the era which truly defines both our own time and the essence of the European spirit, was the Industrial Revolution.  This began in the 18th century and in some senses still continues. Landes concentrates primarily upon new modes of bringing various forms of power to industrial tasks, such as steam- and water-power to textile production or metallurgy. [9]

Much more could be said about Landes exciting tour of the development of critical forms of technology and organization which have formed the world in which we live. But the above gives an adequate flavor of the key points of Landes argument, and of his spirited defense of the notion of European Exceptionalism. And for most of us, it is, after all, little more than a reminder of histories we have learned and appreciated from the time we began to understand the Euro-American past.

The Root Causes of Euro-American Exceptionalism

The causes of the Exceptionalist history are complex. We catch glimpses, of course, in the unique genius of the Greeks. Likewise we admire the pioneering spirit of the long list of European inventors and explorers such as Galileo, Newton, Columbus, De Gama, and the many unknown and unsung tinkerers who gave us our rich panoply of modern tools and techniques. But why them and not non-Europeans? Why Europe?

While the answer may lay in part in fortunate geographic placement, the major answer, and the one that lets us properly appreciate the genius of Europeans, and thus of ourselves, lies in culture.  European Judeo-Christian beliefs uniquely nourished those human factors critical to economic development, such as hard work, thrift, creativity, and many more deeply imbedded in our very being.

In understanding culture and development, the critical intellectual figure to Landes is Max Weber. As Landes says, “Here Max Weber was right on.” [10] Weber’s ideas are very complex and steeped in the architectonic prose of late 19th-century Positivism. But once again Landes comes to our aid with an able summary while explaining the European spirit of innovation and discovery. He lists the following elements as important ones listed by specialists:

  • Judeo-Christian respect for manual labor
  • Judeo-Christian subordination of nature to man
  • Judeo-Christian sense of linear time
  • The market:  “Enterprise was free in Europe.” [11]

It was Max Weber who first gave the peculiar constellations of virtues of the bourgeois of his time the title the “Protestant Ethic.” He traced these back to the unique relationship between Protestant Christians and their God.

Landes himself is not always insistent upon a tight connection between the values and the religious beliefs (Japanese, too, have a Protestant Ethic, Landes believes, which also accounts for their relative success in economic development. [12]). But in Weber’s view it is Protestant Christianity, particularly its ascetic concern for accumulation as a sign of god’s favor as well as the means necessary to earn that favor, which accounts for European success.

But What About Asia?

While Landes may well be accused of an overweening enthusiasm for the notion of European Exceptionalism, he cannot be accused of ignoring the scholarship of the last fifty years.   Recently we have learned much about non-European contributions to the modern world.  Landes takes great care to confront known facts---such as that China invented both gunpowder and printing---while defending the Exceptionalism of the European contribution. His position might amount, if expressed conversationally, to a repeated declaration such as:  “Sure, they made some early contributions, but look, they didn’t do anything with them!”

Landes takes great care to construct not only the case for European Exceptionalism, but its mirror image counter-case, the failure of Asian countries to develop.  China is the example most often discussed, usually for its failure to sustain initial bursts of creativity.  Muslim civilization too, comes in for its share of prolepsis, and occasionally India and even Africa are held up by Landes for our critical scrutiny.

In dealing with China in particular, and often by implication with all Asian societies, Landes often refers to another German sociologist, Karl Wittfogel. [13] Wittfogel is known for the concept of “Oriental Despotism,” which might be taken as his answer to the question of what it was that Asians had instead of the Protestant Ethic of Weber.

Wittfogel analyzed in detail the long-time observations of many historians that societies based on the control of water were often associated with the rise of ancient civilizations.  Wittfogel’s particular focus was ancient China, where, he observed, the need to control water led to the development of a very powerful state.  This state came to hold a monopoly in coercive power and hence competing groups, such as the bourgeoisie of European city states, simply could not develop.  As a result, the very idea of overarching central power and totalitarian organization became the norm; all groups and interests danced around that central pole.

Within such a society, Landes repeatedly notes, innovation, let alone democracy and free markets, could not possibly develop.  And just as the spirit of the Greeks permeates modern American society, so do the totalitarian shades of the Chinese emperors permeate Chinese society to the present.

So not only, in Landes view, did Europe have exceptional advantages, but Asian societies, and China in particular, had exceptional disadvantages.  This is the reason why some are so rich, and some are so poor.

Conclusion

We have tried to fairly represent both the letter and the spirit of Landes’ position here.  And it is important to remind ourselves that the European Exceptionalist position does not rise or fall with Landes’ single work.  Generations of scholars, and by no means only European ones, have prepared the groundwork for Landis.  He is not the sole authority in this field, merely the most recent, successful, and entertaining one.

In our conclusion, to be published in February, we will turn to the various attacks which have been launched at the Eurocentric Exceptionalist position and consider their implications for our own time.

Jeffrey Barlow
Director, Berglund Center for Internet Studies

[1] For part I see: Jeffrey Barlow, “Paradigms of World history and American Technology”  http://bcis.pacificu.edu/journal/2005/06/edit.php

[2] Landes, David S. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.  Why Some Are So Rich and Some Are So Poor.  New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.

[3] For a strong supportive review that brings up many of the points which made the book so popular, see that by J. Bradford DeLong, Professor of Economics at U.C. Berkeley, found at: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/Reviews/landes.html For excerpts from some of the many very positive reviews see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0393318885/104-9057002-3835169

[4] Landes, David S. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.  Why Some Are So Rich and Some Are So Poor.  New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.  p. 513

[5] p. 31-2.

[6] Landes, 42-44.

[7] Landes, 45-59.

[8] P. 63.

[9] Landes, Chapter 13.

[10] Landes, 516.  For substantial excerpts from Weber’s works, see: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/weber.htm  The key document is Weber’s essay, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” found at: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/weber/protestant-ethic/index.htm

[11] Landes, 59.

[12] See page 363.

[13] For brief biography see: http://www.bartleby.com/65/wi/Wittfoge.html See also http://www.washington.edu/research/showcase/1949b.htmlWeber and Wittfogel were, properly speaking, Marxists.  Those accustomed to suspect Karl Marx as responsible for all criticisms of European society should be aware that Marx is just as fervent a believer in European Exceptionalism as is Landes himself, though doubtless each would recoil from the other’s company, intellectual or otherwise.