Prof. Ian Morris debuts new book

Classics and history Prof. Ian Morris released his new book, "Why the West Rules - For Now," at Kepler's Books on Wednesday. (SARAH GUAN/The Stanford Daily)

At 7 p.m. on a Wednesday, the back of Kepler’s Books was packed. Most of the crowd was older – people who likely never had the good fortune to take a class with classics and history Prof. Ian Morris – but upon cracking his new book, “Why the West Rules – For Now,” one could see why they came. And upon hearing him speak, one could see why they stayed. The event was reminiscent of the days when “Ancient Empires” was one of the most popular IHUM classes; Morris is, as ever, a maestro of the lectern.

Morris opened with a thought experiment: what if China had colonized Britain, rather than Britain colonizing Hong Kong? He read from the first chapter of his book, where he envisions an alternate history in which the Emperor of China dispatches the governor Qiying to accept Queen Victoria’s fealty and to administer Britain. (Morris later confessed an obsession with science fiction, which is apparently a source of consternation in certain academic circles.) He challenged the audience to consider why history unfolded as it did in reality, with the Western world coming out on top. After all, from about 550 to 1750 A.D., he said, China was significantly more advanced than any of the various post-Roman Western states.

He spoke about his experiences teaching at the University of Chicago, where he found enough problems with the prevalent doctrine of intrinsic Western superiority (he was careful to note that the mentality of the time was very much influenced by the Cold War) that he decided to make up his own answer.

Morris proposed, inWhy the West Rules,” that a combination of biology, sociology and geography could explain all of human history, calling it, in that particular British accent of his, a theory of “chaps and maps.” Geography drives society, he argued, but society changes the significance of geography; even today, even now, the meaning of geography is changing, which is why the title ends in “For Now.” Morris told a rapt audience that he predicted – by means of projecting each side’s “social development score,” a calculation he devised especially for this project – that the East would catch up with the West in 2103. He also argued that, perhaps more significantly, the distinction between East and West would no longer be important then – an especially relevant idea in this age of increasing globalization.

The book is equally engaging (his particular brand of humor translates well onto the page) and makes equally grand, cosmic predictions about the future of our world. He spins a cohesive narrative of Eurasian history in 600 pages and devotes the rest of the book to similarly vivid projections of the world as it might become. Morris confessed himself much enamored with the Winston Churchill quotation, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see.”

Given his background in archaeology and classical history, manifest in the extraordinary scope of his work, it comes as no surprise that Morris can see very far indeed.

Tagged with: ,
  • M Schwartz

    ***Humans may all be much the same, wherever we find them, but the places we find them in are not. Geography is unfair and can make all the difference in the world. ***

    I wonder if this guy has read any of UC Davis economist, Gregory Clark’s material?

    “In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.

    The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors – patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work – which consequently spread widely.

    And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system – who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy – increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology. We are also presumably equivalently different from groups like Australian Aboriginals that never experience the Neolithic Revolution before the arrival of the English settlers in 1788.”

    The Domestication of Man: The Social Implications of Darwin

  • comment

    “Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.”

    Not a sentence, not even sure what it’s supposed to be saying. I’m also very confused by the fact that you seem to be claiming that the economy of the world before 1800 was the same as those governing “animal societies,” but that evolution has been continuing to occur due to new economic conditions, such as in England since 1250 (which wasn’t stuck in a animal state of nature?) I’m also curious about your belief that until very recently the Chinese were nomadic hunter gatherers.

    As a much more in depth review puts it, “the central theses of the book are contradicted by well known evidence.”

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Gq3c4yhvypwJ:www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%2520to%2520Alms/Allen_JEL_Review.pdf+gregory+clark+uc+davis&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjgEHrEoMexLQQWGfGb_AMV48k_HstQ9fTnHXrlU2PgvDgAjlCCb5pity2hpSoEK2RPbStP_fL6zJJIv3jGp4AncuFvBQHTiC_miLO69aRRG5LJ9PToxJtbiVjfg5zwpfkf4Dhl&sig=AHIEtbQvIsIHzhOVyeyNUiXHZcyWMgynPA

Login to your account

Can't remember your Password ?

Register for this site!