Professional Documents
Culture Documents
slamog lu, Towards a Political Economy of Legal and Administrative Constitutions of In-
dividual Property, in I
slamog lu, ed., Constituting Modernity: Private Property in the East and West (Lon-
don, 2004), 7.
Modernity 643
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW JUNE 2011
Historians have held despotic states or disabling belief systemsConfucian or Islamicre-
sponsible for the backwardness of the East. This high drama of pitting absences and presences
against each other has achieved two interrelated objectives: it has legitimated European dom-
ination over non-European areas and it has reconstructed Europe, or the West, and non-
Europe, or the East, as homogeneous, ahistorical, hypostatised entities.
25
The sphinx, it seems, not only gulped down the East, it has devoured Europe as well.
Not surprisingly, historians of different regions have similar concerns. Precisely
because the self-evidence of modernitys singularity is taken as manifest in the pur-
ported degeneration of non-European histories, no meaningful discussion of mo-
dernity can be limited to just one region. Many of the same problems created by
modernitys claim to singularity are posed by historians of different regions, and are
the subject of a fruitful conversation among historians. Evidently, at least in the case
of Asia, the notion of singularity is the most enduring enigma that European mo-
dernity has posed to historians. In the not too distant past, historians of China
worked hard to identify elements of European modernity in the Chinese experience
and historical trajectory. This search came with the waning of the notion that Chinese
modernity was the (awed) product of a modernization project that was forced or
triggered by the rise of the West. The dominant assumption of that earlier phase
implied that there was only one modernity and only one road to it. Everybody else
was measured and evaluated according to their distance from that road or their place
along it.
26
Despite obvious differences in their historical experiences and in the ways
in which they encountered Europe, the historiographic treatment of other Asian
polities, such as the Ottoman and Mughal empires, was not dissimilar to that ac-
corded the Chinese.
27
The later effort to identify landmarks on the European road to modernity, how-
ever, was different in nature. For those of us who were studying for Ph.D. exams in
Chinese history during the mid- to late 1990s, this endeavor inevitably involved plow-
ing through numerous then-recent studies struggling with the question of the ex-
istence (or absence) of, for instance, a public sphere, civil society, capitalism, in-
cipient capitalism, or rational law in Chinese history.
28
All of these, to be crude,
were shorthand elementsgments, as Frederic Wakeman would call themof
modernity as it had been articulated over the years, pulled out from their original
birthplace and now cast like a template onto the study of the Chinese past.
29
(One
is tempted to equate the search for these gments of modernity with the earlier
search for Chinas monotheist past, symbolized best in Le Comtes temple, where
the Chinese supposedly worshipped the Western creator.) To varying degrees still
carried out under the yoke of Europe-based paradigms about modernity, these stud-
25
Huri I
slamog lu, Towards a Political Economy of Legal and Administrative Constitutions of In-
dividual Property, in I