The Manning Proposal

In an attempt to describe the state of the field of world history, Patrick Manning explains the development of world history as a separate realm of research, study and education. Quite obviously, he is aware of the audience for Navigating World History. By targeting academics, professors, high school teachers and general history buffs, he draws a large picture on an even larger canvas that does little more than provide an outline of world historiography.

He states five distinct objectives that are each discussed in detail in each part: 1) defining world history in terms of current trends, 2) expansion of world history, 3) summarize the state of world history, 4) develop structures for logical analysis of research, 5) and offer guidelines for curriculum design. But perhaps more important, he weaves five separate but related themes throughout the book. First, world historians can provide understanding of the field through “navigational” techniques, and secondly, multiple patterns have emerged from the development of world history as a distinct field. Thirdly and unfortunately, teachers must teach a subject that covers too much content in too little time, making Manning’s attempt at summarizing and offering a guide on constructing a world history course all the more difficult. Theme four is his emphasis on Africa as a central focus because of the continent’s centrality in the connections that defines world history and its move away from a dominance focused history. As he writes, “historians should go beyond dominance to focus on interaction, (ix)” which he does well to support throughout the book – his strongest argument. Lastly, and one he repeats, is that world history struggles to fund its attempts at becoming a legitimate and well-defined professional field.

Rather than examine every detail, there are a couple of points that Manning makes that seem to resonate louder than others he makes. For one, in chapter six, he makes it clear that the study of interaction is much more important than the older and, he believes, outdated dominance focused histories and curriculums of the past. He argues that world history has always been about the interaction between peoples even if they define themselves in contrast to “others.” Though occasionally there are violent interactions, violence between groups or individuals are still interactions. However, he provides an example of the weakness of the dominance focused studies by comparing the Mongolian empire with the bubonic plague. Basically, he contends that, though the Mongols established a very large political empire, the bubonic plague wiped away all political entities that sought to control the world, making dominance a more impossible dream (111). Here, he is at once confusing and wrong. If interaction is what we want to study, then how is the Mongolians search for dominance not more important than the Black Plague? Did not the plague inhibit interaction while the Mongols enhanced it? If he is so much concerned with keeping interaction as the main focus, how is empire building a subject to avoid?

Lastly, Manning is right when he argues that global studies are a product of a globalized economy and political sphere. Since global studies provide a fresh approach to world history, he contends historians should embrace more interdisciplinary and inclusive approaches, but says little in how to do so. Ultimately, he fails to provide guidance in how to construct a curriculum that resolves the problems he details in the preface. However, his main weakness is his constant complaining about the lack of resources that world historians have at their disposal. He sounds like a Baptist pastor preaching about tithing every single week. Instead of offering options and alternatives to more funding and resources, Manning offers little that apprentice historians (such as we fine folks) can use to overcome these obstacles.