The Great Divergence: Europe, China and industrialization
Alexandre Gruffat
As China looks to become the world’s largest economy, one must not forget that it would not be the first time that it held the position. Up until the 14 th century China boasted the most advanced society in the world; its agricultural techniques, roads, literacy levels, and string of inventions, from woodblock printing to gunpowder, had not been seen anywhere else. Venice’s Marco Polo remarked that China’s network of rivers ‘exceeds all the rivers of the Christians put together’(Jacques 2009, 88). Many agree that China had possessed the conditions required to industrialize centuries before the 1300s. Why, then, did it fail to industrialize? Similarly, how did Europe, an historically less developed society, succeed in industrializing. I aim to account for the Great Divergence by answering the two previous questions. By not considering either society a model for the other, I avoid a Eurocentric view that allows for comparisons to be made on a fair baseline. I do not assume Pomeranz’s argument, that China and Europe were characteristically similar until the 1800s, because China could not have industrialized even if it had access to the New World and its resources. Instead, I argue that China stagnated whilst Europe pulled away because of their differences in culture, institutions, geography, and demography. To industrialize, a combination of those factors was required, and a positive attitude towards innovation and change was crucial. China’s fundamental will to ensure order and stability meant there was a resistance to change. Similarly, the Chinese state encouraged uniform thinking while discouraging further ideas that challenged the status quo. Europe, in contrast, welcomed competing ideas; its culture produced discussions and theories which were then spread and applied to machines, stimulating an Industrial Revolution. With the end of the Sui dynasty in 618 CE came the beginning of the Tang dynasty and ‘China’s Golden Age’. Character ized by open-mindedness and an appreciation for cultural diversity, political, economic, and social stability was secured. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners brought their artistic and literary cultures with them to cities like the capital, Chang’an, and the popularity of foreign music even resulted in its own genre as songs were performed by instruments imported from India and Persia. Similarly, China gained mangoes from southeast Asia and spices from India, and through their positive relationship, Emperor Harsha (of northern India) sent two envoys to teach sugar cultivation, further diversifying China’s culinary base. And nor was such cultural embracement confined to a certain class as Li Su’s noble Persian family, the introducers of Persian astrology to China, were invited into the dynasty’s ranks (Barret t 2022). The Tang dynasty managed to incorporate foreign culture and knowledge into its fabric all while maintaining its own language and ritual. China’s cosmopolitanism allowed for people and cities to flourish as trade networks were expanded, resources were increased, and scientific ideas were exchanged. Future leaders, however, were unaware of its benefits and when the Ming dynasty closed themselves off to the world, they lost a crucial ingredient for industrialization.
265
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting