In the early 1970s Perry Anderson wrote his Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism and Lineages of the Absolutist State. The first covered the rise and decline of classical Mediterranean civilizations and the rise and transformation of the European feudalisms that grew out of and followed them. The second covered the "absolutist" European monarchies that in turn grew out of feudalism in the early modern period. I don't agree with them exactly--I am much more of a techno-organizational determinist than Anderson. But they are very interesting and thoughtful works indeed.
The natural next step seemed to be for Anderson to take his particular analytical framework--what I think of as neo-Weberian "modes of domination" coupled with a close look at politico-economic institutions all of which Anderson ties up in a package and pretends is some form of Marxism--to the eve of the Industrial Revolution: a study of European politics in the age of the democratic revolutions coupled with a look at the pace of the industrial economic transformation. It would have been an extraordinarily stimulative work on the birth of "modernity"--political democracy, urban culture, mass politics, the industrial revolution, market capitalism, and how and whether they all hung together as a system. I imagined chapters on the economy, society, and polity of:
Yet it was never written. Anderson has, instead, spent his time on a number of lesser projects that are, I think, of much less general interest (and that are certainly of much less interest to me).
I have always wondered why...
Posted by DeLong at May 24, 2003 11:24 AM | TrackBack
A question that was the subject of much speculation when I worked for his publishing house in the mid-1980s. One plausible line of speculation I heard back then was that he couldn't write the book because he couldn't resolve the tension between his closet Weberianism and his official Marxism. Would this have been the final book on the "transition to modernity" or the penultimate book on the "bourgeois revolutions". In the early 1970s he probably believe that the transition to socialism was imminent ... not such a plausible belief to have now.
Posted by: Chris Bertram on May 27, 2003 01:28 PMI'd settle for the penultimate book on "bourgeois revolutions"--Wilhelmus Tacitus, Cromwell, William of Orange, George Washington, Lafayette, Mirabeau, Robespierre, Napoleon, Bismarck, et cetera...
Brad DeLong
Maybe E.P. Thompson's ass whipping left him too weak to continue? Perhaps the emergence of his idol Althusser as a right wing zealot was too painful?