Patrick Manning Thesis

Patrick Manning evaluates Jerry Bentley’s proposal for periodizing world history in his essay, “The Problem of Interactions in World History.” Manning finds the focus on cross-cultural interaction to be an interesting approach to world history, but he believes it is only “the beginning of the work” and provides suggestions on how historians can expand on what is meant by cross-cultural interaction to improve it as a criterion for periodizing world history (Manning 782). His main critique of using cross-cultural interaction to periodize history is that it involves a degree of simplification. Ultimately, Manning describes Bentley’s proposal as “elegant and comprehensive” and says he is “inclined to accept cross-cultural interaction as an appropriate

criterion for periodizing world history” (Manning 771).
Manning claims, “The field of world history is both advanced and backward in its handling of interaction,” in regards to the organization of nations, civilizations, cultures, and regions into a single understanding of world history (Manning 776).

Therefore, Manning praises Bentley for basing his periodization on cross-cultural interaction rather than the dominance, rise and fall, and diffusion of civilizations, which continues to be the dominant way of viewing history, because a “paradigm based on cross-cultural interaction…would set the history of civilizations into some more general context” (Manning 777). Manning is also pleased that Bentley uses “the adjective ‘cultural’ rather than the noun ‘culture;’” he says, “If we say that world history includes the study of ‘other cultures,’ are we assuming a clear frontier between ‘us’ and ‘them’? Are interactions across cultural boundaries different from those within cultural limits?” (Manning 777). By calling it cross-cultural interaction, Bentley does not have to address debates about whether cultures are distinct entities. Instead, he can sidestep the issue and focus on what’s more integral to his argument: the interaction part of cross-cultural

interaction.
Manning does have a few critiques of Bentley’s proposal, though.

He is concerned that if cross-cultural interaction is accepted as a criterion for periodizing world history, then such interactions will be mistakenly accepted as the “main subject matter of world history” (Manning 771). However, he acknowledges that “to try to study everything at once is far beyond our mortal powers of comprehension” and we must, therefore, look at aspects of world history (such as interaction) instead of trying to find out everything there is to know about world history (Manning 772). Even though Manning acknowledges this, he still seems to be somewhat critical of Bentley’s necessary simplifications, saying, “Bentley’s clear and direct approach to periodization includes, of necessity, some simplification—streamlining his presentation at the cost of setting aside some issues worthy of discussion,” which implies Manning would be interested to see how more controversial issues would fit into Bentley’s proposed form of periodization (Manning 772). Bentley’s simplifications include relying primarily on the results of recent research and not going into much detail about the modern period, “assuming that the significance of cross-cultural interaction in recent times is evident” (Manning 772-773). While it is convenient for Bentley to sidestep certain debates about what is meant by “culture” so that he can focus on his chosen issues of mass migration, imperial expansion, and long-distance trade,

Manning asks, “What is meant by ‘interaction’? What is meant by ‘cross-cultural’? What changes does this framework imply for the interpretation of world history?” (Manning 773). Overall, Manning seems to be very concerned with details. He seems not to have any large problems with Bentley’s proposal; he would just very much like to see it fleshed out.
All in all, Manning accepts Bentley’s proposal to base periodization on cross-cultural interaction. Despite Bentley’s proposed periods not being the most original ways to periodize world history, Manning believes Bentley’s periodization has considerable potential. Manning says, “The spans of time that Bentley proposes as his periods are not unfamiliar, and the terms he uses to characterize them carry a distinctly familiar ring…Bentley’s approach to periodization can take us beyond restatement of old interpretations” (Manning 780). Manning adds to this discussion on periodization by giving three suggestions for how to better use the cross-cultural interaction approach to understanding world history: considering more types of cross-cultural interaction other than mass migration, imperial expansion, and long-distance trade (Manning 780); becoming “increasingly specific in identifying criteria and agents for cross cultural contact” (Manning 781); and “consider[ing] the changing character of cross-cultural interaction from period to period” (Manning 781). Following Manning’s suggestions would allow historians to make the criteria for Bentley’s proposed periods more specific and eliminate some of the simplification in Bentley’s proposal.