The Theft of History (Canto Classics) Reprint Edition

Professor Sir Jack Goody, Fellow of the British Academy, Fellow of the American National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres, is one of the world's leading anthropologists, specialized particularly in literacy and alphabetism as an anthropological and political economic phenomenon. However, in "The Theft of History", he has written an excellent and courteous refutation of Eurocentric claims in anthropology and cultural history."The Theft of History" refers to the way in which the non-European cultures are part of the popular received opinion in the Western world only in the denigrating, false and imperialist manner in which the 19th century colonial historians and anthropologists portrayed them, and that only insofar as they appear in supposed world history at all. This is done in similar manner as in the books of James Blaut, André Gunder Frank, Eric Wolf and so forth, only Goody is less polemical than these and focuses in particular on the cultural aspects. The first part here treads the familiar ground (at least among people who have read this before, not among the general public or even intellectuals!) of refuting Eurocentric feudalism, the 'Asiatic mode of production', Asian backwardness etc.The rest of the book goes into the cultural-anthropological aspects, which Goody is more unique in talking about in this context. These include but are not limited to the "theft of love" (the claim 'romantic love' was an invention of High Medieval European culture), the "theft of institutions" (universities, charities, city-states as unique to Europe), and the "theft of values" (democracy, individualism, etc. as unique to Europe). Goody with much British understatement does a great job of both spotting and demolishing these claims and assumptions, and in the process is very informative about the cultural exchange between Europe and other parts of the world from very early times on. What is also interesting is that unlike most of the above mentioned authors, he does not particularly contrast Europe with Asia, but rather with Africa (where he did field work) and the Arab world.Goody does share with Frank the problem of going overboard occasionally in wanting to dismiss useful political economic concepts that have been used Eurocentrically in the past, such as feudalism and capitalism, which throws away the baby with the bath-water. He also occasionally misses the forest for the trees, in focusing too much on the Eurocentric errors (often out of unfamiliarity rather than malice) of otherwise progressive historians without duly acknowledging their good side, such as with Sir Moses Finley/Finkelstein.But these are minor criticisms. This book is yet another excellent introductory refutation of Eurocentric common conceptions, and due to its particular focus it is especially useful for people of a cultural history or anthropological bent.

Goody's best work moves from empirical engagement to theory. This takes theory and engages ideologically and reductively with the world of history. Continuous contextual manipulation.

Goody attacks the notion of a fundamental division between European and Asian historical trajectories, which he attributes to thinkers such as Braudel, Elias, Marx, Weber, Wallerstein, and Perry Anderson among others. By projecting categories of world history (antiquity, feudalism, capitalism, etc.) developed from European history onto Asian history, he claims, we have perpetuated an ethnocentric narrative that positions the West as the inventor of modern science, the university, the free city, capitalism, democracy, love, secularism, etc. In contrast, Goody argues that all cultures go through periods of efflorescence and retreat, and these alternations and inter-connections are a more productive point of departure for historical analysis. That is, rather than a hierarchy of causes for the development of regions, Goody argues for a different analytical entry point into a layered totality. Accordingly, he compares the exchanges between Europe and Asia arguing that regional dominance has fluctuated a number of times over the past millennia. While I am sympathetic with Goody's approach, the result is something far less interesting than any of the "ethnocentric" historians he is arguing against have produced. Goody is right, I think, to emphasize the exchange of goods and information in the formation of global processes. For Goody's descriptions of the university, the free city, and love, this approach works just fine. The problem is that Goody, like many anthropologists, is ultimately arguing for a particular ontology, rather than adjudicating between possible explanations for the emergence of a particular phenomena. And for explaining the origin(s) and spread of capitalism, the commodification of labor power and the revolution of the means of production--things that apply to today's Chinese capitalism no less than any other capitalist producer--I am not sure how useful it is to point out that China developed an urban mercantile class before Europeans. But perhaps I have lapsed into the ethnocentricity Goody is arguing against. As a final comment, the book would benefit considerably from a more detailed discussion of Goody's methods.

this should not have been published. It is out of date and completely unbalanced. The thesis is great but poorly supported by his arguments.

This book resembles an ideological means to impose new paradigms of the world. In the same way, past academics believed in supremacy of the West, now it seems they believe in the supremacy of the rest. Truly Christian attitude. Might be compassionate, but deeply ignorant of the world challenges and 21st century reality.

Goody seems to forget that Weber and Braudel had extremely powerful ideas, and tries to be more clever than them by pointing details such as the fact that the calender imposed to the world is indeed Christian. Even Braudel defends the topic better than what Goody proposes. This is a pity, because the theft of history is massive. I guess the book was written before it became evident that China is still the most powerful culture in history if we consider the last 30 centuries. Only the title is interesting.

i use it for my ongoing research