Why does Manning call this book Navigating World History?

What does Manning mean when he says that world historians should "go beyond dominance to focus on interaction?"

What does Manning mean when he states that in Part I he will discuss "the discourse of world history?" What does he see as the main parameters of that discourse?

Manning states that world history is not the sum total of all history. What is it then, in his view, and how does its nature necessarily change its character compared to other fields of world history?

What does Manning mean by the term historical philosophy? Give some examples of historical philosophies of world history.

Why is "civilization" a problematic term in world history?

What is the problem of narrative in world history?

What is the recent "revolution" in historical studies Manning discusses in Part II? How has that revolution affected world history?

In general, how do the field and the teaching of world history differ from those of western civilization? Why?

What has been the history of world history in the 20^th century? Who have been some of the major advocates for world history, and why? Why did it lose popularity, and why has it regained popularity in recent years?

What are the approaches to world history of Arnold Toynbee and William McNeill? How are they related, and how do they differ?

What are the approaches to world history of Marshall Hodgson and William McNeill? How are they related? How do they differ?

What are the major contributions of Phillip Curtin to world historical thought?

Discuss the main arguments for and against teaching world history. Which do you find most persuasive, and why?

Compare and contrast how Hodgson, McNeill, and Curtin define

world history. Whose definition seems to work best for you? Why?

Why does McNeill argue that "encounters with strangers were the main drive wheel of social change"? (p. 150)

Why is finding a unit of geographical study so important to world history? Why do most proposed models fall into "superregions" and "interregional modes of analysis?"

What should be the unit of geographic study in world history according to the historians in this section of the book? If you had to choose one, which one would it be? Why?

Why does Burke argue that "the attempt to devise a methodology is obviously of central importance to the development of world history as a field?" (p. 173)

Why does Manning argue that diaspora can operate as a set of geographic and cultural boundaries, and thus a unit of study, for world history?

What was Wallerstein’s basic argument? How does his "world-systems" approach challenge especially modernization theory? Upon what basis has world-systems theory been critiqued?

How does Braudel define a "world economy"? What are his "ground rules" by which world economies operate?

Why does Voll argue in favor of Islam as a "special world system"? Why does this lead in his view to the need for a "broader conceptualization" of the term "world system?"

Why have all world historians since Nietzsche been forced to answer him?

What does Costello mean when he says that "Wellsian world history is founded on an ideology of threatened progress"? (p. 23) Where did this ideology come from, and how did it shape Wells’ Outline of History?

What does Costello mean when he states that Spengler "embodied the antihistory of modernism"? (p. 69). How is Spengler’s work related to that of Nietzsche? Why have world historians been forced to respond to Spengler, as they have to Nietzsche?

Would it be accurate to say that Toynbee laid the basis for multiculturalism in modern world history and culture? Why, or why not?

Why do Costello and most of Toynbee’s critics argue that Toynbee’s historical works constituted poor history but great works of art?

Costello states that Sorokin "employed sociological technique to elaborate the most systematically integrated cultural history of Western civilization written in the twentieth century." (p. 97) Explain.

What does Manning see as the research agenda for world political and economic history? What are the major questions and debates?

What is "social history"? Why, according to Manning, has it not been at the forefront of world history? Can social history be done at the world-historical level? What are the main categories of analysis (topics of research)?

What is the research agenda of ecology, technology, and health in world history? What contributions has the research from these fields already made to the study of world history?

What does Manning mean by the terms "macrocultural" and "microcultural" studies, and why does he argue in favor of their application to world cultural history? Why does he argue that these terms relate to "old" and "new" definitions of culture?

What are the main topics of debate that have developed in world history? How does Manning think that debates about world history should differ from other historical debates? How do debates aid in the process of verifying historical interpretations?

Why do historians of necessity have to grapple with frameworks of time and space in teaching and researching world history?

Why must all historical research, including world history, proceed with a framework and strategy? How are the frameworks and strategies of world history related to research agendas? How are they related to interpretations? Why does Manning argue that authors should be clear about their frameworks and strategies, and explicit in stating them?

Why is systems theory important for world history? What are its limitations?

What is verification? How does Manning suggest that a world historian can go about verifying an interpretation? Why does he think verification is important?

Manning argues that there is a characteristic method for analyzing world history consisting of six steps. Explain. Why is finding a language of historical analysis also important?

Costello says that "in the last analysis, the crisis of the twentieth-century was a sacred drama to Dawson." (p. 126) Explain.

According to Costello, Lewis Mumford was "driven by a utopian vision of a desired future that was confronted by a potential cataclysm, either by the material destruction of the biosphere through war or the decimation of the natural environments, or from the process of dehumanization, which accompanies environmental degeneration." (p. 156). Explain. What was Mumford’s idea of a utopian future in the face of this potential cataclysm?

Why did urban history figure so centrally in Mumford’s work? Why was his work on cities so significant.

According to Costello, "Mumford’s metahistory is at least existentially progressive; like Toynbee and Dawson he rescues a progressive sector from this process of cyclical decline." (p. 174) What does Costello mean here by "progressive, and why does he Toynbee, Dawson, and Mumford as progressives?

Costello states the William McNeill’s works "have acted to clear the air of metaphysical obscurantism, cyclical determinism, and the organicism of self-contained civilizations that pursued predictable life courses." (p. 183) Explain.

What is McNeill’s "mythistory"? How is it central to his conceptualization of the best methodology of world history?

Why does Costello state that "of all the metahistorians he is perhaps the least eschatological and the most optimistic over the ability of civilization to adjust to the future"? (p. 211)

What, according to Costello, has been the relationship between world history and eschatology during the twentieth century? Why?

What does Abu-Lughod mean when she cites the "problem of data," the "problem of testimony" and the "problem of perspective" as the main methodological problems in trying to write a world history such as this?

How is this study influenced by Wallerstein’s World Systems theory? In what ways does Abu-Lughod agree with Wallerstein, and how does this work differ from his?

What is "systematic" in this and all "world systems" theories?

How was the European subsystem created? What regions of Europe took part in it, and why?

What are the three routes to importance in an international system? How are these represented in the three European regions that became the foci of medieval trade?

Why were the fairs of Champagne displaced from the core of the world system?

What was the nature of medieval European capitalism? What were its links to feudalism? To the state?

What were the three routes to the East? Compare and contrast their advantages and disadvantages.

Why is it incorrect to suppose that commercial techniques central to international trade diffused from Europe to Islam?

What was the role of the Mongols in the movement of trade between East and West?

Why did Venetian and Egyptian trade survive the Black Death?