Early Modern State (Building) in Asia and Europe

Organized by the Junior Research Group “Cultural Contact as a Factor of State Building” (headed by Dr Antje Flüchter) at the Cluster of Excellence, “Asia and Europe in a Global Context,” University of Heidelberg
in cooperation with Junior Research Group “The Fascination of Efficiency: Migrating Ideas and Emerging Bureaucracies in Europe and Asia since the Early Modern Era” (headed by Dr Susan Richter)
Statehood and governance, their transformation and diversification, are yet again highly discussed topics in German historical research. For a long time, early modern state building was considered a genuinely European characteristic of this era. Whereas the concept of state building from above has often been criticized and thus the general conception of Early Modern statehood has changed thoroughly in recent years, the main focus of this discussion throughout has been mostly limited to Europe. However, stately structures and governance did not exist solely in Europe. In the Early Modern era and especially before the mid-18th century, Europeans were confronted with highly developed and efficient stately state systems in Asia. In India, the Mughal Empire was established in the 16th century, South Indian kingdoms possessed elaborate governmental structures; the Safawid dynasty ruled in Persia; and while the Ottoman Empire may to some extent have become less threatening after the battle of Lepanto, it was still an important actor in the Mediterranean world; not to mention China or Japan, who resisted intensified cultural contact for a long time. But they, too, served as a role model in several European state theories.
Moreover, the early modern period was a time of intensified contact between Europe and Asia. Cultural contact is always accompanied by cultural flows (Appadurai). This suggests that transcultural encounters were essential, or at least important, for the transformation and diversification of governmental structures and practices both in Europe and Asia. Statehood and governance were clearly high on the agenda in both world regions as problems of improving not only the efficiency of administrative structures, but also the legal and fiscal penetration of the ruled territory became increasingly important. And processes of transfer take place in areas where the need for action or even structural shortcomings is perceived.
Nevertheless, state structures in non-European regions are only rarely integrated into European model-building and concepts of statehood. Furthermore, this selective perception is also widespread among area studies which often argue against the master narrative of the Modern European state without noticing that many different models and explanations were developed concerning early modern European history. The division of labour and expertise between history and area studies certainly has to be renegotiated, as recent discussions about global history have clearly shown. However, it seems even more important right now to exchange methods and concepts concerning comparative and entangled history. Therefore, this workshop will discuss concepts and methodology for comparative and entangled history using the example of Asian and European statehood. It will encompass three focal points.
1. The main focus will address the methods and theories necessary to create a transcultural perspective. Various concepts have emerged not only from different disciplines, but also from different regional and historiographical traditions in both Asia and Europe (connected history, entanglement, transfer, comparison, histoire croisée, and global history). How can these varying concepts be applied successfully and can they be combined to help us reach a deeper understanding of transcultural interaction, perception and transfer?
2. Distinct explanations and descriptions of the phenomenon “statehood” have also developed in each regional discipline, explanations which often do not take each other into account even when they all concern the early modern era. This workshop will therefore question if and how, for example, a new cultural history of the political history (Stollberg-Rilinger) is compatible and stimulative for the ritual sovereignty of the segmentary South Asian state (B. Stein), or if the concepts of state building ‘from below’ (Holenstein) can bring new understanding for the “little kingdoms” (Dirks).
3. However, the workshop shall not tackle solely theoretical and conceptual questions. It is important that they be combined with concrete research. Thus they should be tested using examples of state structures in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. With which problems were they confronted and how did they react? Which elements were essential to the stabilization, expansion or changing of ruler ship? How did contemporaries themselves reflect on their system, its functioning and its legitimacy

from - http://www.asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de/en/research/a-governance-administration/a9/past-events/early-modern-state-building-in-asia-and-europe-comparison-transfer-and-entanglement-heidelberg-october-26-28-2009.html