The Great Divergence: Political, Socio-Cultural, Economic, and Geographic Aspects

Running Head: GREAT DIVERGENCE
GREAT DIVERGENCE
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1GREAT DIVERGENCE
The concept of great divergence is one of the most debatable concept in the scholarly
discussion. The term ‘Great divergence’ was first used in the scholarly account of Kenneth
Pomeranz with the same title (Hoffman et al. 2018). The primary argument was that the Western
World started dominating the world in the 19th century due to its superiority and wealth.
However, the neo-colonial approaches vehemently refuted the concept of western domination
and its notion of superiority. From the arguments of Marshal Hodgson, it can be claimed that the
great divergence was occurred due to the unique European traits (Burke and Mankin 2018). The
argument directly rejected the prolonged idea of developed Western rationalism that fostered the
occidental domination over the world. It was closely linked with the Max Weber’s theory of
Protestantism as the root of great divergence but in a contradictory approach. Based on the
argument of Hodgson, it can be asserted that the great divergence was not a cultural or unique
aspect that facilitated the dominance of the western power and rise of colonial hegemony
(Hodgson 2016). Rather than the turmoil in the global order and the certain aspects of the
western world led to the establishment of the great divergence. From this understanding, this
essay is going to discuss the great divergence debate from the point of view of political, socio-
cultural, economic and geographic aspects. As a matter of fact, the essay aims to evaluate the
causes behind the great divergence and tries to find out whether the cultural superiority or
different factors are responsible for the development of great divergence.
As far as the political aspect is concerned, it can be stated that the culture of political
fragmentation was one of the major factor that paved the way for developing a better society that
other leading civilizations like in China did not have. In this aspect, the research of David Landes
is highly relevant that pointed out the role of the political fragmentation that ushered a constant
political competition in West (Arnason 2015). According to the research of Amin (2018) it can

2GREAT DIVERGENCE
be stated that between 1000 and 1500, the West enjoyed more of fractured political order where
different political powers were busied in power struggle. It created a different political culture
that was unique and differed from the others. From this point of view, Landes (2015) advocated
that it became an important aspect for the growth of Europe as a global power because there was
no power vacuum existed in the region. Once a power failed to take the burden of civilisation
then it would be replaced by others (Bruton, Ahlstrom and Si 2015). On the contrary, Landes
suggested that in Asia, a static power nexus represented the civilisation and the autocratic rulers
were continuously exploited their subjects to meet their own interests.
Simultaneously, the research of Yi and Liu (2018) also articulated that the unique
political system in Europe was more responsible for the development of the capitalism rather
than its economic accountability. The role of the political context was highly and intricately
responsible for the development of capitalism. In this respect, Frank and Denemark (2015)
showed that the power struggle between the Ottomans and the Europeans shifted the expansion
of European colonialism from Asia to America. The subjugation of America into the fold of
European colonialism helped a lot to the growth the European power as well as boosted up its
industrialisation. The raw materials and abundant natural resources that the European powers had
extracted from the American soil was undoubtedly one of the major aspects that brought an
economic boom in the continent (Chew 2015). From that point of view, it can be clearly argued
that the role of politics and rivalry with the Ottomans was actually a beneficial factor for Europe
to refurbish its economy in a rapid pace.
A major argument was done by Chase-Dunn (2015) on the context of rapid political
changes and upheavals that was engineered by the mass in contrast to the traditional political
relation in Asia between the monarchs and the subjects where the commoners were not eligible

3GREAT DIVERGENCE
to take a stand against the monarchy. In this respect, it can be stated that the light of modernity
and philosophical establishment drove West to make a suitable adjustment with the change in
global perspective. From the research of Wong (2016) it can be stated that transformation that
the entire world was anticipated during 1500s and later on had little impact on the oriental
political discourses as it left an impact on Europe. This argument connoted a strong resemblance
with the great divergence theory where the ideas and religious explanations enlightened the
vision of the entire civilisation (Pomeranz 2016). Nevertheless, there is a clear distinction
between the previous argument of Protestantism and its unique role in great divergence. The
theory of political manifestation clearly envisaged a deep impact of the political change within
the entire spectrum of Europe that was not presented in case of the orient. Wong (2016)
ostensibly pointed out the role of the Glorious revolution in the context of political
transformation within the British empire in 1680s (Sewell 2018). People got more responsibility
and power in contrast to the monarchical autocracy that existed in China and other parts of the
world. This created a notion favoured the good care of good subjects.
From the economic perspective, the notion of great divergence was not a result of vision
and enlightened ideas of the West rather the economic advantages that the continent was
achieved at that time due to its colonial expansion. As per the research of Hodgson, it can be
stated that the pre-seminar European traits were more responsible for the development of oxidant
rather than the socio-cultural underpinnings. In this regard, Hoffman et al. (2018) pointed out
that the world economy during 1400 was a polycentric state where all the states irrespective of its
geographical locations got the advantage of the economic development. The concept was created
a dichotomy between the perception of European centred modern world system and the real
world economic status (Wong 2017). Moreover, Rodney (2018) also articulated that at that time