the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal ofInterdisciplinary History

Urbanism, Colonialism and the World-EconomyAuthor(s): Anthony KingSource: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Spring, 1992), pp. 777-779Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/205272 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 07:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The MIT Press and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal ofInterdisciplinary History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof Interdisciplinary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.78 on Fri, 9 May 2014 07:54:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMENT AND CONTROVERSY | 777

icant difference in attendance by social class of unexcused absentees, I concluded that "these results suggest that all classes were alienated to the same degree." Vann finds this conclusion "so inherently implausible" as to call into question absenteeism as a meaningful measure of alienation (I 19). Yet he gives no reason why such a conclusion is inherently implausible.

It would be well to recall the context of the analysis. Here we find a manor court, a medieval institution, still active in the early nineteenth century. Most of its public functions had been taken over by the parish vestry, so that the court must have been viewed increasingly as an agent of private aggrandizement (Ur- dank, Io6). It is plausible that all classes might have been alienated from its authority to the same degree. And yet, as I have also demonstrated, the attitudes of unexcused absentees were also am- bivalent, since almost all of them elected to pay the fines for nonattendance levied against them, thereby tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of the court's authority.

But Vann's real objection is to the method of hypothesis testing that I employ. One of the functions of social science methodology is to test a priori beliefs. Sometimes the findings might surprise us, or might not be entirely to our liking; this does not, however, make it "inherently implausible."

Albion M. Urdank University of California, Los Angeles

The Editors:

Johns' generally unsympathetic review of my Urbanism, Coloni- alism and the World-Economy, seems to have resulted from both a

misreading of the book's objectives and the decision not to send him the companion volume, Global Cities: Postimperialism and the Internationalisation of London (New York, I990), which answers

many of his criticisms. All of the other published reviews have treated the books together, as was the intention.l

I Michael Johns, review of Anthony King, Urbanism, Colonialism and the World-Economy: Cultural and Spatial Foundations of the World Urban System, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XXII (I99I), 114-I15.

COMMENT AND CONTROVERSY | 777

icant difference in attendance by social class of unexcused absentees, I concluded that "these results suggest that all classes were alienated to the same degree." Vann finds this conclusion "so inherently implausible" as to call into question absenteeism as a meaningful measure of alienation (I 19). Yet he gives no reason why such a conclusion is inherently implausible.

It would be well to recall the context of the analysis. Here we find a manor court, a medieval institution, still active in the early nineteenth century. Most of its public functions had been taken over by the parish vestry, so that the court must have been viewed increasingly as an agent of private aggrandizement (Ur- dank, Io6). It is plausible that all classes might have been alienated from its authority to the same degree. And yet, as I have also demonstrated, the attitudes of unexcused absentees were also am- bivalent, since almost all of them elected to pay the fines for nonattendance levied against them, thereby tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of the court's authority.

But Vann's real objection is to the method of hypothesis testing that I employ. One of the functions of social science methodology is to test a priori beliefs. Sometimes the findings might surprise us, or might not be entirely to our liking; this does not, however, make it "inherently implausible."

Albion M. Urdank University of California, Los Angeles

The Editors:

Johns' generally unsympathetic review of my Urbanism, Coloni- alism and the World-Economy, seems to have resulted from both a

misreading of the book's objectives and the decision not to send him the companion volume, Global Cities: Postimperialism and the Internationalisation of London (New York, I990), which answers

many of his criticisms. All of the other published reviews have treated the books together, as was the intention.l

I Michael Johns, review of Anthony King, Urbanism, Colonialism and the World-Economy: Cultural and Spatial Foundations of the World Urban System, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XXII (I99I), 114-I15.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.78 on Fri, 9 May 2014 07:54:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

778 | ANTHONY KING

To begin with, my intention is not "to place colonial cities in a global context and view them through an interdisciplinary lens" as your reviewer states (II4). The three objectives of the book are clearly spelled out, the most important of which (as is evident from the book's title) is "to explore the historical foun- dations of th(e) world urban system, its spatial and cultural links, if not in its entirety . . . but rather, a major part of it-namely, that part influenced by European colonialisms." More especially, however, "The object is not to attempt a comprehensive account, backed by a battery of empirical data, but rather, to suggest a series of approaches and methods to stimulate further research" (King, 2).

There is also a conscious focus in the book on the built environment and the way this represents and conditions econ- omies, societies and cultures. Only one of the book's seven chap- ters deals primarily with colonial cities which seem to be Johns' principal interest.

The other part of the problem is that he has taken note of only o5 percent of the relevant material. It is clearly stated in both the preface and on the cover, that this book is one of two com- panion volumes, each of which is complementary to the other. Global Cities addresses in very considerable detail those topics which Johns suggests are "not seriously explored," especially "how and why cities play different roles in the world economy, or how the built environment of a particular city is constructed and dependent upon its international context" (114). He would also find there the "theoretical inquiry and carefully analyzed case studies" as well as answers to his other questions (II5). Over half the book is devoted to an essay on physical and social aspects of London's role in the world economy.

The comments in the final section of the review raise serious questions as to the knowledge and competence of the reviewer in these fields. It is clear that in the final section, "Changes in the Core," the chapter on "the social production of building form," draws on my earlier 3oo-page monograph on The Bungalow: The Production of a Global Culture (Boston, 1984) as well, in part, on Colonial Urban Development (Boston, 1976), both of which discuss at length the questions which your reviewer raises. For scholars in the fields of colonial architecture and urbanism, as well as social and spatial theory, who know these books, to read "rather than

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.78 on Fri, 9 May 2014 07:54:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMENT AND CONTROVERSY | 779

seriously discuss bungalows, the author spends most of the time reviewing general points of social theory and space and talking about how to talk about bungalows" would not only cause some surprise (even amusement) but would suggest that the reviewer has a lot of catching up to do ( 115). Urbanism, Colonialism and the World-Economy (as well as Global Cities), attempt to bring together some provisional generalizations emerging from a review of the considerable literature and research in this field for scholars who are familiar with it. Whatever faults the book has (and they are certainly there), should be seen in this context.

Anthony King State University of New York, Binghamton

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.78 on Fri, 9 May 2014 07:54:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions