Cotton Production of Modernity

Sven Beckert’s Empire of Cotton does an excellent job highlighting the role of cotton and cotton production throughout world history. With what seemed like a lofty goal (or a “Five-thousand-year journey”, as Beckert asserts), the author is able to convincingly show that the empire of cotton did in fact usher in the modern world. The author’s thesis even holds true for economics and world relations today, as cotton remains (although more quietly) a necessity for the modern era.

An interesting note prompted by this discussion is the relationship between the rise of cotton as a global commodity and power relations throughout the world. In a sense, the empire of cotton was one of the first major producers of a “globalized world”. Reading Beckert’s contextual work in the first chapter shows that cotton production and its importance was felt world-wide. Interestingly, on pages 12-13, Beckert’s map shows that the major players in the “empire” were not the national powers one may expect. That being stated, European powers adjusted their might in what Beckert cleverly called “War Capitalism”. This term refers to the assertion of sovereignty over people and land by entrepreneurs and business. When cotton was spread throughout Europe from the east, networks around the Mediterranean World developed. As the system became sharper (and time went on), the duality of wage labor and slave labor introduced a complicated network. This network, perhaps unforeseen by its predecessors, created the change in power relations.

Europe was challenged because cotton had to be imported from around the world, and early on, this read as a prelude to colonization. Cotton became in control of the European powers because the control was not based necessarily off of technology, but from the ability and willingness to project capital and power across oceans. This being stated, changing power relations were based off of the European ability to quite literally fight their way into the global cotton market networks.

The best example to show the change in power relations is the occupation of India, as discussed early in the book on page 33. European traders began to control coastal and harbor based towns for ultimate control of cotton, amongst other goods, in and out of India. The traders’ role as unwanted diplomats kept some sovereignty for the Indians through banias, but this system became strained because of European pressures.

Beckert’s work was a dry read but held many interesting arguments- all of which were convincing and novel to me. Thinking of history as relationships between groups is not original, but Beckert’s work is able to encompass economic, social, race, and class problems within a span of time which seemed undoable. The relative success of this work leads me to think if any other commodity histories can be written- or any nuanced views upon them can be? The role of tobacco in North America is a widely known topic, but its larger implications on a changing society may serve historians today. 

My one critique remains simply- Can Beckert really demote one factor to being the "launching pad" into the Industrial Revolution? Such a claim is bold, and although argued well, does Beckert oversimplify the complex network of relations between people and states?