2026/04/14 by Alan Strathern · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Globalization and political ideologies #Historical Influence and Diplomacy #Reformation and Early Modern Christianity
paper · doi:10.1163/15700658-bja10119
openalex publication_date 2026/04/14 · openalex created_date 2026/04/17 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Abstract The tendency to divide up the past by reference to an “Early Modern” period has spread from European history writing to the scholarship of many other societies and indeed to thinking about the history of the world as a whole. Yet the theoretical implications have rarely been explicitly addressed. If all periodization is a complex matter, defining “early modernity” is particularly slippery and paradoxical. The main purpose of the article is to elucidate this discussion by making a number of conceptual distinctions that should allow us to make more meaningful and robust claims about periodization at the global level. After addressing some of the politics surrounding this issue, the article outlines three different senses of the term “Early Modern”: as an empty placeholder; as a way of referring to distinctive characteristics of the period which are not linked to modernity; and as indicating the presence of some early versions of modernity. The latter approach requires a robust understanding of what modernity is and a comparative approach to testing for early manifestations of it. If we wish instead simply to underline a step change in connectivity, then the Early Global Era is a more sensible label.