Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Interdisciplinary History
The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society, 1250-1600 by Alfred W. Crosby
Review by: Steven Shapin
The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 261-262
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/206412 .
Accessed: 09/05/2014 14:55
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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of 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 of
Interdisciplinary History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Interdisciplinary History.
http://www.jstor.org
This is big-picture history for a big audience. Like his previous work,
Crosby's Measureof Reality expresses his "lifelong search for explanations
for the amazing success of European imperialism." But where Ecological
Imperialism(New York, I986) sought the explanation in "biological
determinism," Crosby now performs a volte-face and embraces a robus-
tly idealist version of mentalitehistoriography: The causal finger now
points to "habits of thought" and specifically to the quantifying impulse
which, he argues, emerged strongly in Western Europe from the middle
of the thirteenth century (ix-xi).
Crosby never gets round to spelling out how quantifying habits of
thought were responsible for imperialism. He assumes that societies able
efficiently to deliver instruments of control across long distances, and
capable of operating efficient capitalist enterprises, will dominate the
world, and he identifies quantifying habits of thought and of perception
as the prime agents responsible for producing such capacities. (Neither
the will toward, nor the necessity of, imperialist expansion, nor acci-
It has been more than twenty-five years since Mendels published the
paper that launched the concept of proto-industrialization on the schol-
arly world.1 Its success was considerable, if not immediate, and greater
in Europe than in North America. Critiques, debates, research programs,
and the present volume all testify to the value of putting a name to an
understudied form of economic activity that bridged the great transfor-
mation to a modern economy. Mendels did much more than name the
phenomenon. Indeed, so tightly did he characterize it that many scholars
i Franklin Mendels, "Proto-industrialization:The First Phase of the IndustrializationProc-
ess,"Journal of Economic History, XXXII (1972), 241-26I.