Alfred W. Crosby, The Measure of Reality (1997, Cambridge University Press)
Question for ChatGPT
Alfred W. Crosby, The Measure of Reality (1997, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521554276)
Please address the following points:
-
Summary of the book.
-
Academic evaluation post-publication:
① Evaluation from the perspective of historical sociology.
② Evaluation from the perspective of the history of mentalities (history of mind-sets).
③ Evaluation from the perspective of the history of science/scientific thought. -
From the standpoint of research as of the 2020s, what are the criticisms?
-
From the standpoint of research as of the 2020s, what scholarly contributions should be inherited/continued?
-
Bibliographic sources, key references, and major scholars related to the above.
That is all.
ChatGPT's Answer
1. Summary (Outline of Contents)
Alfred W. Crosby’s The Measure of Reality: Quantification in Western Europe, 1250–1600 (Cambridge UP, 1997) proposes that, between approximately 1250 and 1600, Western Europe underwent a significant cultural transformation: from what Crosby terms the “Venerable Model” — a qualitative, narrative-based conception of reality — to a “New Model” built on quantification and visualization.
In this view, the shift to measuring, counting, and mapping reality became foundational for the later rise of modern science, technology, commerce, and bureaucracy. Crosby traces parallel developments in:
-
the adoption of Arabic numerals;
-
the rise of mechanical clocks and the equalization of time;
-
polyphonic rhythm and quantified musical notation;
-
linear perspective in painting;
-
and double-entry bookkeeping in commerce.
He argues that Western culture came to treat the world as something measurable and comparable. The book is arranged in three parts:
-
The reconfiguration of time, space and numerical notation;
-
Quantification in art and accounting;
-
The emergence in the sixteenth century of a “new sense of reality”.
His method is a comparative, macro-historical narrative: quantification becomes a transformation of habit of mind (mentalité) rather than merely a technical change.
2. Academic Evaluation Post-Publication
(1) Evaluation from Historical Sociology
In the American Historical Review, Jack A. Goldstone wrote a review titled “Whose Measure of Reality?”, praising Crosby’s broad and provocative hypothesis yet cautioning that the emphasis on the West as uniquely quantifying may be excessive. Goldstone emphasised that Asia also possessed rich traditions of quantification and mathematical thought, so Europe’s dominance was not inevitable. (JSTOR)
Other sociological reviewers acknowledged the originality and synthetic ambition of the book, but questioned the linear causal model — i.e., the simple chain from quantification → dominion/empire.
(2) Evaluation from the History of Mentalities
Crosby’s work has been read as part of the histoire des mentalités tradition (à la Annales school). His depiction of a shift in cultural perception (in music, art, accounting) has been appreciated for its imaginative sweep and readability. At the same time, some critics have pointed out that his engagement with non-Western traditions of measurement is limited, and the archival depth in some domains is less than ideal. For example, the blog review notes that Crosby describes the “Venerable Model” of medieval Europeans as qualitative and narrative, then outlines the conditions for change, though with less depth on earlier systems that persist. (tertulia-moderna.blogspot.com)
(3) Evaluation from the History of Science / Scientific Thought
Reviews in science history and intellectual history journals have been largely positive.
-
Paula Findlen, in the Sixteenth Century Journal, called the book “a brilliant, provocative essay” and noted that we have “all benefited from Crosby’s attempt to sum up the age.” (アマゾン)
-
Steven Shapin (in the Journal of Interdisciplinary History) acknowledged the interpretive boldness of the study, but maintained that the linking of quantification with European imperialism is asserted rather than thoroughly demonstrated.
-
Frank Swetz, in Historia Mathematica, described the book as “enjoyable and instructive” but critiqued its treatment of pre-modern measurement systems and the conceptual grounding of the new worldview. (ウィキペディア)
Overall, it was seen as a major synthetic statement that encouraged interdisciplinary dialogue among historians of science, culture, and society.
3. Criticisms from the Research Standpoint of the 2020s
-
Eurocentrism: Recent global-history scholarship has emphasised that practices of quantification (numeration, metrics, standardisation, bookkeeping) were widespread across Eurasia long before the European expansion. Scholars such as Jack Goody have argued for “East → West” connections rather than a purely Western origin. Thus Crosby’s “Western uniqueness” thesis is subject to revision.
-
Simplistic “quantification = progress” narrative: More recent studies (for example in accounting and slavery) show that quantification also served exploitation and domination; it is not simply a benign driver of scientific or commercial progress. For instance, the study of plantation accounting reveals that quantification was embedded in coercive systems.
-
Sociology/ethics of quantification: Since the 2010s, literature on the “politics of numbers” and “ethics of quantification” has grown (e.g., Espeland & Stevens; Saltelli et al.). These stress that measuring and counting are socially constructed, embedded in power relations; thus the question “what gets measured and why?” has become central.
-
Need for more precise causality: Modern research on the “Great Divergence” and on the emergence of modern science tends to treat quantification as one factor among many (institutional, social, technological) rather than the primary driver. Crosby’s causal chain (quantification → scientific revolution → imperial power) is considered too linear and needs to be embedded in complex multi-causal models.
4. Scholarly Contributions Worth Inheriting from the 2020s
-
Interdisciplinary vision: Crosby’s linking of musical notation, perspective painting, and commercial bookkeeping offers a powerful model of cross-domain analysis of perception, representation and practice. This kind of interdisciplinary vantage remains valuable.
-
Focus on visualization/representation: The insight that visualization techniques (notation, maps, graphs, ledgers) transform practices rather than simply represent them has been influential in data-visualization studies and the history of science & technology (STS).
-
Quantification as a habit of mind: Considering quantification not merely as a technical innovation, but as a transformation of collective cognition and cultural habit, remains a productive framing for studies of measurement regimes, data culture, and quantification in modern society.
-
Macro-historical stimulus: Even with its limitations, the book’s ambition—telling a large-scale narrative of cultural change—is valuable. It stimulates historians to connect intellectual, cultural and technical histories across domains, and to think at scale.
5. Main Sources & Representative Scholars
Primary text
-
Alfred W. Crosby, The Measure of Reality: Quantification in Western Europe, 1250–1600 (Cambridge University Press, 1997) — see Cambridge Core page. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)
Key academic reviews / commentaries
-
Jack A. Goldstone, “Whose Measure of Reality?” American Historical Review (2000). (JSTOR)
-
Paula Findlen, review of Crosby, Sixteenth Century Journal (1998). (journals.uchicago.edu)
-
Frank Swetz, review in Historia Mathematica (2000). (Wikipedia)
-
J. D. Parr, “Book Review: The Measure of Reality…” (in a SAGE-journal review). (SAGE Journals)
-
Publishers Weekly review. (PublishersWeekly.com)
Comparative / theoretical references
-
Jack Goody, The East in the West (1996) – critique of Eurocentric exceptionalism.
-
Wendy N. Espeland & Mitchell L. Stevens, “A Sociology of Quantification” (European Journal of Sociology, 2008).
-
Andrea Saltelli et al., “From Sociology of Quantification to Ethics of Quantification” (Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 2020).
-
Caitlin Rosenthal, Accounting for Slavery (2018) – case study of quantification in systems of domination.
Conclusion
Crosby’s The Measure of Reality remains a landmark work: it narrates the cultural rise of quantification and visualization as defining features of Western thought in the late medieval and early modern period.
While scholarship in the 21st century has moderated its more sweeping claims (notably its Eurocentrism and simple causality), its core contributions—especially the linking of quantification, representation, and mentality—continue to inform global history, STS, and the sociology of knowledge.
最近のコメント