Prof. Scott B. NoegelChair, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and CivilizationUniversity of Washington

Book review:Huff, Toby E. The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West.Cambridge, 1993.

First Published in:

Digest of Middle Eastern Studies 5/2 (1996), 72-76.

Spn"ng 1996 ~

T he Rise of Early Modern Science:Islam, China, and the West

Toby E. Huff

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993,409pages. $54.95cloth (ISBN0-521-43496-3),$18.95paperback (ISBN0-521-49833-3).

Review byScott B. Noegel, Ph.D.University of Washington, Seattle

H uffs intriguing study in historical and comparative sociologyaims to answer the long-debated question why a scientific

revolution occurred in early modern Europe in the thirteenth century,despite the fact that the early Islamic and Chinese civilizations weretechnologically far superior. The Muslim astronomers al-Tusi !IndIbn-Shatir, for example, had dismissed Ptolemaic astronomy in favorof a mathematical model that anticipated that of Copernicus (thoughthe Islamic model was not heliocentric). Similar were the Islamicadvances in the area of optics, which far exeeded those of the Westbefore 1300. China, too, was more technologically advanced than theWest, especially in mathematics, but like Islamic science, it failed toprogress in any significant way after the fourteenth century.

Expanding on the works of Max Weber, Thomas Kuhn, JosephNeedham, Robert Merton, and his own mentor Benjamin Nelson, TobyHuffapproaches the question of why the West, and not the East, gavebirth to the scientific revolution, by establishing the legal, social.philosophical, and theological contexts of the respective cultures. Ofkeen interest to Huff is how the underlying cultural values anddynamics of each society served to inhibit or catalyze scientificadvancement. Huffremarks:

72 ([)OfWES

" .,,-, \.) )

~ f£arfJ.. Science

So I would argue that insofar as we can speak of a specificinstitution of science, its normative operatives are derivedfrom a far more general cultural ambience and, above all, relyupon religious and legal presuppositions that long antedatethe rise of modern science in the seventeenth century (p. 25).

Key to Huffs analysis is the role of medieval beliefs in contributingto the transformation of European legal institutions in the twelfth andthirteenth centuries. Here, Huff credits the emergence of autonomouscorporations with giving rise to autonomous rational inquiry. Thecorporation which Huff singles out as being most important to theseadvances is the university. To Huff, it is the university alone whichencouraged a search for universal truths and which set the stage fortransformation. Consequently, the corporate format of Europeanuniversities with its corporate certification of know ledge ultimatelyserved to promote a universalistic worldview of rational truths thattranscended the individ ua!. Huff asserts:

Whereas the Westen1 legal systems had adopted reason andconscience as well as the idea of natural law as the ultimatestandards for accepting or rejecting a specific legal practice orprinciple, Islamic law opted for tradition and the scholarlyconsensus (p. 133).

For this reason, Greek philosophy and scientific works wereembraced and incorporated into the university curriculum.

Indeed, some would say that it WIlSthe Greek heritage ofintellec-tual thought; above all its commitment to rational dialogue anddecision making through logic and argument, that set the course forintellectual development in the West ever after (p. 13).

Ry contrast, Huff argues that the Islamic civili7.ation suffererlfrom an inability to reconcile rational inquiry with its theology. Itsemphasis on the shari 'a "sacred law," "established once and for all thepatterns of conduct and proper management of human affairs for allMuslims" (p. 67). Greek science and philosophy were tolerated onlyinsofar as they served to underscore the Qur' anic conception of humanaffairs and nature. Autonomous legal, philosophical, and theologicalthinking were frowned upon. As Huffputs it: "Innovation, in mattersof religion, was equivalent to heresy" (p. 117). Consequently, the legaland educational institutions that sprouted in the early West did notappear in the Islamic East. Moreover, the educational focus of themadrasas was on Islamic law and logic; the sciences remained in the

([)igestof'Mitftff'e t£ast Stutfies 73

SpriflB 1996 ~hands of private instructors. Thus, there was no corporate certifica-tion of knowledge, only the certification ofindividual instructors.

Though Huff admits tha t China was more advanced than the Westin mathematics, he also make'$ strides to separate "science" from"technology" (and indeed these enterprises were distinguished untilthe twentieth century) and to characterize Chinese mathematicaladvancement as a progress in technology. This enables him tomaintain his argument that the Chinese civilization did not advancescientifically.

The factors responsible for the decline in Chinese scientificadvancement, according to Huff, were somewhat different than thosein the Islamic world.

'Ear{i Scieflce

order their conduct (and state affairs) to facilitate the correctordering ofthe socialworld in harmony with nature (p. 271).

Thus, Huffconcludes:

The problem with Chinese science, was not fundamentallythatit was technologically flawed, but that Chinese authori-ties neither created nor tolerated independent institutions ofhigher learning within which disinterested scholars couldpursue their insights" (p. 318).

While the Chinese acknowledged a type ofpositive law enactedby men, their greater commitment is to ii, to the sacred ritesof the past, and this commitment is rooted in powerfulinterlocking assumptions (p' 263).

Therefore, unlike the West which tolerated independent rationalinquiry, the worldofearly Islamic and Chinese scientific inquiry wasinherently poised for decline.

Though in the main this work contributes to our understandingof how powerful social, intellectual, and theological dynamics candetermine the ethos and scientificadvancement ofa civilization,it alsowarrants some critical comment. Foremost, is the looming questionposed by Huffs thesis; that is, if we accept Huffs plentiful andpersuasive answer for why Islamic and Chinese science stagnatedafter the thirteenth century, we also must ask how the Islamic andChinese civilizationsascended to technologicaland scientificsuperior-ity prior to 1300.If the Islamic and Chinese civilizations were legally,intellectually, and theologicallydisposedto non-advancement, howdidthey advance in the first place?

Huffs evolutionary approach toward scientific advancement isequally problematic. His treatment of Western scientific "advance-ment, forexample, is based on the notion that the history ofscience issomehow a linear and static progression. Certainly, this is toosimplistic a paradigm, one that betrays the "powerful interlockingassumptions" (p. 263) of Huffs own time, and one that overlooksperiodic historical moments of scientific regression, such as theHumanists' rejection of scholastic curriculum in favor of the texts ofclassical antiquity. Moreover, the so-called "scientific revolution" ofthe 1600s appeared in its day,not as an evolutionary stage in analways progressive chain of events, but as a knee-jerk reaction to along period ofstiflement and decline.

Yet, Huffs approach to Islamic and Chinese scientific advance-ment takes an opposite stance and suggests that we see Islamic andChinese institutions and theologies as fixities. For example, Huffargues that the madrasas could not evolveinto corporations becausethey were legally bound to the intentions oftheir founders. However,

Moreover, while the Chinese administration exerted some effort toinhibit original and autonomous rational inquiry, Chinese scientificadvancement was hindered equally bythe lackofan Euclidian systemofproofs as well as accompanying advances in astronomy. Accordingto Huff, the Chinese civilization alsosuffered from an inaccessibilityto Greek science and philosophy and from an inteUectual dispositiontoward modes ofthinking that preferred exploring the relationshipsbetween paired opposites to the determining ofcauses.

Instead of moving toward mechanical and causal modes ofthinking that recognized impersonal natural forces,the Chi-nese thrust has ever been toward creating a harmoniousworldview that linked all forces and clements together in aman-centered cosmicharmony (p.299).

Additionally, and somewhat as a consequence, the Chinese govern-ment placed its emphasis on the maintenance of an orderly andeffectiveadministration.

At the same time, Chinese thoughtstressed the importance ofpreserving exemplary traditions that reflected the harmoni-ous realization of the tao through collective responsibility.

'While all people are caUed upon to live exemplary lives, theemperor and his officials have the primary duty to rightly

74 VO!Mf£S Vigest of !Mitfcf(ei£ast Studies 75

Spn"'B 1996 ~this is not the case historically, for the intentions of the Islamicinstitutional founders could be, and often were, superseded by theneeds of an institution's contemporaries (as a perusal through studieson early fatwas demonstrates).Similarly, Huffs discussion of Chinesethought at times appears tendentiously selective. For instance, thework pays no attention to the frequent and informative strugglesbetween factions, such as tha t between the Buddhists and Confucians.Sucha monolithic treatment of the Islamic and Chinese belief systemsobscures the often significant, multifaceted intellectual undercur-rents that bear fundamentally upon his thesis.

Consequently, though unintentional, one senses in Huffs fre-quent generalizations latent notions of cultural superiority. Similarly,and this goes back to Huffs treatment of scientific advancement aslinearally progressive, the question which this work attempts toanswer is premised on overt scientific optimism and on the assumptionthat cultural advancement can be guaged or measured by a civiliza-tion's scientific output. In this reviewer's opinion, this remains to bedemonstrated.

Nevertheless, one cannot help but be impressed with Huffsbreadth and command of the primary and secondary literature.Always well-argued and documented in detail, this book demonstratesthe usefulness of a holistic perpsective for explaining the dynamics ofcultural and scientific change. I recommend this work for advanceduniversity students interested inengagingthe difficult questions thatface the sociologist of science.

76 ([)O?,f1£S

J.i

~ Wome"

p rice of Honor:Muslim Women Lift the Veilof Silence on the Islamic World

J an Goodwin

New York: Plume, 1995.363 pages. $12.95(ISBN 0-452-27430-3).

Review byNancy E. Gallagher, Ph.D.University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara

I metJanGoodwininAmmanin 1992intheapartmentofToujanal-Faisa!, whom she had been interviewing. I was returning a

folder of Arabic-language newspaper clippings and other materials Ihad borrowed for my own article on Faisa!. The three of us proceededto have a very pleasant chat. The resulting articles, Goodwin'schaptcrII, "Jordan: When Islam is the Solution," in Price of lIonor and mychapter 12, "Women's Human Rights on Trial in Jordan: The Tri-umph ofToujan al-Faisal," in Faith and Freedom: Women's HlUnanRights in the Mllslim World, ed. Mahnaz Alkhami(Syracusc: Syra-cuse University Press, 1995), demonstrate the difference between theworlds of journalism and of academia.

Goodwin'saccount begins "Kill the apostate!" (p. 263). Mine begins"Twelve women were among the 650 candidates who stood for electionto parliament..." (p. 214). Goodwin's account is very lively but shorton background research; mine is full ofcontext but takes effort to readthrough. Her account was rushed to press and doesnot include the factthat in late 1993Faisal becamethe first woman elected toparliament.I was more than happy to withdraw the article from publication inorder to include the later election. Academicsdonot have to worry toomueh about deadlines.

([)iBest of ?,fitfdTe 'East Studies 77