The merger of ideas found in the article on Southernization by Shaffer and Clancy-Smith's article of localizing histories are indeed the most convincing, and offer a semi-satisfactory method of researching and teaching world history.

Approach to Studying World History

In the course of reading the different approaches to world history, two particular arguments and models stand out.  The merger of ideas found in the article on Southernization by Shaffer and Clancy-Smith’s article of localizing histories are indeed the most convincing, and offer a semi-satisfactory method of researching and teaching world history.

Shaffer’s argument that the development of diverse variables in a given area would lead the researcher to find influences and dynamic interaction with other areas, provides two models in studying world history: (1) an organic and gradual social and economic developmental process, and (2) with what Voll calls “overlapping networks” that provide a connection between different peoples and civilizations.  This model could be applied to practically any civilization in the world, as it sets its starting point in a given locality irrespective of a timeline.  Thus you could start your exploration of world history in 2500 B.C.E or 1600 C.E.  However I was uncomfortable with the notion of attributing a sort of “spreading” of Southernization (much like theories of Westernization).  Oddly, I picture jam being spread over a world map.  His concept seems sound in that it ties together various dynamics and effects across the globe in many cases, but by calling it Southernization it implies that a personalized and unique developed could not emerge from the interaction, but rather could only branch from the original tree.  From Dunn’s explanation of Voll’s commentary on Shaffer’s “Southernization” I would assume that the problematic nature of the term being paralleled with Westernization is argued further.