What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Old World
A magisterial analysis of Europe's development since the end of the Cold War.
The New Old World looks at the history of the European Union, the core continental countries within it, and the issue of its further expansion into Asia. It opens with a consideration of the origins and outcomes of European integration since the Second World War, and how today's EU has been theorized across a range of contemporary disciplines. It then moves to more detailed accounts of political and cultural developments in the three principal states of the original Common Market—France, Germany and Italy. A third section explores the interrelated histories of Cyprus and Turkey that pose a leading geopolitical challenge to the Community. The book ends by tracing ideas of European unity from the Enlightenment to the present, and their bearing on the future of the Union. The New Old World offers a critical portrait of a continent now increasingly hailed as a moral and political example to the world at large.
The New Old World looks at the history of the European Union, the core continental countries within it, and the issue of its further expansion into Asia. It opens with a consideration of the origins and outcomes of European integration since the Second World War, and how today's EU has been theorized across a range of contemporary disciplines. It then moves to more detailed accounts of political and cultural developments in the three principal states of the original Common Market—France, Germany and Italy. A third section explores the interrelated histories of Cyprus and Turkey that pose a leading geopolitical challenge to the Community. The book ends by tracing ideas of European unity from the Enlightenment to the present, and their bearing on the future of the Union. The New Old World offers a critical portrait of a continent now increasingly hailed as a moral and political example to the world at large.
561 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
20 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
Perry Anderson
112 books262 followersPerry Anderson is an English Marxist intellectual and historian. He is Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA and an editor of the New Left Review. He is the brother of historian Benedict Anderson.
He was an influence on the New Left. He bore the brunt of the disapproval of E.P. Thompson in the latter's The Poverty of Theory, in a controversy during the late 1970s over the scientific Marxism of Louis Althusser, and the use of history and theory in the politics of the Left. In the mid-1960s, Thompson wrote an essay for the annual Socialist Register that rejected Anderson's view of aristocratic dominance of Britain's historical trajectory, as well as Anderson's seeming preference for continental European theorists over radical British traditions and empiricism. Anderson delivered two responses to Thompson's polemics, first in an essay in New Left Review (January-February 1966) called "Socialism and Pseudo-Empiricism" and then in a more conciliatory yet ambitious overview, Arguments within English Marxism (1980).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_An...
He was an influence on the New Left. He bore the brunt of the disapproval of E.P. Thompson in the latter's The Poverty of Theory, in a controversy during the late 1970s over the scientific Marxism of Louis Althusser, and the use of history and theory in the politics of the Left. In the mid-1960s, Thompson wrote an essay for the annual Socialist Register that rejected Anderson's view of aristocratic dominance of Britain's historical trajectory, as well as Anderson's seeming preference for continental European theorists over radical British traditions and empiricism. Anderson delivered two responses to Thompson's polemics, first in an essay in New Left Review (January-February 1966) called "Socialism and Pseudo-Empiricism" and then in a more conciliatory yet ambitious overview, Arguments within English Marxism (1980).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_An...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
August 3, 2022
"Perry Anderson" is a social experiment consisting of anonymous writers who publish books and articles in tandem. Close scrutiny of the project's products has resulted in the distinction of three authorial identities.
There's the Perry Anderson of Considerations on Western Marxism and The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci, who enters in dialogue with the living marxist intellectual tradition, prunes away academic nonsense and poses the right questions for the science to remain relevant today.
There's the Perry Anderson of Lineages of the Absolutist State and The Indian Ideology, a masterful historian of social development. While not dwelling in the archives himself, this author compiles reams of research by others to arrive at a historical-materialist mosaic centering on the battle for state power and the challenges with which it comes.
And then there's the Perry Anderson of The New Old World. There's speculation on this work being a group effort, but the brunt of it -- certainly the part on German and French publishers and the outro on the history of Europeanist thought -- was written by P.A. III. He is less focused than his colleagues, arriving on a given historical scene with a knapsack of opinionmakers and meandering through its landscapes on the basis of their contributions. By the end, the reader has got a general feel for the lay of the land and imbibed a lot of commentaries in conjunction with it, but the exact relationship between these two remains vague at times. Zooming in too much on small details can obscure the development of larger structures, and oftentimes the reader is left feeling like a museum visitor initially followed the guide but ended up eavesdropping on shoptalk between the museum curators -- high-level precision being lost on an intellectual novice.
That's not to say The NewOld New Old World is bad. If you've got the time, you can learn a lot -- albeit seldom what you thought you would, European integration being less of a focus than the trajectories of select European countries. The book peaks during the parts on Italy, Cyprus and Turkey, in which the choreography of protagonists, challengers, obstacles and dreams is much more clear-cut than the drearier ruminations on intellectual history. I'm tempted to get Ever Closer Union as soon as possible, as this book ends in 2011 and most essays were written before the financial crisis and the mammoth ascent of China, catapulting all old forces into a new, dangerous ecology of demagoguery, learned helplessness and -- happily -- the stutter-step renewal of the organized left.
There's the Perry Anderson of Considerations on Western Marxism and The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci, who enters in dialogue with the living marxist intellectual tradition, prunes away academic nonsense and poses the right questions for the science to remain relevant today.
There's the Perry Anderson of Lineages of the Absolutist State and The Indian Ideology, a masterful historian of social development. While not dwelling in the archives himself, this author compiles reams of research by others to arrive at a historical-materialist mosaic centering on the battle for state power and the challenges with which it comes.
And then there's the Perry Anderson of The New Old World. There's speculation on this work being a group effort, but the brunt of it -- certainly the part on German and French publishers and the outro on the history of Europeanist thought -- was written by P.A. III. He is less focused than his colleagues, arriving on a given historical scene with a knapsack of opinionmakers and meandering through its landscapes on the basis of their contributions. By the end, the reader has got a general feel for the lay of the land and imbibed a lot of commentaries in conjunction with it, but the exact relationship between these two remains vague at times. Zooming in too much on small details can obscure the development of larger structures, and oftentimes the reader is left feeling like a museum visitor initially followed the guide but ended up eavesdropping on shoptalk between the museum curators -- high-level precision being lost on an intellectual novice.
That's not to say The New
November 10, 2023
Perry Anderson’s The New Old World is a series of essays written between 1996 and 2009. They cover several areas of discussion about Europe and its Union. There is a chapter on the origins of the European Community. There is another on the idea of Europe, itself, split into Antecedents and Prognoses. The first part of this concluding chapter really ought to be read by anyone who might never have thought about whether Europe can be identified as a continent. It is an idea that nowadays we rarely address, but historically it was a source of some debate. Europe is different, however, in that it really does have no obvious delineating geographical features that define it.
On the basis upon which the Union exists, he summarises thus: “The EU deals essentially with the technical and administrative issues – market competition, product specification, consumer protection and the like – posed by the aim of the Treaty of Rome to assure the free movement of goods, persons and capital within its borders. These are matters in which voters have little interest, rightly taking the view that they are best handled by appropriate experts, rather than incompetent parliamentarians. Just as the police, fire brigade or officer corps are not elected, but enjoy the widest public trust, so it is … with the functionaries in Brussels. The democratic deficit is a myth, because matters which voters do care strongly about – predominantly taxes and social services, the real stuff of politics – continue to be decided not at Union but at national level, by traditional electoral mechanisms.” Does this still apply a couple of decades later?
In between the introduction and conclusion, there are detailed descriptions of the history, politics and, to some extent, economics of France, Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Turkey. It must be remembered in relation to this last subject that Turkey’s application to join the EU was already long-standing in 2009. It is even longer standing now.
To say that these analyses of the political life of the indicated countries are detailed would be a massive understatement. The scholarship displayed by the author is simply breathtaking. Each would stand alone as a potted political history. They offer less, however, on economic or social issues that would help to flesh out the political changes. They are expansive enough, however, without further broadening their brief. The chapter on Turkey is fascinating, given what was described in the Cyprus chapter and what has transpired since then. If anyone might still be unsure why Turkey’s non-accession to the EU might be baffling, then after reading these chapters the reason will be crystal clear.
This issue of Turkish accession to the EU was raised in the 2016 debate in the UK around Brexit. Perry Anderson’s text had already been in existence for seven years and I cannot remember anyone in that debate mentioning his convincing summary, which would have negated much of the scare mongering. But then Marxist historians are not regularly quoted in popular debate, even when they are right!
In fact, the UK and its continuing ambivalence toward the European idea is not analysed in any depth by Perry Anderson. This is a disappointment, given what happened subsequently, but one supposes that in 2009 there was not much more to be said on the subject. An in-depth political analysis like the chapters mentioned above, however, would now be a fascinating read.
As a left-wing historian, however, Perry Anderson’s views are always interesting. He is not one to dismiss the Union as a capitalist club, though he does acknowledge the central role that the market has played in forming the bloc and dictating the style of its expansion. He does, interestingly, list some of the criticisms of these transnational structures from the political right. Some of these would counter any conservative’s branding of the left as “loony” because they include some discussion of Hayek’s ideas about currency in which he advocated that individual banks and private companies could issue currencies, which would succeed or fail according to the rules of the market. Off the wall…
And speaking of walls, or ex-walls, how about this for a turn of phrase about modern Berlin. “To the south, the commercial centre run by Daimler-Benz and Sony on the site of the old Potsdamer Platz … will no doubt end up as a blowzy shopping mall – sealed off from its surroundings as if planted in a suburb – like every other tomb of conviviality.”
An aside about Palestine might be relevant today. He asserts that the EU and the US both ignored forty years of violence on one side, but cut off aid when Palestinians elected the wrong government.
On the fundamental difference between the foreign policies of the two then superpowers, he said that while the US swaggers in international relations, the EU tries to influence, not overtly control. This was before the Obama years, of course.
The New Old World is now an historical position. It is long. It is detailed. It remains a rewarding read.
On the basis upon which the Union exists, he summarises thus: “The EU deals essentially with the technical and administrative issues – market competition, product specification, consumer protection and the like – posed by the aim of the Treaty of Rome to assure the free movement of goods, persons and capital within its borders. These are matters in which voters have little interest, rightly taking the view that they are best handled by appropriate experts, rather than incompetent parliamentarians. Just as the police, fire brigade or officer corps are not elected, but enjoy the widest public trust, so it is … with the functionaries in Brussels. The democratic deficit is a myth, because matters which voters do care strongly about – predominantly taxes and social services, the real stuff of politics – continue to be decided not at Union but at national level, by traditional electoral mechanisms.” Does this still apply a couple of decades later?
In between the introduction and conclusion, there are detailed descriptions of the history, politics and, to some extent, economics of France, Germany, Italy, Cyprus and Turkey. It must be remembered in relation to this last subject that Turkey’s application to join the EU was already long-standing in 2009. It is even longer standing now.
To say that these analyses of the political life of the indicated countries are detailed would be a massive understatement. The scholarship displayed by the author is simply breathtaking. Each would stand alone as a potted political history. They offer less, however, on economic or social issues that would help to flesh out the political changes. They are expansive enough, however, without further broadening their brief. The chapter on Turkey is fascinating, given what was described in the Cyprus chapter and what has transpired since then. If anyone might still be unsure why Turkey’s non-accession to the EU might be baffling, then after reading these chapters the reason will be crystal clear.
This issue of Turkish accession to the EU was raised in the 2016 debate in the UK around Brexit. Perry Anderson’s text had already been in existence for seven years and I cannot remember anyone in that debate mentioning his convincing summary, which would have negated much of the scare mongering. But then Marxist historians are not regularly quoted in popular debate, even when they are right!
In fact, the UK and its continuing ambivalence toward the European idea is not analysed in any depth by Perry Anderson. This is a disappointment, given what happened subsequently, but one supposes that in 2009 there was not much more to be said on the subject. An in-depth political analysis like the chapters mentioned above, however, would now be a fascinating read.
As a left-wing historian, however, Perry Anderson’s views are always interesting. He is not one to dismiss the Union as a capitalist club, though he does acknowledge the central role that the market has played in forming the bloc and dictating the style of its expansion. He does, interestingly, list some of the criticisms of these transnational structures from the political right. Some of these would counter any conservative’s branding of the left as “loony” because they include some discussion of Hayek’s ideas about currency in which he advocated that individual banks and private companies could issue currencies, which would succeed or fail according to the rules of the market. Off the wall…
And speaking of walls, or ex-walls, how about this for a turn of phrase about modern Berlin. “To the south, the commercial centre run by Daimler-Benz and Sony on the site of the old Potsdamer Platz … will no doubt end up as a blowzy shopping mall – sealed off from its surroundings as if planted in a suburb – like every other tomb of conviviality.”
An aside about Palestine might be relevant today. He asserts that the EU and the US both ignored forty years of violence on one side, but cut off aid when Palestinians elected the wrong government.
On the fundamental difference between the foreign policies of the two then superpowers, he said that while the US swaggers in international relations, the EU tries to influence, not overtly control. This was before the Obama years, of course.
The New Old World is now an historical position. It is long. It is detailed. It remains a rewarding read.
September 15, 2016
The irrepressible Peregrine turns his sights on Europe. Let the bourgeoisie cower, for none is safe from his rapier wit.
*
Anderson on French Theory: an intellectual fever in the mid sixties that spilled over into society in general by '68. There's a certain intuitive plausibility to that. Just as the arguments (assuming they had arguments) of Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, Deleuze & co, are notoriously difficult to summarize, it's also very hard to pin down the exact cause that led to the revolts in Paris. A pure libidinal upsurge quoting Marx and Nietzsche?
*
Anderson on French Theory: an intellectual fever in the mid sixties that spilled over into society in general by '68. There's a certain intuitive plausibility to that. Just as the arguments (assuming they had arguments) of Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, Deleuze & co, are notoriously difficult to summarize, it's also very hard to pin down the exact cause that led to the revolts in Paris. A pure libidinal upsurge quoting Marx and Nietzsche?
December 4, 2021
this book is divided into four parts. the first covers the origins of the European Union, those who first envisioned it, what models they looked to from the history of the continent, what their conception of the bloc were, how the various anti-democratic blocs were actually encoded and function and how these shape the EU's national components. this section, which often functions as a literature review of the output of Atlanticist grotesques who monopolise the discipline known as political science, functions well as a compendium of the EU's many crimes.
the second part, 'the core', provides a history of French, German and Italian history since World War II. The French section is far and away the strongest here, the passing away of one structure of feeling or political paradigm and the construction of another; Gaullism, Theory, 68, neoliberalism. Anderson is in his element here, particularly enjoyed his despair at the French's pivot towards a particularly atavistic provincialism, as well as his identification of Robbe-Grillet as the one flop amidst one of the last great efflorescences of European culture. The German and Italian sections far less so; the cultural facility and capacity to map mass sentiment falls away, bringing them down to the level of Wikipedia-like summaries of developments within the electoral or parliamentary realm.
things pick up again in the third section on Cyprus and Turkey, which are both really strong, as is the concluding sum-up. Anderson once criticised Arrighi for lacking a theory of labour or working-class power outside of his intricate top-down model, which reading this, might read as a kind of self-criticism
the second part, 'the core', provides a history of French, German and Italian history since World War II. The French section is far and away the strongest here, the passing away of one structure of feeling or political paradigm and the construction of another; Gaullism, Theory, 68, neoliberalism. Anderson is in his element here, particularly enjoyed his despair at the French's pivot towards a particularly atavistic provincialism, as well as his identification of Robbe-Grillet as the one flop amidst one of the last great efflorescences of European culture. The German and Italian sections far less so; the cultural facility and capacity to map mass sentiment falls away, bringing them down to the level of Wikipedia-like summaries of developments within the electoral or parliamentary realm.
things pick up again in the third section on Cyprus and Turkey, which are both really strong, as is the concluding sum-up. Anderson once criticised Arrighi for lacking a theory of labour or working-class power outside of his intricate top-down model, which reading this, might read as a kind of self-criticism
February 8, 2013
This book is composed of articles Anderson had written over a decade or so, mostly for the LRB. This gives the book an uneven structure, as the pieces were written at different times for slightly different purposes. What's more - as surveys of specific nation-states - they'll date. Having said this, they are brilliant examples of synthesis: Anderson is terrifically erudite, and these show his command of other sources (for there is no primary research involved here). Anderson gives sweeping outlines of the various countries: Germany, France, Italy, Cyprus, Turkey. If you want examples of how to do a concrete examination of various nations' political cultures, these are wonderful. Still, one never quite gets a sense of Europe as Europe - as a semi-unified entity, with its own larger dynamics. Indeed, the opening and closing essays only highlight this lacuna, for they examine the history of Europe as a concept and creation and its potential future. What's more, most of the essays were written before the GFC, which means that already they feel a little dated. In a decade, one suspects the book will feel all the more so.
December 20, 2016
A beastly tome in the Pez mode. I will note my dissent from his all too casual dismissal of science fiction, an error I could have forgiven if he hadn't professed his love here for the (truly God-awful) films of Jean-Luc Godard.
October 8, 2020
The New Old World by Perry Anderson is an excellent work of European political history. It narrowly avoids the classification of history and political science by explicating, reflecting, and commenting on the various individual political and theoretical writings addressing its various pursuits while pointedly avoiding laying out its own theoretical framework.
Anderson offers a collection of essays that explore the political histories of the European Union’s core countries, its theoretical justifications, and in particular, its expansionary philosophy. More than this it exposes the individual political cultures and pertinent histories of these countries to divine their relationship to the European Union conceptually and practically. This offers a fantastic insight into contemporary academic streams of thought in these countries, as well as their detailed political developments. In the core countries this focuses on the last 30 years or so, while in the cases of Cyprus and Turkey it goes back to their foundational years.
Anderson’s language and writing style are academic but eminently engaging. His original expression is both enjoyable and rewarding. (I have a list of words I’ve seldom or never encountered before!)
The single challenge I can offer this work is its partial time-sensitivity. Anderson’s detailed engagement with contemporary political writings, not to mention political developments, will make this work slightly less valuable as time, and the EU, move forward (Eastward?).
Anderson offers a collection of essays that explore the political histories of the European Union’s core countries, its theoretical justifications, and in particular, its expansionary philosophy. More than this it exposes the individual political cultures and pertinent histories of these countries to divine their relationship to the European Union conceptually and practically. This offers a fantastic insight into contemporary academic streams of thought in these countries, as well as their detailed political developments. In the core countries this focuses on the last 30 years or so, while in the cases of Cyprus and Turkey it goes back to their foundational years.
Anderson’s language and writing style are academic but eminently engaging. His original expression is both enjoyable and rewarding. (I have a list of words I’ve seldom or never encountered before!)
The single challenge I can offer this work is its partial time-sensitivity. Anderson’s detailed engagement with contemporary political writings, not to mention political developments, will make this work slightly less valuable as time, and the EU, move forward (Eastward?).
January 23, 2024
You know what you're getting with Perry—you'll be reaching for the dictionary as he takes you through world affairs in his omniscient style, as if he were sitting atop mount Olympus; but who—even ideological opponents— would deny him his brilliance? Mostly a collection of LRB pieces written through the years (pre-08), the essays are consistently erudite and penetrating, sometimes prescient and always interesting.
February 18, 2017
"Reaction [can] solve . . . tasks the revolution [has] failed to acquit."
September 20, 2019
Does a decent enough job knocking down those pompous Eurocratic fart sniffers a peg or two but sadly doesn't go all in as much as possible on bashing the moronic skull of Habermas fully into the ground. There's some interesting commentary (not overtheorized Marxoid babble) on the modern cultural faults in France/Germany/Turkey before the full outbreak of the Eurozone mess of the 2010's exposed the Eurotards collective bad faith.
Read
March 3, 2021Anderson es moderadamente escéptico sin ser antieuropeísta. Se interesa por la historia política del continente pero desconfía de la opacidad de las decisiones. Pero sus ensayos sobre Chipre y Turquía (sorprendentes, dado que el resto de capítulos individuales se dedican solo a Italia, Alemania y Francia, los poderes económicos más importantes y naturalmente, los actores políticos más influyentes) son muy reveladores y me han enseñado mucha Historia reciente.
July 8, 2018
Grandes reflexiones sobre la historia reciente de Europa y la construcción de la Unión Europea centradas en Francia, Alemania e Italia. El autor se fija en la decandencia y auge de sus proyectos políticos tanto como en su conexión con las ideas intelectuales. Muy recomendable.
June 27, 2021
Anderson’s erudition is quite simply, astonishing. Fabulous book
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews