Recent developments in the field of global Asia and the global South are paying attention to alternative ways of knowing and historicizing how they circulate. Such work helps the field produce critical geographies in our writing of the history of knowledge that decenter persistent Eurocentric narratives of the origins of science and avoid comparative and even civilizational frameworks that continue to shape our understanding of the modern world. To write a global history of knowledge that is both broad and deep in scale, scholars need to examine far-flung global networks that facilitate the movement of ideas and materials, along with conducting a deep and careful understanding of local contexts and regional specificity. By considering how circulating “global” knowledge and mobile objects “anchor” and manifest locally, the field reduces the risk of flattening the “global” and sacrificing specificity, depth, knowledge of locale(s) and regional expertise.

Historian Ömer Lütfi Barkan (1902-1979) is largely responsible for putting the economy at the center of Ottoman history in the 1950s and 1960s. Even today, the effects are notable: the majority of Ottoman historians working in Turkey lean towards economic and social history. What made Barkan successful was American money, mostly from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, that went into the study of economic development. Barkan had successfully made the case that history holds the key to understanding variations in development. Also in the 1950s and 60s, countless other Turkish students of economic development received funding from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations to pursue training, degrees and research opportunities in the United States.

Despite the tumultous career of the discipline of development economics as well as economic history in the following decades, for Turks the dynamics hardly changed. Immanuel Wallerstein, whose world systems perspective puts economic factors at the center of historical dynamics, trained an inordinate number of Turkish students at SUNY Binghamton. A staggering proportion of Turkish economists continue to hone in on questions of development. Daron Acemoglu, the co-recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, is a prime example. Even today, Turks’ historical self-understanding is mediated through economics despite the culturalist perspective broadcasted by the Turkish government and the global media in the twenty first century. In this paper, I will share my preliminary account of Turkey’s lasting engagement with development economics and economic history to provide a materialist history of knowledge and self-knowledge.

In recent years, the conceptual history of classifications has transitioned from a niche interest to a prevalent topic in the historiography of science. However, many of these studies are deeply rooted in hegemonic European and American perspectives, often presenting classification systems as linear, progress-driven constructs. This article challenges such a framework. Rather than framing the table as a mere step in the progression of Western scientific thought, this study situates it within broader cultural and epistemological contexts. Ortega’s work exemplifies an alternative narrative that shows localized intellectual traditions, such as positivism during the second half of 19th century Mexico, blending scientific aspirations with cultural values to represent the natural order comprehensively. However, we will focus on the portion dedicated to the hierarchy of humans through races. By stepping away from the teleological narratives common in Western historiography, this analysis underscores the plurality of perspectives that have shaped classificatory practices, particularly those related to human races. Ortega’s Synoptic Table is a case study to illuminate how natural history could be both a scientific endeavor and a cultural artifact, deeply embedded in specific temporal and societal frameworks. Through this view of De-centering the history of knowledge, the paper advocates for a historiographical shift that recognizes the diverse and dynamic ways scholars have sought to organize and comprehend the natural world and human races. This approach not only broadens our understanding of historical classifications but also challenges the dominance of Eurocentric narratives in the history of science.

María Alicia Villela González