ABSTRACT
Cross-cultural exchanges have historically taken many different forms, yet International Relations (IR) scholars have tended to focus narrowly upon a specific subset of cases associated with the history and theory of European imperialism and colonialism (e.g. Doyle 1986; Barkawi and Laffey 2002). The priority attached to European imperialism has meant that the history of cross-cultural exchange has been most commonly approached in terms of the forcible imposition of European preferences and agendas, with European actors taking advantage of their dominant ideological and material resources in order to manipulate and coerce their weaker counterparts in other parts of the globe (notwithstanding various manifestations of defensive negotiation and contestation). While some historical examples undoubtedly fit within this familiar template — especially from the mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries — there are also no shortage of historical examples where this default presumption of European dominance has proven misguided and misleading (Hobson 2004: 134–57; Darwin 2008: 93–97, 186–201). As other chapters in this volume can further attest, patterns of cross-cultural exchange between Europeans and peoples in other parts of the globe have been regularly defined by forms of negotiation, limitation and adaptation, rather than unilateral European imposition. In many settings Europeans found it difficult to consistently impose their preferences upon their counterparts elsewhere, and were obliged to develop alternative means of transferring items and ideas across cultural and political divides. These cross-cultural exchanges were not always equally beneficial to all of the parties involved, but they would not have taken place at all if those involved had not expected to benefit in the first place.
