Historians and social scientists have long shown the contradictions and insufficiency of the modernization theory that dominated area studies scholarship during the Cold War period. But, even though there has been widespread discontent with modernization theory in academic writings, simplified versions of this theory are alive and strong in non-scholarly discourses on the history and future of the nation-state units of Asia and Africa. In fact, despite the theoretical weaknesses of modernization theory, domestic politics in many countries is still shaped by different developmentalist versions of modernization theory adjusted to the post-Cold War era. Moreover, anti-colonial versions of the modernization narrative have been inscribed in the official history education of all the post-colonial nations from Egypt and India to Vietnam and China. In these narratives, the agency of fulfilling the promise of modernist visions of economic, political and social development, coupled with national freedom, was actualized by subaltern actors such as Nehru, Mao or Nasser, thus a broader view of modernization remains the core of historical consciousness with adjustments to recent discourses on globalization. As a result, in the historiographies of China, India or other post-colonial societies, challenges to modernization theory's certainties do need to be accompanied by careful questioning of the narratives of decolonization as well.

Perhaps we will never be able to find a grand model of societal evolution that can claim to explain the developments in England, China, Egypt and Brazil at the same time, as both the liberal and socialist versions of modernization theory assumed could be done. However, we do need to offer a new synthesis of theories grounded in historical knowledge that can come to terms with the uncertainties of the modern processes in the last two centuries. How can we make sense of the conceptual confusion and moral disagreements about the historical processes in China from the era of empires to the current era of capitalist globalization? Scholars who aspire to this new synthesis have to be engaged public intellectuals so that they can observe the implications of their scholarly intervention in their respective public spheres, whose politics often require validation from history. Prasenjit Duara's book offers exactly that synthesis, in nine different essays, that, read together, lead to a more historical understanding of China's trajectory of capitalist globalization, nation building and ideals of modernity. More importantly, Duara's essays exemplify what it means to be simultaneously a scholar and a public intellectual, by animating each of them with a discussion of its contemporary relevance for the political and cultural life of the Chinese, East Asian and global public spheres.

Although eight of the nine chapters were previously written for other publications, a theoretical introduction lays out the thematic connections and shared historiographic puzzles that successfully give the book coherence. The contingency, historical specificity as well as global character of transition from a world of empires to modern nation states in Asia, the continuing contestations of the meaning of modernity (via both its hegemonic and alternative interpretations), the trajectory of capitalist globalization in relation to nation state formations and ideological structures, and the politics of history writing become visible in each chapter. Out of these chapters, there emerges a complex yet comprehensible model of “historical globalization,” which contextualizes the relationship between global capitalism, the nation state system and worldviews of hegemonic modernity according to their temporal and geographic actualizations. This model of historicized globalization illustrates the collusions and tensions, as well as changing alliances among the three problematics of the book. Nation states and ideologies of modernity can be seen as driven by global capitalism in some instances, but Duara's model shows the periods in which the former two can also be seen as reactions to the power of global capital. The book reminds us that any theory on this issue should historicize the relationship without giving up the broader framework that allows a higher level of theoretical abstraction, and is ultimately capable of replacing the obsolete notion of modernization theory. Duara's hypothesis about historical globalization is neither China-specific nor generic to each cultural context. In many instances, he demonstrates the significance of the pre-modern religious, cultural and social legacies of East Asia. If this model were to be carried to the predominantly Muslim cultural context in the post-Ottoman Middle East, some aspects of the story would surely be different. Yet, the current reviewer finds the abstractions of historical globalization through the triple themes of capitalism, nation state formation and ideologies of modernity very helpful in approaching the histories of other regions, as Duara's approach is respectful of the variations and divergences due to historical trajectory and cultural legacies.

Duara's take on the history of ideas avoids Eurocentrism while acknowledging that most of the hegemonic ideas did originate in the European context. Yet, Chinese historical actors were never imitators, always refashioning globally circulating ideas into their regional and local contexts. One of Duara's favorite examples, the declaration of the “Republic of Five Nationalities” in 1912, indicates a creative fashioning of imperial traditions and regional realities with enlightenment ideals and modernist visions of the future. Methodologically, Duara's outside-in approach to China helps us overcome the nation versus the world dichotomy: the nation was always in a world context, while world trends were never free from what was happening in China.

Finally, Prasenjit Duara's book demonstrates the achievements of confident area studies scholarship, grounded in archival studies and knowledge of languages from where it carries on a healthy conversation with other fields of historical scholarship and disciplines of the humanities. The book is rich in theory, shows new area studies' close engagement with various theoretical approaches and offers a revision of these theories by looking at the experiences of Asian societies in the last two centuries. One does hope that historians of Europe, Latin America and North America will find new inspiration and theoretical insights from this and many similar books in Asian studies. Thus, when they write about modernization, nationalism and globalization in the twentieth century, Chinese and East Asian experiences should be seen as equally valid to those of Europe and America. Any new theoretical and scholarly attempts to understand and explain global phenomena can and should no longer ignore the contributions of scholars of non-European regions. Thus, Prasenjit Duara's The Global and Regional in China's Nation-Formation should be essential reading for the graduate and upper level undergraduate courses not only in the field of Chinese studies, but also in courses on global history of capitalism, modernity and nationalism.