120 likes | 210 Views
The Case for Big History An Essay by David Christian. Argument and Counter-Argument Analysis Outline. The question that Christian addresses in his essay:. What is the scale on which history should be studied (taught)? OR, how should history be studied (taught )?
E N D
The Case for Big HistoryAn Essay by David Christian Argument and Counter-Argument Analysis Outline
The question that Christian addresses in his essay: • What is the scale on which history should be studied (taught)? OR, how should history be studied (taught)? • To answer this question– you need to know what “scale” refers to…
Scale… • Scale = whatever time period seems appropriate to the topic being studied (example: 100 years, a decade, 500 years, 1000 years, etc.) • According to the author… “the appropriate time scale for the study of history MAY be the whole of time … on many different time scales up to that of the universe itself– 10 to 20 billion years ago.”
“Big History” • A way of studying history on a time scale appropriate for studying a broad and multiple-layered history of the past (to answer complex questions about changes that have occurred over a very long time).
David Christian’s Arguments • “Big History” allows big, meaningful questions to be asked which encourages the search for larger meanings about the past. • Examples: • What is the global context of specific societies? • What is the history of humanity? • What is the relationship between humans and ALL living things? • How did life begin?
David Christian’s Arguments, con’t • “Big History” allows us to answer big questions that merge several disciplines—combining science and the humanities (literature, history, philosophy, etc.).
Counter-Arguments by Historians Opposed to “Big History” (according to Christian) • Studying “big history” is just not an acceptable way of studying history (it violates historians’ conventional methods of studying history) • On a large time scale, history becomes too general to be useful. • On a large time scale, there is too much detail for the historian to handle. • Most historians do not have the expertise to “handle” history on such a large scale.
Christian’s Rebuttal Arguments • “Detail” shouldn’t be an issue… something that is important on one scale may be “detail” on another or may vanish completely on an even larger time scale. • When using larger scales, detail is lost BUT larger ideas become noticeable (ideas that would never be noticed on a smaller time scale).
More Rebuttal Arguments • If a question involves more than one discipline (biology, anthropology, astronomy, etc.), historians/teachers can “team teach” the material or get help from experts in these disciplines.
David Christian’s Rationale for “Big History” • MAIN: Historians really cannot understand the past fully unless they go back to the beginning of time. • SUB: Studying “big history” allows historians to overcome the problem of “not being able to see the forest for the trees”– OR collecting too many details from a small amount of time prevents historians from seeing the “big picture.”
Christian’s Example:What is the time scale on which we should study the issue of economic growth in human history? • According to E.L. Jones– the appropriate scale is 5,000 years (this is how long “civilizations” have been around– beginning with the ancient Mesopotamians) • What do you think? • What does Christian think?
What is wrong with considering only the past 5,000 years? • According to Christian, how is “human population” involved in the question of economic development over the course of history?