Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Blog Post #1 (for Thursday, 1/23)
In his article “Bringing the City Back In”, James Connolly expresses dissatisfaction with “new urban history”, an approach to studying urban environments that emphasizes social science. Connolly explains that the “new urban history” method is too general, and seeks an “all encompassing synthesis [that is both] an unlikely and undesirable prospect” (264). He advocates bringing “the city back in” by addressing specific cultural, political, social and economic identities of different physical areas (264).
Charles Calhoun would likely agree with this approach. “Moving Beyond Stereotypes of the Gilded Age” debunks a traditionally bland conception of the period by emphasizing its significance: “the United States experienced a profound transformation during these years, with lasting implications for the century that followed” (3). Furthermore, it scolds educators for neglecting the period in favor of the “seemingly more momentous” (3). Calhoun suggests that keywords like “industrialization” and “urbanization” are not a sufficient characterization of the Gilded Age.
One of the central questions of histories of the Gilded Age is this issue of method. Is the generalized overview more illuminating than the examination of a specific instance, or vice versa? The former identifies trends and transformations on the national scale, while the latter captures the “place”—the cultural, political, social and economic identity—of a single “space”. In her post for this week, Emily Taylor writes that we study history “to better understand the present vis-à-vis the past”. But for the average student of history, there is little wisdom to be gained from the study of broad, general trends. Emily’s philosophy promotes the kind of historiography that James Connolly advocates.
Referring back to last week’s reading, Kenneth Hewitt’s writing in Regions of Risk exemplifies a poorly balanced historiography that depends on generalities. For example, Hewitt explains that progress is a double-edged sword—often responsible for causing disasters and often relied on for preventing them. He also explains that there are two types of risk: routine risk, which are widespread and recognized, and extreme events, which constitute a disaster. He mentions the Titanic and the earthquake in Kobe only for their dramatic effect.