Blog Post #1 (for Thursday, 1\/23)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In his article \u201cBringing the City Back In\u201d, James Connolly expresses dissatisfaction with \u201cnew urban history\u201d, an approach to studying urban environments that emphasizes social science. Connolly explains that the \u201cnew urban history\u201d method is too general, and seeks an \u201call encompassing synthesis [that is both] an unlikely and undesirable prospect\u201d (264). He advocates bringing \u201cthe city back in\u201d by addressing specific cultural, political, social and economic identities of different physical areas (264).<\/p>\n Charles Calhoun would likely agree with this approach. \u201cMoving Beyond Stereotypes of the Gilded Age\u201d debunks a traditionally bland conception of the period by emphasizing its significance: \u201cthe United States experienced a profound transformation during these years, with lasting implications for the century that followed\u201d (3). Furthermore, it scolds educators for neglecting the period in favor of the \u201cseemingly more momentous\u201d (3). Calhoun suggests that keywords like \u201cindustrialization\u201d and \u201curbanization\u201d are not a sufficient characterization of the Gilded Age.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cplace\u201d\u2014the cultural, political, social and economic identity\u2014of a single \u201cspace\u201d. In her post for this week, Emily Taylor <\/a>writes that we study history \u201cto better understand the present vis-\u00e0-vis the past\u201d. But for the average student of history, there is little wisdom to be gained from the study of broad, general trends. Emily\u2019s philosophy promotes the kind of historiography that James Connolly advocates.<\/p>\n Referring back to last week\u2019s reading, Kenneth Hewitt\u2019s writing in Regions of Risk<\/span> exemplifies a poorly balanced historiography that depends on generalities. For example, Hewitt explains that progress is a double-edged sword\u2014often 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<\/i> and the earthquake in Kobe only for their dramatic effect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Blog Post #1 (for Thursday, 1\/23)\u00a0 In his article \u201cBringing the City Back In\u201d, James Connolly expresses dissatisfaction with \u201cnew urban history\u201d, an approach to studying urban environments that emphasizes social science. Connolly explains that the \u201cnew urban history\u201d method is too general, and seeks an \u201call encompassing synthesis [that is both] an unlikely and … <\/p>\n