Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / General Topics / February 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

What drives Cultural History?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Notta Libb - 20 Feb 2006 23:52 GMT
Hey Guys,

Does anyone know what the theory behind Cultural History is?

Basically, what do cultural historians think drives history?

For instance, biographical historians believe in individual agency and psychological historians believe in unconscious motivations.

I'm writing an essay comparing different methods/theories of history, such as: biographical, psychological, sociological, Marxism, and cultural history.

And I'm having trouble figuring out cultural history.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

NL
ray - 21 Feb 2006 02:20 GMT
> Hey Guys,
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> NL
Define `Cultural History'. I'm a local historian, and a lot of my work
is concerned with the culture the events of interest to me took place
in, which of course was different to what it is today.
Notta Libb - 21 Feb 2006 03:37 GMT
Hello Ray,

From my understanding, cultural history is a type of historiographical
approach.  Compared to other historical approaches: biographical,
psychological, sociological, Marxism, political, economic, military, and
ethnographic history.

Each approach is suppose to have a general theory behind it.  For example,
what biographical historians think drive history is the big man theory or
that events take place because of individual agency.

So what I'm trying to figure out is, what do so-called cultural historians
think drives history.

Regards,

NL

>> Hey Guys,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> concerned with the culture the events of interest to me took place in,
> which of course was different to what it is today.
ray - 21 Feb 2006 06:37 GMT
> Hello Ray,
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>>concerned with the culture the events of interest to me took place in,
>>which of course was different to what it is today.

Hello Notta,
        Sounds like we could have, and perhaps should have, a good discussion
about this off the news group. It looks like I'm at least partly a
cultural historian then. There are some personalities in the story I've
been assembling, but there are obvious social trends, settlement,
followed by small-scale farming, followed by urbanisation, etc, you get
the picture.
I don't have enough information for biographical or psychological, the
above is at least partly sociological, and I'm not a Marxist. I'll be
happy to discuss this further as I need all the help I can get as well.
Regards,
    Ray.
Robert Cohen - 22 Feb 2006 23:13 GMT
re: what the h is "cultural history" & why am I posting like I know

So, IMHO:

The philosopher Hegel--not that I cogently understand him--apparently
interprets history as events, and calls such "historical determinism."

Well--IMHO--I've thought of Hegel as somehow affirming my perception of
"cultural history," and have duly hereaby worded it for my friend and
enemies as being "culture determinism."

If anybody has seen the phrase "cultural determinism" used as
promiscuously by anybody else, then ... terrific: I have probably
plagarized it; but I do like it better than "historical" and "economic"
determinisms, because it's inclusionary as in kitchen sink.

The philosopher/ideologist Marx, (in)famously says he turns Hegel
upside down--that "economics determinism" is the cause-all to
affect-all.

Just between us, I really don't like the straitiated categorizations of
social studies particulary the phrase "social sciences."

I perceive so much of it as being pseudo-scientific-esoteric
gobbledygooky--fucke-u if you don't comprehend math so well--aka
"behaviorism."

I perceive reality as all the above in that I'm an eclecticist in that
artificial distinctions of academia, a la "economic history" &
...whatever do not really describe reality, and in fact  seem to
expediently distort "history."

Anyhow: That's what Larry Summers and me were discussing a couple of
days ago when Larry's phone-service terminated with extreme prejudice.
Robert Cohen - 24 Feb 2006 14:17 GMT
For a slightly less inaccurate rendition of Marxian "economic
materialism" & of Hegelian "historical materialism," please, of course,
always see & try like helle to understand an authority at our own
internet's vunderful WIKIPEDIA etal.

I am writing in my half-assed
perception/take/memory/interpretation/impression of the amorphous,
ambiguous phrase of perhaps what may be partially known as "cultural
history," and the squashy-buggy truth is I dunno, but it's what I
would've placed in a wide-line blue exam book if given enough time to
so hang myself.

B-T-W: Larry Summers called last night and confessed to me that he's
not all that sure that the tenured professors who hate his guts are
entirely wrong, because a president's personality is more than half to
all of the requisite functionary role.

So, Larry doesn't guess that the harmonious, non wave-maker Silberman
(sp?) from the nearby university is gonna be hired to quench the
Harvard faculty fires of revolt.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.