o Paradigma is een overkoepelend denksysteem waarbinnen wetenschap
bedreven wordt, het is een intern logisch systeem-> voor Copernicus was de
kennis van het universum logisch correct
o De verandering komt door de acceptatie/overtuiging van een nieuwe
denkwijze, een intellectueel klimaat dat het kan accepteren-> nieuwe
inzichten en een klimaat dat het kan accepteren zijn beide nodig voor een
paradigm shift
- Van ‘ontdekken’ naar ‘construeren’
De geschiedenis der dingen
- Van amateurbezigheid tot serieuze wetenschappelijke studie
o Eerst gezien als onserieus, maar werd steeds belangrijker door materiële
cultuur-> dingen zeggen wat over de tijd waarin ze gemaakt zijn
- Materiële cultuur
- ‘Self fashioning’
- Relatie mens-object
o Mensen maken objecten en zijn een afspiegeling van de cultuur
o Objecten kunnen mensen echter ook beïnvloeden-> boekdrukkunst, mobiel
Klimaatgeschiedenis
- De geschiedenis van het klimaat
- Natuur en ‘agency’-> niet alleen maar invloed mens op natuur, maar ook andersom
- Relatie mens-natuur, en natuur-mens
Geschiedenis van wat en de IB?
- IB als ideeëngeschiedenis-> ideeën vormen IB
- IB en dingen-> moderne communicatiemiddelen, militaire ontwikkelingen,
- IB en klimaat-> geografie, klimaat beïnvloedt IB ook
Chapter 4, how?
Before and in 19th century-> history was written by politicians, elite men, civil servants
|
Often associated with politics
|
Historians often part of governing bodies
|
Government sponsorship
,Lots of oral history in parts of the world-> Peru knots tellers, Africa singers
In western society in 19th century-> ‘age of revolutions’ brought focus on national and people
history, and more bureaucracy needed more civil servants that needed to be loyal and were
therefore trained through historical knowledge
|
More national universities e.g. university in Berlin 1810
Universities existed before but UoB focused on:
- Scientific inquiry-> for the sake of science
- Nationalism
From then-> history written as it actually occurred, more objective through research
From mid-19th century-> importance of sources for scientific history
\
Launched big collections of national history
|
Showed the scientific qualities of history
History became viewed as science:
- Journals in 1859
- Degrees phd’s in 1873
- Associations
o Britain’s royal historical society in 1868
o American history association 1885
Scientific history became university based
|
State sponsored universities and had influence in what was taught and who was hired
|
Scientific ‘objective’ truth with political influence
In 20th century-> more popular, public history arose
Popular, public history
Popular history-> is elegantly written and accessible to people without pre-existing
knowledge
|
Not necessary-> often have narrative form or are biographies
Popular history often
- Focusses on traditional subjects (people, politics, war)
- Based on curiosity
, Hochschild’s book in 1998 on Belgian king Leopold-> not complex set of arguments, but
impressive narrative of a morally urgent story
Not only books-> historical documentary
Ken Burns documentary e.g. civil war
Docu’s have ‘reality effect’-> direct info, no author visible, so seems reliable
|
Lots of criticism from academic historians
|
Emotional idealism possible, not fully objective
Also ‘heritage’ sites have critics
|
- Touristic-> do not provide insight or debate
- Reverence
- Nostalgia
|
Slave auction reenactment?
Museums
|
Private collections and research institutions
|
Are seen as very reliable and direct
|
Because of artifacts
|
But presentation, selection can be deceiving
E.g. Hiroshima bomber plane
|
Shows the power of decision and presentation
Colonialism museums-> what do they present?
Orthodoxy and revisionism
In positivistic 19th and early 20th century-> objectivity was the ideal
Now not so much-> debate, controversy is central
Debates usually in universities-> pre-knowledge is required
|
Can become public because-> subject matter-> accessible and poignant
