In response to the topics discussed in class, I would like to discuss the notion of history and its relationship to culture. I find this topic extremely interesting because I love studying history and observing the progression of mankind. I believe history is essential in understanding culture because, as mentioned class, history serves as a tool for describing how a culture arrived at its current state, while its also provides culture with a reminder, or reinforcement, of what it was and what it was not. Through "memorialization" and other reminders of the past a culture can see how far along it has come from its past success and past tragedies.
Contrary to the authors of this book, I still believe there is a grand narrative of humankind. The authors may seek to throw "monkey wrenches" into the notion of the grand narrative, but there is no denying the fact that humanity, along with the differences amongst it, has steadily progressed in many regards to emancipation, human rights, etc. The authors seem to take a "zero sum" view of history, arguing that since many different histories exist there is no observable grand history. I heartily contest this view. These different histories simply wouldn't exist if they existed in and of themselves. The authors seem to be taking these histories and viewing them alone, without assessing the impact other histories have had upon them. It is important to recognize history, or histories, does not occur in a bubble and to acknowledge everything can be attributed to something else. Therefore, my view is the grand narrative is a woven fabric of many different histories that still provide proof of a natural and evident progression of mankind. Without acknowledging the leaps and bounds made in science, mathematics, social science, and the general enlightenment of man, I believe the authors are erroneously casting aside an important concept and observable trend.
-David Lindgren
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the issue that is held with Hegelian idea of a history as human progression is that it sparks a kind of relativism with historical events or people. If we are all constantly changing or evolving toward one absolute truth, then until then, there is nothing actually true. Furthermore some feel it in a way excuses the wrongs of the past as they may be seen as simply necessary for the progression of mankind. While giving meaning to certain monumental and maybe devastating events in history as a part of our moral progression it at the same time diminishes their value or impact. However at the same time it is hard to say that there have not been changes throughout history where man has developed in some ways (as you are saying scientifically, etc.) However to claim that mankind is progressing as a whole in some greater way leads us down the dangerous path of Hegel's thinking that we are somehow more moral then we were a hundred years ago.
ReplyDeleteBut if history doesnt serve the purpose of some grand ending it at least is a great source of identity. Nations, cultures, even families often set great store in their history. I don't think Americans do so any less then other nations (as another person posted?). Our history may be shorter but it is used in a way to both socialize and reinforce American ideologies.