Conceptions of history

[insurgent]

I know of two major schools of history - the idealist and the materialist schools that is. They represent different ways of perceiving and understanding history.

Now, I need lots and lots of information about different conceptions of history.

Do you know any other schools that I should know of?

Can you recommend me some sources of history that represent particular schools? Authors, historians, books, other sources?

How would you describe/define the essentials of and the difference between, say, materialist and idealist history? And what's your opinion of them?

Finally, does anybody know of the recent book in which the author argued against historical determinism by making the point that WWI was not inevitable? If so, could you tell me the name of it?

Thanks in advance, any help would be useful and welcome.

 

[Kafka2]

Determinist theory- event A happened because event B happened, which in turn happened because of event C, etc.

It ends up becoming massively entertaining and makes you go "Wow!" a lot, particularly when you encounter Catastrophe theory. Check out "Catastrophe" by David Keys, which is a brilliantly-researched brain-bender of a book.

 

[Amenhotep7]

There's also two other theories of history. I think they're called "Great Man", and "Great Number".

 

[insurgent]

Great Man and Great Number? Sounds odd. Do they have any real significance as theories?

I'll try to find the Keys book. Thanks.

 

[Abulafia]

Check out "Catastrophe" by David Keys, which is a brilliantly-researched brain-bender of a book.

I remember buying that book when I saw the accompanying programme on Channel4.

As I recall, it was a brilliant little book and one which, if I think about it, contributed to my initial interest in history - especially, at that time, the Avars.

 

[Dragonlord]

It ends up becoming massively entertaining and makes you go "Wow!" a lot, particularly when you encounter Catastrophe theory. Check out "Catastrophe" by David Keys, which is a brilliantly-researched brain-bender of a book.

Thanks for the tip - looks very interesting! Just ordered it from Amazon.

 

[Amenhotep7]

Great Man is the theory that, for the majority of history, the course of events has been affected by one outstanding individual, such as Vladimir Lenin, Julius Caesar, and William the Conqueror.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_Theory

It isn't called "Great Number" theory, but it is something along those lines. It's the theory that great numbers of people have generally affected the outcome of history. Name pretty much any revolution.

 

[insurgent]

"Great man" sounds like a silly version of the "idealist" conception.

 

[JohnRM]

It is my opinion the "Great Man" and "Great Numbers" can coexist. Great numbers of people drive the times, but they are manifested, always, in one great man who enacts the policies.

 

[storealex]

The truth is grey. You cannot rule out one of the schools without being extremely subjective.

 

[Red Threat]

Positivist history.

But all these schools had a progressive and dialectic conception of history.

Today this historicism is ridiculous: read Popper's Poverty of historicism.

 

[Boleslav]

If you want an interesting comparison between a positive-minded historian and a negative-minded historian, I can't reccommend anything better than:

Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West
HG Wells, A Short History of the World

I'll leave it to you to puzzle out who's the optimist and who's the pessimist.

 

[Companiero]

It is my opinion the "Great Man" and "Great Numbers" can coexist. Great numbers of people drive the times, but they are manifested, always, in one great man who enacts the policies.

I agree absolutely that these two can coexist. In fact, there isnt a more logical thing than to agree, because they both locate the driving force of history in the hands of the people and their actions. They both shift the focus from the material conditions in society to the actions of individuals, be it one or more.

And about the optimist/ pessimist dilemma; I support the idea of evolutionist approach, much like the theory of the evolution of the species. It isnt quite like the dialectic method, but it does state that events occur as results of the current circumstances, and the outcome is always the most appropriate response to those. It however doesnt sustain a positive nor a negative tendency, since like in the natural selection, we do not know whether the new changes are good or bad. They are just that - changes, going deeper in complexity and specialization, but its not like they are directing to some ultimate utopian point.

 

[Provolution]

Immanuel Wallersteins Core and Periphery theory, further developed by Barry Buzan
Samuel Huntington, Clash of civilization
Schumpeterian economic history
positivsm, revisionism and postrevisionism
John Boyds and Franklin Spinneys "Evolutionary Epistomology" "Creation and destruction" of conceptual paradigms is a mindblower. Especially the last one will rock your world and nothing will ever be the same again.

 

[Neomega]

deconstructionist

so much information is prevelant, the truth is irrelevant, and your personal opinion dominant.