Prof. Dassbach: While there is a fun element to the movement (not
retreat) back in time, there are also sound theoretical and
methodological reasons. The problem is that some of us are going back in
time because we are trying to make sense of present structures and
processes. How far back in time one feels the need to go depends on the
substantive question and when the data give out. Take for instance your
interest in long waves. Most long wavers think that they are fairly
recent phenomena originating in the late 18th century at best. Modelski
and Thompson argue that long waves can be extended continuously back to
around the 10th century but not before. One outcome is that we have
18-19 k waves to work with whereas most others have only several.
Moreover, we can perhaps better address under what conditions long waves
appeared and when they might disappear. Finally, we think a 1000 year
series of long wave fluctuations permits us to better address the
evolutionary aspects of this process. But we did not assume that we had
to go back to some Ur-phase. Instead, we kept pushing back in time until
the chain stopped. For kwaves and us, it was Sung China. For our
related interest in long-term diffusion processes, we had to begin with
Sumer. There are of course people who argue that everything since the
end of the Cold War, 1945, the Industrial Revolution (take your pick) is
completely different from what preceded it. The people studying the
really long-term are simply less impressed with these alleged breakpoints
- even though there may well be important breakpoints along the way. In
an earlier message, I thought 1500 was one but you have to start before
1500 to know why. WRT
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote:
>
>
> I would like to make one other observation and it is not my intention to
> offend anyone.
>
> I see the recent interest with prehistory and the future as signs of
> retreat. Unable to deal with or make sense the present, there has been a
> retreat into the past and/orthe future.
>
> I am not a historian and history per se, as recording, recounting and
> reinterpreting past events is as interesting and relevant for me as
> scholastic philosophy and debates about the number of angels which could
> dance on the head of a pin.
>
> This is not to say that history is irrelevant, History is eminently
> relevant insofar as it enables us to understand the genesis of the trends
> which have shaped the present and are shaping the future. Hence, the
> criteria, at least for a social scientist, in evaluating/appraising all
> historical explanation should be: how does this help us understand the
> present and the future.
>
> Moreover, isn't the movement to the past to explain the present the
> hallmark of some of the most important and seminal work in WST such as A.G.
> Frank's early works, IW's MWS or Arrighi's Long 20th c.. History is sued to
> reveal the origin and genesis of the trends shaping the present. I am
> however, hard pressed to see how extending the time line back 3 or 4000
> years and expanding the scope eastward and westward fulfills this
> function.
>
> Of course, one could and many have, argued that everything is connected
> but
> it is also necessary to draw some lines and realize when the fascination
> with the lineages of the connections overwhelms and detracts from the
> original reason for the interest in these connections: understanding the
> present.
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> > Carl H.A. Dassbach DASSBACH@MTU.EDU
> > Dept. of Social Sciences (906)487-2115 - Phone
> > Michigan Technological University (906)487-2468 - Fax
> > Houghton, MI 49931 USA (906)482-8405 - Home
> >
>