To a historian, which I am, "synchronic" is the antonym of
"diachronic." A synchronic approach to history assumes that things happen
in pretty much the same way all the time, that there is no significant
process of change and development over time. Structuralism in
anthropology is a good example of a synchronic mind-set. A diachronic
approach to history finds much change occurring over time. The
19th-century revolution of Historismus in historical studies (see
Friedrich Meinecke et al.) illustrates the diachronic mind-set. I am not
familiar with Andy's "translation," but it may be what the original user
of the term had in mind. Only he can tell us.
Cheers,
Warren
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
> Gunder Frank,
>
> I think *synchronic* means here that your model/theory of world-history
> posits a general theory about a single empirical mechanism of system
> development, this being accumulation. That is, no matter where the center
> is, the same general process guides its development; thus we have
> polycentrism posited in a monocausal model/theory. I think it implies that
> there is a rigid structuralism hiding beneath all your historiography.
>
> My translation may be wrong.
>
> Just trying to help,
> Andy
>
>
>