History+and+the+Social

I'll Grab this one TW
 * =Title= ||  ||
 * =Author= ||  ||
 * =Date= ||  ||
 * =Summary By= ||  ||
 * =Summary= ||  ||
 * =Discussion points= ||  ||

“History and the Social Science; the // Longue Durée” //Fernand Braudel

Not entirely sure how to summarize this but here goes: The article critiques the social sciences for a) not working together to create new knowledge and instead focusing more on creating individual methodological niches b)being short sighted in terms of their conceptions of time and its usefulness. Essentially, anything before 1945 is left for historians, denying social scientists rich area for study.

The bulk of the article is spent describing concepts of time in the field of history and how those conceptions, particularly long duration time(of long range trends and developments) can be useful in the social sciences (it is important to note the economics is included here)

It appears that he is also critiquing game theoretical models saying that they “valid only so long as they have a valid relation to society.”(11)

Discussion: How do the varying concepts of time, when applied shape our view of history or the present phenomenon we wish to explain in our work?

Do you think the author is essentially calling for interdisciplinary or simply awareness of how rigidity (of models and in perceptions of time and space) limits research?

This question is more a point of clarification, but what is the difference between the new math and “older” math methods?

Interesting quotes from the author:

“Marx’s genius lay in the fact that he was the first to build true social models, which start from long historical duration” (13).

“Marxism to me is the very image of the real danger that awaits any social science that is attached to the model for the model’s sake” (13)

= = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =