The Case for Big History An Essay by David Christian Argument and Counter-Argument Analysis Outline

The question that Christian addresses in his essay: What is the scale on which history should be studied (taught)? OR, how should history be studied (taught)? What is the scale on which history should be studied (taught)? OR, how should history be studied (taught)? To answer this question– you need to know what “scale” refers to… To answer this question– you need to know what “scale” refers to…

Scale… Scale = whatever time period seems appropriate to the topic being studied (example: 100 years, a decade, 500 years, 1000 years, etc.) Scale = whatever time period seems appropriate to the topic being studied (example: 100 years, a decade, 500 years, 1000 years, etc.) According to the author… “the appropriate time scale for the study of history MAY be the whole of time … on many different time scales up to that of the universe itself– 10 to 20 billion years ago.” According to the author… “the appropriate time scale for the study of history MAY be the whole of time … on many different time scales up to that of the universe itself– 10 to 20 billion years ago.”

“Big History” A way of studying history on a time scale appropriate for studying a broad and multiple-layered history of the past (to answer complex questions about changes that have occurred over a very long time). A way of studying history on a time scale appropriate for studying a broad and multiple-layered history of the past (to answer complex questions about changes that have occurred over a very long time).

David Christian’s Arguments “Big History” allows big, meaningful questions to be asked which encourages the search for larger meanings about the past. “Big History” allows big, meaningful questions to be asked which encourages the search for larger meanings about the past. Examples: Examples: 1. What is the global context of specific societies? 2. What is the history of humanity? 3. What is the relationship between humans and ALL living things? 4. How did life begin?

David Christian’s Arguments, con’t “Big History” allows us to answer big questions that merge several disciplines— combining science and the humanities (literature, history, philosophy, etc.). “Big History” allows us to answer big questions that merge several disciplines— combining science and the humanities (literature, history, philosophy, etc.).

Counter-Arguments by Historians Opposed to “Big History” (according to Christian) Studying “big history” is just not an acceptable way of studying history (it violates historians’ conventional methods of studying history) Studying “big history” is just not an acceptable way of studying history (it violates historians’ conventional methods of studying history) 1. On a large time scale, history becomes too general to be useful. 2. On a large time scale, there is too much detail for the historian to handle. 3. Most historians do not have the expertise to “handle” history on such a large scale.

Christian’s Rebuttal Arguments “Detail” shouldn’t be an issue… something that is important on one scale may be “detail” on another or may vanish completely on an even larger time scale. “Detail” shouldn’t be an issue… something that is important on one scale may be “detail” on another or may vanish completely on an even larger time scale. When using larger scales, detail is lost BUT larger ideas become noticeable (ideas that would never be noticed on a smaller time scale). When using larger scales, detail is lost BUT larger ideas become noticeable (ideas that would never be noticed on a smaller time scale).

More Rebuttal Arguments If a question involves more than one discipline (biology, anthropology, astronomy, etc.), historians/teachers can “team teach” the material or get help from experts in these disciplines. If a question involves more than one discipline (biology, anthropology, astronomy, etc.), historians/teachers can “team teach” the material or get help from experts in these disciplines.

David Christian’s Rationale for “Big History” MAIN: Historians really cannot understand the past fully unless they go back to the beginning of time. MAIN: Historians really cannot understand the past fully unless they go back to the beginning of time. SUB: Studying “big history” allows historians to overcome the problem of “not being able to see the forest for the trees”– OR collecting too many details from a small amount of time prevents historians from seeing the “big picture.” SUB: Studying “big history” allows historians to overcome the problem of “not being able to see the forest for the trees”– OR collecting too many details from a small amount of time prevents historians from seeing the “big picture.”

Christian’s Example: What is the time scale on which we should study the issue of economic growth in human history? According to E.L. Jones– the appropriate scale is 5,000 years (this is how long “civilizations” have been around– beginning with the ancient Mesopotamians) According to E.L. Jones– the appropriate scale is 5,000 years (this is how long “civilizations” have been around– beginning with the ancient Mesopotamians) What do you think? What do you think? What does Christian think? What does Christian think?

What is wrong with considering only the past 5,000 years? According to Christian, how is “human population” involved in the question of economic development over the course of history? According to Christian, how is “human population” involved in the question of economic development over the course of history?