Turning Points Flashcards
Goody vs Blockman. Explain views.
Goody =
Critical of the 18th/19th century view of Rome which is connected to the idea of whiteness and superiority. The invention of antiquity or adoption of antiquity – seen as appropriation rather than continuity. Perhaps the most bare-faced invention of western philosophers and historians was to name the collapse of civilisation after the fall of Rome ‘feudalism’ and then to suggest that it provided a unique launching pad for capitalism.
vs
Blockmans =
Pluralism leads to dynamism = growth. However this ‘unity’ narrative can be seen as a weakness due to its lack of political centre. Or is it a triumph in development? Is this enlightenment/ political story a Eurocentric narrative? The authors cover a wide geographic expanse, including western interactions with the byzantine empire and the Islamic world.
Buckhardt vs Burke. Express their views
Burckhardt =
Classic interpretation; in order to study history, it is necessary to study the historian. Affinity to the Italian renaissance, birth of most striking and attractive elements of the modern world/ First born among the sons from Europe. From medieval period to awakening to modernity, idealised self- conscious individual. Exaggerates difference between middle ages and renaissance. Regeneration, renovation, restoration, recall, rebirth, reawakening or re-emergence.
vs Burke =
Revisionist interpretation. Myth of the renaissance. Renaissance wasn’t modern and was still concerned with religion and traditional values. Going back to antiquity wasn’t new, and there was always attempts modernity. Burke criticises the uniqueness of Europe’s modernity, compared to for example the Arab World. He argues that the agrarian change in the 113th century is more essential.
Individualism and rationalism falsely attributed to renaissance. Human progress and self-consciousness predate this. Is renaissance a myth?
More critical, takes more distance and is more objective than Burckhardt. Burke says renaissance is a movement with multiple renaissances, uses postmodern history, fluidity, cross-cultural, movement is minority. Burckhardt say it’s a period, one renaissance.
Gay vs Porter. Explain views.
Gay =
Traditional narrative: philosophes as modern pagans. Idea of Enlightenment as force in the development of contemporary society and significant role of philosophes in modernising efforts. Challenges 19th century interpretations of the philosophes as illusionary dogmatists. Depicts the enlightenment as unity, from a little flock. Highlights synchronicity, lacks accountability.
Vs Porter =
Revisionist narrative: National enlightenments, social enlightenment and the public sphere. Speaks about several enlightenments. Critical of Gay because he didn’t look far enough, his explanation is too one-sided. Gay speaks about 1 enlightenment, and didn’t take into account the public opinion. France was only one of the enlightenments. Expository, critical and historiographical. Uses gays previous work to structure historical problems, post-modern. One group of men didn’t affect measures amounting progress, comprehensive judgement of the thinking habits and feeling among the wider population.
Porter about Gay: multiple enlightenments, not one, not cross cultural enough. Not only elite but also others.
Zamoyski vs Vick
Zamoyski
Vs Vick
• Negative/emotional/personal tone (Investment)
• Dramatic / theatrical
• Conservatives: ancien regime, like before 1789, absolute monarchy.
• Liberals: to restrict the power of the monarch with a constitutional, depicted like revolutionaries, violent people, impulsive people. Liberal thread is everywhere, unpredictable.
▪ Very black and white distinction. ▪ Compounded by his style.
Vick
Isn’t as black as white as Zamoyski describes. A Spectrum of political views. From binary to tripartite, liberals, conservatives, Jacobins.
▪ Liberals and conservatives against radicals, liberals and conservatives have common ground then, based on their fear of radicals.
• “Uneasy consensus among moderate liberals and reform conservatives (open to some change)”.
• Fact-based, includes variety of opinions, more context (kind of history), moves away from personality-based. Thanks to Vick, you are able to see that the Congress has been influenced by multiple factors.
• Congress not an event, but a process of dialogue and association which causes a lot of common ground between states.
• Zamoyski focusses on rulers and their relations, but Vick talks about ministers, bureaucrats, social groups. Not only elite, but also public opinion.
Blom vs Vick
Blom =
Explores a typically disregarded period in history, the years preceding WW1, and parallels it with modern society. He writes his text like a story, opening every chapter with a yearly turning point, adding anecdotes and examples across Europe to his narrative. He challenges the harmonious image of pre-war Europe by using a variety of sources including photographs and paintings. He invites the reader to suspend their prior knowledge, using the example of book worms destroying historical knowledge to image the years without the shadow of war. Blom’s narrative is highly illustrative and is clearly structured throughout, making it easier to digest. Through his comprehensive text, Blom hopes to challenge traditional historical narratives and to educate the public.
• prevalent view.
• Can be seen as similar to Zamoyski
o Dwells on the mood of Europe, narrative, contemporary accounts, primary sources, flashbacks, relationship, personality-centred, literary works and arts are included.
• Dramatic narrative that unfolds.
• Can be seen as similar to Burckhardt.
o Depicts time as glorious.
• Written as popular history, popular historian.
• Thought experiment, see it as years not as years as leading to WW’s.
o Creating different perspective
o Traditional view is to link things, but then we exclude things that don’t fit that narrative.
• This experiment shifts the emphasis to the years before WWI, stops us from looking at causes of WWI.
• Why does Blom call these the ‘Vertigo Years?’
• What does Vertigo mean?
▪ Dizzy, unwell, stress, fear (of the unknown)
• The responds to the rapid pace of modernisation
• Quick change
• Europe at the time, Great World Fair
• Mood of the time?
• Uncertainty.
Vs Mayer
• If he were talking to Blom, what would he say?
o Too positive about the modernising process of the time, or how much it was modernised.
o Too optimistic about society moving forward. o Wrong to not link to war.
o Does not mention old elites.
o Bourgeoisie: new middle class: entrepreneurs, manufacturers (teachers, doctors) hold onto power. Nobility adapted to system of power that capitalism brings.
▪ They are not the nobility or aristocracy but see themselves as it since they have capital. Nobility is different, emulated. Often still feudal, dependent on land.
▪ Also rise of new bourgeoisie that acts like nobility. Like they have social power. Based on patronage, support, friends in high places. Does not fit with the image of modern.
▪ Often based on support of church. What’s role of church in that time?
• Still being an important social institution. Don’t talk about faith very
often.
• Agriculture is dominant, industry not very much.
• Feudalism + capitalism
• 3rd premise: Europe is mainly preindustrial and pre-bourgeois.
• Inertia, lethargy, resistance. Europe maybe does not want to change.
• How does Mayer affect our understanding of the world in the 20th century?
o Years early 1900’s are important, they explain the wars. Emotions that are building up, not only modernisation, nations are losing their prestige, and fear of changes that happened because of modernisation.
• Blom talks about anxiety and then fear of unknown, and Mayer talks about resistance, the fear of change.
• Both think differently about what had the upper hand. Both have a different focus.
Durosell vs Judt
Duroselle endorses the traditional narrative of post war Europe as unity. He presents this particular period as a moral success story, with the establishment of European institutions and a collective community as the cornerstone of European progress. The aim of his work is to establish whether a united Europe is the cumulative result of historical evolution. In his conclusion, he demonstrates a predilection for Europe moving towards political unity, and traces historical trend sup until the collapse of the Berlin wall, to demonstrate this. He discusses topics such as decolonisation in this context, as a positive influence on European unity. For Duroselle, the post war period is the first time in history the governments of European countries have officially embarked on a process of unification by mutual agreement, nit by hegemony or force.
Political, economic unity, positive; communism has come to an end: inevitability of European unity.
• His work is commissioned. His ideology is the inevitability of the EU is clear. Institutional affiliations.
o Institutional memory: is when institution creates memory of its history. o If you’re sceptical, read this text. Textbook for EU
Vs Judt =
Contrary to Duroselle, judt’s thesis is that Europe demonstrated passivity and collective amnesia for the immediate past, distorting and appropriating post-war identity into a myth. This led to a post war response that was tragically inadequate and justice that was universally unsuccessful. Judt argues this retelling of history served to restore cohesion to civil society and re-established the authority of the state, however false and insufficient it may be. He views post war Europe as a manufactured for the purpose of moral and reconstruction and abused for political gain. Judt describes Europe as another country, largely created by politicians, rooted in idealism.
• • • • •
• • •
• What is o
o o
Alleged end of cold war
Problems because of memories
Frontiers of memories are still there, solid.
Moment of great transformation; a need to write for historical narrative Collective amnesia
▪ What you forget is as important as what you remember.
Narrative = liberal democracy will always win of communism.
How much of Europe’s post-war history are we forgetting?
Problematic pasts, neglected to remember certain things in our own history. the myth of World War 2?
Single out Germany as main/only perpetrators. Erasing certain aspects: ignorance of soviet crimes Nazi collaborators
Downloaded by: izziegordonroach | izziegordonroach@gmail.com Distribution of this document is illegal
Vs
Stuvia.com - The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
▪ Few get punished; show trials. Lot of people got away and stayed in politics.
• Some happened before these institutions were there.
• Switching sides: collaborators or resistance.
▪ Score settlings. Use the idea of Nazi’s to deal with their own problems. Everybody who annoyed you, could be said you’re a nazist, would be removed.
▪ Resistance myth. Glorify the resistance, exaggerated.
Mishra vs Fukuyama
Mishra
Judt / Mishra
What is the text about?
• Frustration and anger is manifesting itself in politics.
• Historicises events and responses, similar to earlier events.
• Continuity of ideologies, not ended like Fukuyama says, but ideologies, more than ever, still
present.
• Globalisation and modernity
Ressentiment, cauldron of emotion, resentment, envy, anger, hatred, fear. Ressentiment of politics, right wing populism etc. Always negative.
Where does the anger come from?
• Globalisation
o has weakened authority of states
o Interconnected, more influence from other countries, borrow idea from everywhere o Globalisation is going too fast
o Multiplier effect
o Frantic individualism
Forgotten people, they voters for Trump, ISIS, feel excluded and unrepresented in politics or economy. A doctrine is promised, liberalism, really conceptualised by a few westerns and cannot be applied everywhere.
The difference between the promise and the reality is what creates the ressentiment, anger, the fear etc. Reality does not match up to the dream.
Whatever has been happening, it has not been able to lift everyone with it.
Breakpoint: The recession of 2008, the economic crisis: capitalism has overreached.
The downside of globalisation: nobody talks about it.
ISIS etc financed by America, to fight soviets in Afghanistan. They were left behind in the vacuum that started when communism fell.
Downloaded by: izziegordonroach | izziegordonroach@gmail.com Distribution of this document is illegal
Stuvia.com - The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
Fukuyama
Duroselle / Fukuyama
What does Fukuyama mean by ‘the end of history’?
• End of ideological evolution.
• Liberal government has reached final stage of development.
• Two ideologies against each other, communism and capitalism, then communism fell so the
West, the liberalism, has won. Responding to events, liberalism is the only ideology left.
• The onward march of liberalism, spreading over the world.
o Political liberalism = democracy.
o Economical liberalism = capitalism (materialism), market should be free,
governments should not involve.
• History is this conflict between two ideologies, so this is the end of history.
o Now in post-historical era.
o Other parts in the world are still in history
▪ Where communism is still prominent
▪ Struggles self-determination (conflicts are not resolved)
• All liberal, political and economic, cannot be place for conflict cause essentially, we have to
trade with each other. “Free market doctrine”.
• This strategy became very popular for American diplomats.
• The role of ideology, values and beliefs, the human consciousness, is the driving force of
human history
Three examples, WW2, Soviet Union, China, prove his doctrine
