Writing about the virtues of comparative history (and it’s problems). But it really highlights how we cannot look at cultural processes in a vacuum.
-
Show this thread
-
Not saying all history should be a comparative one but I think we really need to establish wider context, links, similarities.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
Seconded. Surprisingly much scholarship is based on the assumption that what the scholar is interested in is new/unique, but often because they haven't looked earlier or next-door.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @j_t_palmer
Yes, I agree. I would also say that doing comparisons of things that have been done in isolation but never comparatively (or not very in-depth) can put things into perspective or illuminate things that would be otherwise missed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
Definitely. And bearing in mind the (Tim) Reuter Warning: conceptual differences between scholarly worlds often lead to people talking at cross-purposes, so there can be much that gets missed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
True! I think this can be a problem (and one I have encountered) with interdisciplinary work also.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.