Okay so, they start from this date, except for places not yet converted, and they include them after they were properly brought into Church administration.
-
Show this thread
-
So this is in effect a rolling impact presumably, as more and more bishoprics are established. This is interesting to me, methodologically, because it assumes that "Church influence" is congruent with bishoprics/admin, rather than a general societal impact.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
As far as I can tell, they do not acknowledge the enforcement of these rules would not have really been possible, at a late or early stage, and would have been targeted towards elites (who received dispensation often or flouted the rules).
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Here is the bit about monasteries.pic.twitter.com/nyIXdpsKWp
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
However the more I read this, the more I am unsettled by the premise that exposure to the Church results in "individualism, creativity, embeddedness, and analytical thinking."
1 reply 3 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
I see Mitterauer cited here, a few other historians like De Jong, but a lot of articles on consanguinity from other scientists.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
And perhaps I am reading this wrong. But it seems to me that this is comparing "The West" as it were with non-Christian, non-Western societies, that from their map seem to be African/Asian nations, with these outcomes. That is...idk. But it unsettles me, guys.
2 replies 2 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Eurocentric at best. But that's not a good thing.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @AdmiralHip
Many great points, thanks for that! I'm still trying to wrap my head around this paper and debate, so every bit is much appreciated and helpful. One small point I'd like to raise: Global historians do indeed look quite a lot on the causes and interconnections of big changes.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @benbawan @AdmiralHip
Why one region developed this way and another one that way - even though they seemed to have so much in common or, being different, still developed in surprising ways - is one of the central questions for global historians. In this sense, they look back a lot for potential causes
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Causes, plural. As someone who does comparative history I understand how this works. However, I also know that we cannot attribute one element of society to how something else developed. I say this, there is always nuance.
-
-
Replying to @AdmiralHip
Absolutely, I'm totally with you. I'd also be extremely skeptical in saying X caused all modernity and that's it. And I think they're definitely overconfident in this paper and this regard.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benbawan
Well then. I appreciate that you are skeptical of the paper. But I don’t need someone to explain how history is studied. Thanks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.