tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post6245412024126457703..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Schama's revolutionDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-24851657871708286532009-07-17T11:05:30.120-04:002009-07-17T11:05:30.120-04:00cljo -- Good observation. It also pertains to the...cljo -- Good observation. It also pertains to the next posting on MacIntyre and Taylor: interpreting action means interpreting intentions and perceptions, and these shift in reaction to other people's activities. <br /><br />What it questions is the feasibility of historical <b>explanation</b>, which, as I suggest, is questioned by Schama's historical writings in any case. But surely there is a place in historical cognition for a treatment of standing conditions, existing social structures, and enduring systems of social relations -- to which dynamic human agents react, to be sure.Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-37174378814125927992009-07-17T10:47:57.699-04:002009-07-17T10:47:57.699-04:00Excellent post. I love Schama's writings as w...Excellent post. I love Schama's writings as well as his recent television projects.<br /><br />While Citizens could be reduced simply to the maxim "All politics are local," I feel Schama also approaches a fundamental problem: how is history to deal with the dynamic nature of human action? People don't just react. They react and then reassess as other react around them. There are an almost infinite number of feedback loops going on in society, and people somehow decide what to pay attention to and then react continuously. The historical profession and its methods are far too static to deal with such dynamism.Carl Oberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085601382201657974noreply@blogger.com