World History
Presentation week 2 and Homework Discussion
What is World History?
• If you were asked to define World History, what would you say? How
would you define the term “World History?”
• Can you think of any problems that may arise by approaching the
study of history in this way?
• Can you think of any benefits?
[group discussion and report]
What is World History?
• Definition from our text:
• “…a distinct academic field of historical study [that started in the 1980’s] to
examine history from a global perspective rather than a solely national
perspective of investigation…”
• “World historians use a thematic approach to identify common patterns that
emerge across all cultures, with two major focal points: integration (how
processes of world history have drawn people of the world together) and
difference (how patterns of world history reveal the diversity of the human
experiences).“
• “World history identifies common patterns that emerge across all cultures.”
Periodization as a means to study history
• Definition of Periodization
“The process of categorizing the past into discrete, quantified, named
blocks of time in order to facilitate the study and analysis of history—is
always arbitrary and rooted in particular regional perspectives, but
serves to organize and systematize historical knowledge. “
• What historical periods or ways of periodizing history can you think of?
Periodization as a means to study history
• Common ways to periodize history:
• specific subfields or themes of history (e.g., military history, social history,
political history, intellectual history, cultural history)
• cultural usage (the Gilded Age)
• prominent historical events (the inter-war years: 1918–1939)
• decimal numbering systems (the 1960s, the 17th century)
• influential individuals (the Victorian Era, the Edwardian Era, the Napoleonic
Era)
• Ruling dynasties (Joseon, Han, Ming, etc.)
Pros and Cons of the Periodization of History
Pros
• “…discrete, quantified named blocks of time…facilitate the study and
analysis of history.”
• “[periodization] results in descriptive abstractions that provide
convenient terms for periods of time with relatively stable
characteristic.”
• “Without [periodization], history would be nothing more than
scattered events without a framework designed to help us understand
the past.“
Pros and Cons of the Periodization of History
• Cons
• “History is continuous and cannot be generalized, all systems of periodization
are arbitrary.” Discreet blocks of time do not exist in reality and are imposed
by historians.
• “Not only do periodizing blocks inevitably overlap, but they also often
seemingly conflict with or contradict one another.”
• It is impossible to create one standard periodization applicable to all cultures.
“The history of Asia or Africa cannot be neatly categorized following
[European] periods” --prehistory (before written history), ancient history,
Middle Ages, modern history, and contemporary history (history within the
living memory)
The Issue of Cultural Bias
• “Bias is an inclination or outlook to present or hold a partial
perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible
merits of alternative points of view.“
• Biases may be influenced by culture, religion, politics, etc.
• “[As Europe] dominated the world in the self-imposed mission to
colonize nearly all other continents, Eurocentrism prevailed in history.
The practice of viewing and presenting the world from a European or
generally Western perspective, with an implied belief in the pre-
eminence of Western culture, dominated among European
historians.”
The Issue of Cultural Bias
• Biases in the study of history can lead to detrimental distortions and
omissions
• Grievances against ethnic/social minorities
• Opponents of predominant political powers
• Negative moral framing of ideological opponents
• Can lead to an implied or overt notion of cultural superiority
Periodization and Cultural Bias
Thoughts and Questions to consider:
Does the periodization of history naturally include cultural biases?
What can we do to minimize the impact of cultural bias on our study of
history?
Is there an objective history? Or is history subjective and dependent on
the particular historian and their interpretation?
