Frameworks Of World History Networks Hierarchies And Culture Pdf

frameworks of world history networks hierarchies and culture pdf

File Name: frameworks of world history networks hierarchies and culture .zip
Size: 2143Kb
Published: 20.05.2021

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies.

A concise, genuinely global world history built around an analytical model that makes historical method explicit--and inviting. Frameworks of World History is a groundbreaking text that uses a clear and consistent analytical approach to studying world history. Author Stephen Morillo--an award-winning teacher with more than twenty-five years of experience teaching World History--frames the study of this vast subject around a model that shows students how to do world history and not just learn about it. While this globally organized text contains all of the essential information, it is the only book that does not just tell what happened, but also shows how and why it happened.

The Leader’s Guide to Corporate Culture

The problem addressed by this forum is how to organize world history. The first point to acknowledge, it seems to me, is that the questions raised by this problem in fact apply to any project in history, whether individual course, overall curriculum, book or article, research institute, whatever. Every attempt to do history involves deciding how to organize a pile of data to make a sense of it — "a sense" because any pile of data will yield many different senses depending on what questions one asks of it.

Some piles of data, for example those associated with ancient history, present problems because they are frustratingly small. But especially if what we count as data is taken broadly, even ancient data piles can expand rapidly, and for many if not most historical topics our data piles are so large as to present immediate problems of organization and selection.

This is why the questions must be asked with particular urgency of world history. The pile of data available to practitioners of world history, students and researchers alike, is well nigh infinite, even though it includes lacunae. Furthermore, the world history data pile in its infinitude obliterates many of the conventional bins into which the data pile is divided for historians of less universal topics.

We shall here nod in a friendly way to Big History and politely move on. The divisions of nationality, chronology, and methodology, among others, that still shape hiring in academic history such that ads can unblushingly ask for an historian of gender and culture in 18 th century France, are revealed for the artificialities they are by the scope of world history. Calling into question the implicit assumptions behind those divisions nationality? But it begs the question, again with particular urgency, of how to organize and therefore approach productively that vast pile of data.

Rick Szostak's paper 1 , around which this forum grew, frames this question in terms of teaching a world history course and consequently in terms of writing a world history textbook, something he and Jonathan Reynolds are doing, and I have done. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and in fact we have come to many similar conclusions independently.

His "flow charts" serve a similar purpose as the diagrams of social structures, network connections, and cultural processes that I created for my text , presenting complex ideas in visual form to assist students in seeing them and in making comparisons and connections with them.

I deploy boxed text in exactly the way he discusses, though across a more restricted range of topics, as I shall discuss further below. And again, in this more specific form of organizing a course or a textbook, the general questions about organization apply to any course or classroom-directed textbook about any historical topic. A good course or textbook on Anglo-Norman England, yes, that's my original academic home field would benefit as much from the same principles of organization as a world history course.

I wish, however, to approach this qestion more broadly, primarily in terms of the process of organizing world history analytically as an historical topic. Doing so is not irrelevant to teaching and textbook level synthesis, but is grounded more in conceptualization than conveying material clearly.

It is the other half in the usual process of historical research. Production of monographs based in archival research the standard first half of research harnessed to this sort of conceptualization is rarer in world history than in more traditional fields because its global scope complicates the archival collection of primary sources.

But if the definition and gathering of sources is more broadly defined, what I'm aiming at is the conceptualization of world history for research purposes. I believe there are a few basic principles for conceptualizing world history in this way.

But before I discuss these and lay out some of my own uses of them, I need to acknowledge that Dr. Szostak's article includes one organizing principle that can be seen as falling into this category of intellectual conceptualizations: evolution. I note it because I find his presentation of it problematic in a couple of ways. The Problem with Evolution. Szostak presents evolution in two somewhat contradictory ways. His subhead and some of his discussion calls what he promotes "evolutionary analysis", which implies that it is a particular conceptualization of world history of the sort I just introduced.

Yet in introducing his discussion he calls it "a particular type of historical process", thereby associating it with the previous section on "Common Challenges", or historical situations that invite comparison of the processes by which different societies met such challenges.

That is, he situates evolution as a part of the past, not as a metaphorical tool for analyzing the past. As a biological process, of course, evolution is a part of the past and the present.

Where would we be without the evolution about 50 million years ago of grasses, whose seeds are the foundation of most complex hierarchical societies? Today, the rapid evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a critical problem. Nor has human evolution stopped. The spread around 10, years ago of the gene that allows humans to digest lactose past infancy, local evolution of malaria resistance, and so forth remind us that we are part of an evolutionarily biological world.

But I think Dr. Szostak actually mostly means it in the metaphorical sense, so I won't belabor this particular difficulty. I think, however, that as a conceptual tool the concept of "evolution" is problematic in two ways.

First, as an analytical tool, the concept of evolution is metaphorically wrong. Szostak claims that, "Several of the themes that are commonly treated in world history — political and economic institutions, culture, technology and science, and art — evolve through time…. But since Dr. Szostak then promotes the concept in terms of its prompting us to ask about mutations and selection environments, he's clearly got biological evolution in mind as the model.

And in that stricter sense political institutions and so forth don't evolve. And biological groups change over time. But the mechanisms by which each does so are significantly different. Change in genetic lineages is limited to working with what's already there, while cultures can invent "mutations" out of thin air, borrow freely from other cultures, or even borrow extinct pieces of their own past.

This difference has dogged evolutionary analyses of culture since Richard Dawkins invented the word "memes" as a cultural analogue to genes in the last chapter of The Selfish Gene in Furthermore, doing so threatens to naturalize cultural processes whose outcomes can then be seen as "natural" rather than as constructions constantly contested across multiple cultural divisions that are themselves cultural constructs.

What this last point highlights, in other words, is that the unsound metaphor of process also contains hidden content, or what might be called the secret meta-narratives of evolutionary thinking. The natural process of evolutionary change, when applied to human culture, implies or threatens to imply two conclusions about human cultures. The first is that different cultures are the equivalent of different biological species, which are defined by their inability to interbreed productively.

This sort of essentialism is, of course, not just miselading but extremely dangerous, as any look at the influence of white supremacist or more generally ethnic nationalist ideology on current politics shows. The second is, admittedly, based on a popular misunderstanding of biological evolution, but one so pervasive especially in ethnic nationalist ideology that we need to set up warning lights and police tape around it rather than promoting it, even unintentionally: it is that things progress through evolution, with humans at the top of the evolutionary ladder.

But as evolutionary biologists consistently argue, life is a bush, not a ladder or tree , and there is no "top", nor does evolution have a direction. We should leave a hierarchized march of progress in the "evolution" of human cultures to 19 th century historians.

Who, fortunately, are all dead. I want to make explicitly clear that I am not accusing Dr. Szostak of promoting either of these conclusions. I simply point out that a bad metaphorical process can lead to bad stories about history, and evolution is, for history, a bad metaphorical process for analysis.

Szostak himself says that evolution might be accused of violating his first principle of innocuousness by introducing an over-simplifying meta-narrative. He defends it by pointing to the analytical questions it invites. I don't think this lets evolution escape the problem because evolutionary analysis, as I have just argued, implicitly generates its own meta-narratives.

Surprisingly, however, I also think that meta-narrative is not a problem per se: his concern about meta-narrative is misplaced. In defense of meta-narrative. Szostak's two principles of innocuousness in creating devices for organizing world history are:. I think the second is wrong, in principle, and I will return to it later in discussing pedagogy.

I think the first is narrowly correct but throws the conceptual baby out with the historiographical bathwater. Let us start with a fundamental feature of human psychology plus some historiographical theory. We are a species that understands the universe and ourselves via metaphor and storytelling.

If every picture tells a story, it is because we tell a story about every picture. One need not go all full-Hayden White with this point 5 to reach the basic post-modernist conclusion that each historical story is grounded in selection of evidence combined with interpretation and therefore cannot attain any absolute level of "objective truth".

Every historical story, if it is worth reading at least, will, by virtue of the fact that is is interpretive, have a point, maybe several. A point: in other words, a meta-narrative. It is true that the literary conventions governing historical writing create the expectation among readers of history that historical stories will conform to scientific standards of use of evidence even if the sense of "science" here is more the German Wissenschaft than the English sense of experimental physics.

Bad meta-narrative is what gave meta-narrative a problematic reputation, as 19 th and 20 th century narratives about European superiority and Progress shaped all sorts of histories in racist, sexist, and classist ways that need no further explication here.

But they were bad because the racist, sexist, etc. If we approach the evidence without such preconceptions and allow it to guide our conclusions, as the ideal of scientific method posits, then what emerges should be closer to a good meta-narrative. Yes, yes, what I just said above about perspective and interpretation seems to contradict the possibility of such an approach. Methodological reminder: science and thus history as science is a collective enterprise, whose collectivity helps it be self-correcting.

And, as in natural science — a neglected point — "scientific" history never reaches The Truth, but can make an asymptotic approach to some truths or at least better understandings of the past couched as meta-narratives. In sum, if we look at the incomplete, selected evidence, generalize from it, leave our generalizations open to testing against further evidence and thus to modification if necessary, and view exceptions as invitations to further research, then we've got the foundations of good meta-narratives.

In other words, meta-narrative, as defined here, arises from generalization, and is therefore not just necessary for creating new knowledge from piles of evidence, but is almost certainly inevitable given the way our minds work. And without generalizations and other shaping of the evidence that constitute the process of working with piles of evidence to make a story, we have no history, merely antiquarianism. Thus, I think Rick's call for innocuous devices for organizing world history is not just a call to an unattainable Rankean ideal of objectivity, but a misleading one especially to students that elides its own unattainability.

Two key principles for making good meta-narratives. If we aim at being scientific rather than innocuous, then what we want are organizing principles for world history that allow us to arrange the vast pile of world history evidence in a way that makes it more comprehensible — to students or to any audience, including ourselves.

Put another way, organizing world history is about our ongoing attempt to understand world history. How do we do this? First, we recognize the necessity to boil it down. Generalization involves simplification. This, of course, is where doing world history runs afoul of the mindset ingrained in our profession that what historians do is investigate the interesting differences, the specific textures of individual cases.

Generalization is for sociologists, political scientists, and other "social science" types; history is one of the humanities. Except that vast swathes of history are comfortably social science-oriented already, so let's toss that objection. What really matters, I suspect, is the level of generalization necessary to do world history, in which, in order to emcompass our topic on a truly global scale, we have to fly far higher than many historians are comfortable with.

At usual history altitudes, to give a visual metaphor, the differences between forests of pine, maple, oak, ash, birch, and so forth are visible and may well be significant.

From world history altitude, they're all forests, and contrast more usefully with deserts, steppes, and glaciated mountains. So push the level of generalization up.

Frameworks of World History: Networks, Hierarchies, Culture, Volume Two: Since 1350

Executives are often confounded by culture, because much of it is anchored in unspoken behaviors, mindsets, and social patterns. Many leaders either let it go unmanaged or relegate it to HR, where it becomes a secondary concern for the business. This is a mistake, because properly managed, culture can help them achieve change and build organizations that will thrive in even the most trying times. The authors have reviewed the literature on culture and distilled eight distinct culture styles: caring, focused on relationships and mutual trust; purpose, exemplified by idealism and altruism; learning, characterized by exploration, expansiveness, and creativity; enjoyment, expressed through fun and excitement; results, characterized by achievement and winning; authority, defined by strength, decisiveness, and boldness; safety, defined by planning, caution, and preparedness; and order, focused on respect, structure, and shared norms. They can be used to diagnose and describe highly complex and diverse behavioral patterns in a culture and to model how likely an individual leader is to align with and shape that culture.

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again.

Frameworks of World History

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies.

Frameworks of World History: Networks, Hierarchies, Culture

Why don't make it to become your habit? Right now, try to prepare your time to do the important behave, like looking for your favorite publication and reading a publication. It means that it can to be your friend when you truly feel alone and beside regarding course make you smarter than in the past. Yeah, it is very fortuned to suit your needs. The book makes you much more confidence because you can know everything by the book. So , let us make new experience and knowledge with this book.

Metrics details. This paper provides a viewpoint of the culture and subcultures at Google Inc. Through its history of development, it has had positive impacts on society; however; there have been management challenges.

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again.

GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management

Он не верил своим глазам. Немец не хотел его оскорбить, он пытался помочь. Беккер посмотрел на ее лицо.

Беккер посмотрел вниз, на свои ноги. До апельсиновых деревьев не меньше ста метров. Никаких шансов. Боль в боку усилилась. Сверху слышался гулкий звук шагов, спешащих вниз по лестнице.

Сьюзан замолчала. Танкадо мертв. Как это удобно.

 - Но кажется довольно подозрительным.


Izham T.


The problem addressed by this forum is how to organize world history.

Grace N.


Frameworks of World History: Networks, Hierarchies, Culture. Stephen Morillo. PrefaceThis book has been a long time in the making. I've developed its.

Byron A.


Static and dynamic hashing in data structure pdf 2004 oldsmobile alero owners manual pdf

Belda S.


Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Farid O.


Historical sources are pieces of the past that have come down to us today the Frameworks model of networks, hierarchies, and cultural frames and screens is nameless bureaucrat) or an oral epic poem (author: many people in a culture).