Does this make sense?

[SuburbanFarmer]

“Why are most historical sources about political dealings, diplomacy and military engagements.?”

Because those are the most important events in human history, other than new technologies and achievements. There weren't a lot of those in the past (relative to now), so what else would you document?

Also, every historian, and every human being, sees their time as being completely normal and boring. They have to, in order to function in society. It's very rare that anyone takes the time to document/record the daily life of their society, and put it in a lasting format.

[I just Lurk]

I'm currently getting my masters, and I'm taking a historiography class. This is an exchange between me and my professor on a discussion board. You people are usually pretty good at destroying each other's weak ass arguments (usually in an entertaining way). Does what I wrote make sense? Or is this just incoherent ramblings?

Professor

"I think you've raised some interesting ideas here. One thing I would argue, though, is that the interests of the elites, rather than the power of the state, shaped historical topics. For much of the time we've studied, elites have been involved in politics, war and diplomacy. Therefore, those that were interested in history would want to read histories on those subjects, and those who wrote histories probably had an interest in those subjects. Of course, those topics are still studied by historians- including myself, and I'm hardly a social elite. Why do you think this is?"

My Response

"Professor, I would argue that the interests of an elite and the interests of the state that the elite control are the same. This is because the state is a tool that the elites can use to perform their will. It seems to be the case that every large complex society since since the neolithic revolution has had an elite and a state. The two are inseparable. The more numerous or complex the society, the more powerful the state. Even Communist societies that were explicitly created to be classless still had an elite, and a large powerful state. Those Dachas on the black sea were not given out in a lottery, powerful members of the Communist party would get them. Elites seem to be an inevitable result of large complex human societies, and states seem to be an inevitable result of elites. So if the elites of large complex societies write history, why is the history in our society explored by mostly middle class academics? I would argue this is a result of Industrialization. Industrial societies require higher levels of literacy and cognition to function. Post industrial societies that focus on the development of technology, like the US, require even more literacy and cognition to function. Historically, being able to read and explore ideas are not attributes required by most societies for most of their population. If Newton was born in the Ukraine in a peasant village in 1000 AD, he would not have developed Calculus. He probably would never even learn to read. The brainpower of the elites was enough to sustain preindustrial agrarian societies. This is not the case now. Our society requires tremendous amounts of brainpower to even function. Elites of Industrial (and Post Industrial) societies use the power of the state to cultivate brainpower. They do not do this out of sympathy or altruism, but because it is currently necessary for their societies to function. A direct result of this cultivation of brainpower is that non-elites now have the mental tools to function as historians, if they have the passion.

Ps - I have never thought of the relationship of elites and the state in this model before. I think it is important to define the term elites as I am using it in the above paragraph. Elites are the people that control the state. They could be the most wealthy of a society, or they could be the warrior class, or they could be bureaucrats and politicians, as in our society."

I agree with StA, your prof has you on this. The elites can certainly study history, if they choose to, but it's no requirement of being an elite - or of writing history.

Your response is correct, up until you get into the question about why the middle class mostly studies history. An elite education will certainly include a deep understanding of history, but again, that is not a requirement to be an elite. We are a plutocracy - our elites are determined by financial wealth, not knowledge, or merit.

Also, the education inflation of modern society is immense. Even the most inept fry cook has what would have been an elite education, just a few hundred years ago. The mere ability to read and perform basic math would have been an upper-class pursuit in the early 19th. That does not necessarily equate to deep or critical thinking, and everyone is not now a grand philosopher (or even above the level of idiocy). The non-elites certainly have the "tools" to pursue deeper knowledge, but the masses are, as ever, blissfully ignorant of anything beyond Right Now.

I'm not sure what the larger debate was about... But he's got the upper hand, from this excerpt.

Im not talking about today’s elites. I was answering the question “Why is there no peasants writing about history throughout history?” The things required to write histories (reading documents, interviewing people, training in critical thinking, not being exhausted because you just fucking tilled fields for 16 hours) were not available.

[I just Lurk]

“Why are most historical sources about political dealings, diplomacy and military engagements.?”

Because those are the most important events in human history, other than new technologies and achievements. There weren't a lot of those in the past (relative to now), so what else would you document?

Also, every historian, and every human being, sees their time as being completely normal and boring. They have to, in order to function in society. It's very rare that anyone takes the time to document/record the daily life of their society, and put it in a lasting format.

So for the last 8000 years pretty much all sources just wrote about things central to the state because “ Ordinary life was too boring?”
For 8000 years?

Until all of a sudden, at just about the time literacy rates skyrocket, and a middle class emerges (200 years ago) people start writing histories of things not involving the state?

Huge coincidence, right?

[SuburbanFarmer]

“Why are most historical sources about political dealings, diplomacy and military engagements.?”

Because those are the most important events in human history, other than new technologies and achievements. There weren't a lot of those in the past (relative to now), so what else would you document?

Also, every historian, and every human being, sees their time as being completely normal and boring. They have to, in order to function in society. It's very rare that anyone takes the time to document/record the daily life of their society, and put it in a lasting format.

So for the last 8000 years pretty much all sources just wrote about things central to the state because “ Ordinary life was too boring?”
For 8000 years?

Until all of a sudden, at just about the time literacy rates skyrocket, and a middle class emerges (200 years ago) people start writing histories of things not involving the state?

Huge coincidence, right?

Keep in mind the effort that it takes to record anything that will last 1000 years. It's not a small thing.

There were romance stories and personal letters found in egyptian remains, so we know that it wasn't all grand state-related epics of history. But those finds are incredibly rare because almost everything decays on that timescale. Even CDs and hard drives won't last more than a few decades (assuming that we could still use them). It requires an extremely durable medium, and a near-perfect storage that won't be tampered with. That sort of thing isn't done for any less than Great Events, unless there's a fluky thing like the Dead Sea Scrolls that get forgotten about for centuries.

[heydaralon]

I'm currently getting my masters, and I'm taking a historiography class. This is an exchange between me and my professor on a discussion board. You people are usually pretty good at destroying each other's weak ass arguments (usually in an entertaining way). Does what I wrote make sense? Or is this just incoherent ramblings?

Professor

"I think you've raised some interesting ideas here. One thing I would argue, though, is that the interests of the elites, rather than the power of the state, shaped historical topics. For much of the time we've studied, elites have been involved in politics, war and diplomacy. Therefore, those that were interested in history would want to read histories on those subjects, and those who wrote histories probably had an interest in those subjects. Of course, those topics are still studied by historians- including myself, and I'm hardly a social elite. Why do you think this is?"

My Response

"Professor, I would argue that the interests of an elite and the interests of the state that the elite control are the same. This is because the state is a tool that the elites can use to perform their will. It seems to be the case that every large complex society since since the neolithic revolution has had an elite and a state. The two are inseparable. The more numerous or complex the society, the more powerful the state. Even Communist societies that were explicitly created to be classless still had an elite, and a large powerful state. Those Dachas on the black sea were not given out in a lottery, powerful members of the Communist party would get them. Elites seem to be an inevitable result of large complex human societies, and states seem to be an inevitable result of elites. So if the elites of large complex societies write history, why is the history in our society explored by mostly middle class academics? I would argue this is a result of Industrialization. Industrial societies require higher levels of literacy and cognition to function. Post industrial societies that focus on the development of technology, like the US, require even more literacy and cognition to function. Historically, being able to read and explore ideas are not attributes required by most societies for most of their population. If Newton was born in the Ukraine in a peasant village in 1000 AD, he would not have developed Calculus. He probably would never even learn to read. The brainpower of the elites was enough to sustain preindustrial agrarian societies. This is not the case now. Our society requires tremendous amounts of brainpower to even function. Elites of Industrial (and Post Industrial) societies use the power of the state to cultivate brainpower. They do not do this out of sympathy or altruism, but because it is currently necessary for their societies to function. A direct result of this cultivation of brainpower is that non-elites now have the mental tools to function as historians, if they have the passion.

Ps - I have never thought of the relationship of elites and the state in this model before. I think it is important to define the term elites as I am using it in the above paragraph. Elites are the people that control the state. They could be the most wealthy of a society, or they could be the warrior class, or they could be bureaucrats and politicians, as in our society."

Nice white privelege shitbag. What did you major in hate crimes?

[I just Lurk]

With a minor in Pimp Slapping. The trick is you have to open the hand right before it hits the face. It still lets them know whose boss, but doesn't leave any bruises that might "decrease productivity".

It really helped with your mom. In fact, it motivated her to become my bottom bitch from May of 2014 - June of 2015.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The answer might be as simple as "those were the people keeping records."

It is difficult to compile a history of the largely unrecorded. You can go the arts, but they are... unreliable.

[Ex-California]

“Why are most historical sources about political dealings, diplomacy and military engagements.?”

Because those are the most important events in human history, other than new technologies and achievements. There weren't a lot of those in the past (relative to now), so what else would you document?

Also, every historian, and every human being, sees their time as being completely normal and boring. They have to, in order to function in society. It's very rare that anyone takes the time to document/record the daily life of their society, and put it in a lasting format.

So for the last 8000 years pretty much all sources just wrote about things central to the state because “ Ordinary life was too boring?”
For 8000 years?

Until all of a sudden, at just about the time literacy rates skyrocket, and a middle class emerges (200 years ago) people start writing histories of things not involving the state?

Huge coincidence, right?

Its not that ordinary life is boring, it is just not important. Will anyone care 100 years from now that I woke up yesterday, went and surfed, then went kickboxing, then circuit training after that. Post circuit training, I broke my 20 hour fast and then smoked some weed and played video games for 3 hours. After that, I watched UFC 219, but I used Reddit to find a stream which I AirPlayed from my Mac through my AppleTV. Finally at 9:15pm I left to go to work, where I largely did nothing for the 8 hours that funds my and my family's life.

How many people did something similar yesterday?

[I just Lurk]

Good point.

Just because I'm ornery and I like to argue about bullshit, I'll play devils advocate and say this.

It can be said that large scale movements and events are actually the results of a culmination of smaller movements and events. These movements and events are also culminations of smaller movements and events, and so on and so fourth, things keep breaking down in this manner. Do the actions of you or me matter in the grand scheme of things? nope. but the collective sum of our (each individual in an society) actions does have an influence.

Cancer always starts with a single cell. A route always starts with one dude noping the fuck out at the wrong time. It's arrogant to say that you know what your actions, or anyone's actions will lead to on a long enough timeline. We live in a complicated, emergent reality.

But enough stoner talk. I wanted to put an idea outside the confines of the circle jerk that is academia, and get some reactions in the "real"world. Mission accomplished.

[I just Lurk]

Where's the math?

I don't know what that means. Does that mean you want me to prove what I am saying?

I have no proof. I had a mental model about an aspect of reality. I will now keep this mental model in the back of my head. When I read a new piece of Information i will ask "does this information support or refute this mental model"?