What comes after early modern?
Dan Goodman
about 1800 to about -- when? Till X number of years before present? Till
present? Till a point at which things changed significantly?
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
bga...@my-dejanews.com
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
> Logically, next after early modern history would be late modern: from
> about 1800 to about -- when? Till X number of years before present? Till
> present? Till a point at which things changed significantly?
>
Logically, next would be modern and then post-modern.
Again, quite logically, modern should run neatly from 1800 till 2000.
> --
> Dan Goodman
> dsg...@visi.com
> http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
> Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Donald Tucker
Returned from "vacation" (or whatever else one calls an
absence to deal with necessary matters away from home) and
found that shem was up and running today. My server shows
Dan Goodman's post as the 4th one to shwi. But what is
the topic? Dates of periods! Owtch! I thought we had
flogged this to death in the discussion before formation of
the group :)
Dan Goodman (dsg...@visi.com) writes:
> Logically, next after early modern history would be late modern: from
> about 1800 to about -- when? Till X number of years before present? Till
> present? Till a point at which things changed significantly?
>
As for when is modern, it probably began in the popular mentality
in France after 1889. Love of "la patrie" rather than "le roi" etc.
It did not become firmly established untill the second or third
decade of the 19th century.
Modern started to run into trouble in the popular mentality during
WW I, when peoples belief in the Enlightment project of the
modern was challenged. But despite post-modernist movements I
believe that we are still in the modern era.
To get back to the pre-modern/early-modern era covered by
shwi, here are some random thoughts....
We live in a world where most people -- at least in the rich
counties -- can communicate promptly with people who live far
away, travel great distances with little effort, and live
healthy and interesting lives. Less than two centuries ago
this was impossible. During the early 19th century people
gained the benefits of rapid communication and transportation by
telegraph, steamship and railroad. They also experienced the
changes in lifestles resulting from the rapid expansion of
factories where people worked with powered machines with
increasingly remote owners. The growth of organizations
produced managerial and professional jobs with functions that
only courtiers had done in earlier eras.
The modern world differs from the pre-modern/early-modern in
many ways beyond our immersion in technology. Our views of
how and why things happen, the meaning of events, and even
our reasons for doing things have changed immensely.
We can understand why modern people act as they do -- even
when they lived in societies such as the grimy early industrial
England described by Charles Dickens, the bourgeois France of
Emile Zola and the the United States de Tocqueville. We have
developed societies that have entrenched legal protection
for individual rights and have experienced the trauma of
dealing with societies in which personal lives are regimented
by by totalitarian governments. Corporations control our
economic relationships and most of us are employees.
But when we look back at the early 19th century and earlier
we see that people lived in eras that increasingly differ
from the modern world. Even the most informed people of
earlier eras operated in frameworks that we find difficult
to accept. For example, persons who we we now categorize
as scientists gave as much credence to astrological and other
explanations as to material ones.
As we go back further in time we find that views become even
more foreign.
Admittedly, basic motivations are eternal. We strive for good
lives for ourselves and our children. We have no difficulty
in understanding why princes fought wars to support their
dynastic claims to titles. But we also know that such wars died
out as governments began to depend on democratic support in
the modern era.
But we are intrigued by the question of how and why we developed
modern views.
There is no short answer or single explanation.
Rather, it is buried in many incremental changes linked to diverse
events from the traditional world of the 14th century -- when
Asia and Europe were recovering from the effects of the era of
Mongol domination and the Black Death -- to the explosion of
modern views, values and techniques in the early 19th century.
This mental and technical transformation is fused with the political
and economic explosion of Euopeans from the western peninsula of
Eurasia to domination of societies around the world.
And so forth.
So what do *you* think?
Donald ____,__==@~~__,____ Pteranodon Visioneering:
logo ^^^\#\#[#]#/#/^^^ Views on the past, present and future.
copyright _/|\_ History: World, Alternate etc, FAQs; Maps
1996-98 " " © http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/
soon: 1350 to 1825 Year by Year, from Mongol to Western dominance.
C.A. WILLIAMS
>
> Logically, next after early modern history would be late modern: from
> about 1800 to about -- when?
Muse <on>
I'd call it 'modern history' and start it at 1800. Then, 'comtemporary
history' starts at vaguely 'the point more than 20 years ago at which
things assumed their present shape'. At the moment, that's 1945, but it
might become 1973 quite soon. Or not
Muse <off>
Categorisation's a bit difficult, isn't it? Any system is going to have
to be an arbitrary label, since the system has very few inherent and
un-problematic properties that we can refer to.
Chris
Dick Wisan
>
>In article <D_092.1894$764.7...@ptah.visi.com>,
> dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
>> Logically, next after early modern history would be late modern: from
>> present? Till a point at which things changed significantly?
>
>
>Again, quite logically, modern should run neatly from 1800 till 2000.
What? Still living in Modern Times? Well, some of us no doubt, but
the clever people have been Post-Modern for some time, now.
Seriously, this use of "modern" troubles me. When I was a pup, they
showed me "modern art" --things like the architecture of Rockefeller
Center, the typefaces and interior design of places like Lindy's
restaurant, streamlined trains like the Burlington Zephyr, and the
World's Fair of 1939. In time, of course, these things began to look
a bit tacky & out of date, and the (then) current artists were doing
something else, but I still had to call it "modern art" because there
wasn't any other name. At one point, I took to calling it "modren",
that is, what ignorant people thought was modern. Fortunately, it got
a name in time for its revival (& second demise), and I could happily
classify it as "Art Deco".
When (somebody said it was along about the time of the French Revolution)
people began to speak self-consciously of the "modern" era, they meant
"up-to-date", "the present", "the latest thing", just as we did when
we called The World's Fair "modern". Well, as periods go, this one was
pretty well distinguishable, and interesting characterizations have been
offered (in terms of the Enlightenment, Science", etc), but it never got
a name to distinguish it from the next one. (Do they ever? Renaissance
people didn't call their times "the Renaissance", Medievals didn't call
themselves "medieval" & the ancients weren't "Ancient" until rather later.
Everybody lives in the nowadays. The latest thing is always up to date.
So, considering the future (or the present, if you're already pomo), we
need a name for our (or the recently completed) era. Then we can use
"modern" as it should be used, on the then-current period. "Modern"
won't do when the era is (or was) over, and "Post-Modern" is an oxymoron.
Any suggestions?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@catskill.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Matthew Harley
> But what is
> the topic? Dates of periods! Owtch! I thought we had
> flogged this to death in the discussion before formation of
> the group :)
You said it and I for one am not going to get into the dates question
again!
By the way Donald have you finished your timeline for the e-m period and
where can it be visited?
Matt Harley
Joseph Askew
>> Logically, next after early modern history would be late modern: from
>> about 1800 to about -- when? Till X number of years before present? Till
>> present? Till a point at which things changed significantly?
>Logically, next would be modern and then post-modern.
I have to agree. I don't see how you can go from early modern to
late modern without a modern inbetween. But I think we ought to go
for soc.history.victorian. After all "early modern" implies a useful
ideological construct. So does "modern" only it is less useful and
could be misleading. I'ld go for s.h.victorian from 1815 to 1904 myself
even if some of that isn't Victorian. And all over the West there is a
common culture that can be called "Victorian" imo.
>Again, quite logically, modern should run neatly from 1800 till 2000.
Except there doesn't seem to be any point. 1911 is a good date for
China. To be exact 1834 to 1911. If you cut off at 1904 you don't
have to deal with modern Art (always a good thing) or pretty much
anything modern except perhaps Marx. A useful time-frame in my opinion.
After 1904 everything is, of course, journalism.
Joseph
--
Reason Why I'm Never Going to Get an Academic Job Number Three:
"[Monsanto] said that they had carried out 'extensive safety
assessments of new biotech crops' including tests using rats
that have results published in journals" (http://news.bbc.co.uk)
Christian Saefken
>I'd call it 'modern history' and start it at 1800. Then, 'comtemporary
>history' starts at vaguely 'the point more than 20 years ago at which
>things assumed their present shape'. At the moment, that's 1945, but it
>might become 1973 quite soon. Or not
What do you think of 1989 as the end of the cold war period?
Christian
collou...@my-dejanews.com
jas...@chomsky.arts.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
(snip)
> After 1904 everything is, of course, journalism.
Oh come now, some of it is most certainly anthropology and sociology, with the
odd dash of mass psychology throw in.
But more seriously, why 1904?????? Now say 1960, okay, but 1904?
Chris Jensen
: In article <74312m$7ro$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bga...@my-dejanews.com says...
: >
: >In article <D_092.1894$764.7...@ptah.visi.com>,
: >
: >Logically, next would be modern and then post-modern.
: >
: >Again, quite logically, modern should run neatly from 1800 till 2000.
: What? Still living in Modern Times? Well, some of us no doubt, but
: the clever people have been Post-Modern for some time, now.
<snip>
: When (somebody said it was along about the time of the French Revolution)
: people began to speak self-consciously of the "modern" era, they meant
: "up-to-date", "the present", "the latest thing", just as we did when
: we called The World's Fair "modern". Well, as periods go, this one was
: pretty well distinguishable, and interesting characterizations have been
: offered (in terms of the Enlightenment, Science", etc), but it never got
: a name to distinguish it from the next one. (Do they ever? Renaissance
: people didn't call their times "the Renaissance", Medievals didn't call
: themselves "medieval" & the ancients weren't "Ancient" until rather later.
: Everybody lives in the nowadays. The latest thing is always up to date.
: So, considering the future (or the present, if you're already pomo), we
: need a name for our (or the recently completed) era. Then we can use
: "modern" as it should be used, on the then-current period. "Modern"
: won't do when the era is (or was) over, and "Post-Modern" is an oxymoron.
: Any suggestions?
I think designation of recent periods depends on what aspect of human
existence you are keying on. Being an engineer I prefer to
compartmentalize history into eras of technology. I would propose that we
are on the edge between an Industrial period and an Information period (not
exactly novel I know) I imagine that life at the turn of the next century
will be dramatically different. This change will be even more
revolutionary than what occurred from 1750 to 1850 and will impact every
aspect of life just as the industrial revolution did.
Are we already off topic? Oh well.
Chris J.
Pilar Quezzaire
: Logically, next would be modern and then post-modern.
: Again, quite logically, modern should run neatly from 1800 till 2000.
In what subject within history exactly? I'd argue that the attitudes that
shape post-modern thought stem directly from the cynicism of the 60's in
most. You begin to see deconstructionist and revisionist histories about
that time--and I think such studies mark a change in thought that smacks
of what we term post-modern.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Quezzaire-Belle Art Geek quez...@fas.harvard.edu
"Social historian? Is that some kinda disease? A new virus, perhaps..."
"No. I'm one of those people who gets paid to discuss how stupid the rest
of humanity is. I'm Howard Stern with a respectable rep."
--Conversation online
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Goodman
Postmodernism?"
So if you're post-modern, chances are you're living in the past.
Mary Gentle
dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
> There's a book (published several years ago) titled "What
>Was Postmodernism?"
>
> So if you're post-modern, chances are you're living in the
>past.
So are we Post-Futurist now?
Mary
Chris Williams
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
> So are we Post-Futurist now?
Futurism is history.
Chris
Dick Wisan
>
>bga...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>: Logically, next would be modern and then post-modern.
>
>: Again, quite logically, modern should run neatly from 1800 till 2000.
>
>In what subject within history exactly? I'd argue that the attitudes that
>shape post-modern thought stem directly from the cynicism of the 60's in
>most. You begin to see deconstructionist and revisionist histories about
>that time--and I think such studies mark a change in thought that smacks
>of what we term post-modern.
Umm, sounds like the right point, and (I think) it's fair to say it
wasn't a US only phenomenon. At least "The West" wide? Can we
claim it's wider than that?
Within (the-writing-of) history, that's when we began to get avowed
thesis-first-data-afterwards historians. (Did anybody catch --does
anybody recall) the interview, some years ago, in which Adm. Morisson
explained how that came about?) But, even outside the writing of
history, the 60's still look like a transition point.
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
collou...@my-dejanews.com
wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
> In article <746v0q$645$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, quez...@fas.harvard.edu
says...
> >
> >bga...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >: Logically, next would be modern and then post-modern.
> >
> >: Again, quite logically, modern should run neatly from 1800 till 2000.
> >
> >In what subject within history exactly? I'd argue that the attitudes that
> >shape post-modern thought stem directly from the cynicism of the 60's in
> >most. You begin to see deconstructionist and revisionist histories about
> >that time--and I think such studies mark a change in thought that smacks
> >of what we term post-modern.
>
> Umm, sounds like the right point, and (I think) it's fair to say it
> wasn't a US only phenomenon. At least "The West" wide? Can we
> claim it's wider than that?
I think really you have to look to France first, I don't think deconstruction
real hit history until well into the 1980s (literature is a whole different
ball game, maybe cultural anthro too). I'm also a little unclear about
"revisionist" history, what do ya'll mean by that? (Not posed as a naive
question)
> Within (the-writing-of) history, that's when we began to get avowed
> thesis-first-data-afterwards historians.
Huh? You have to have a thesis of some kind before you begin, I mean how else
do you decide where to look? Or are you talking about Thesis full speed ahead
and damn the data?
>(Did anybody catch --does
> anybody recall) the interview, some years ago, in which Adm. Morisson
> explained how that came about?)
No, could you give a nugget?
Pilar Quezzaire
:>In what subject within history exactly? I'd argue that the attitudes that
:>shape post-modern thought stem directly from the cynicism of the 60's in
:>most. You begin to see deconstructionist and revisionist histories about
:>that time--and I think such studies mark a change in thought that smacks
:>of what we term post-modern.
: Umm, sounds like the right point, and (I think) it's fair to say it
: wasn't a US only phenomenon. At least "The West" wide? Can we
: claim it's wider than that?
I think we can at least claim similar movements in post-colonial
third-world countries, especially in Africa, where national consciousness
was raised in part by questioning the Western concept of modernism. It is
in part this recognition of self that spurred deconstructionism in the
first place--it is the first time we hear en masse third-world voices
speaking in first-world tongues. Ooh, I'm sounding like Homi Bhabha
now, someone make it stop! :)
To qualify myself, I am an African Art historian.
: Within (the-writing-of) history, that's when we began to get avowed
: thesis-first-data-afterwards historians. (Did anybody catch --does
: anybody recall) the interview, some years ago, in which Adm. Morisson
: explained how that came about?) But, even outside the writing of
: history, the 60's still look like a transition point.
I don't agree with the assumption that thesis-first starts in the 60's.
Especially in the social sciences, like psychology and anthropology that
kind of process was the norm, and some of the assumptions (rather
erroneous ones) made by these academics are still hurting us today.
This doesn't detract from the 60's beinga turning point. What makes teh
thesis-first process so poignant following this period is that MORE people
with varying backgrounds and DIFFERENT assumptions were using the same
methods to support them. So we get an explosion of opinions--and tah-dah!
We have relativism. Post-structuralism. Multiple "structures" of thought
lended to the notion that no structure existed AT ALL.
I think that is distinctly post-modern. The word modern suggests one
mode...
Mary Gentle
CA...@le.ac.uk (Chris Williams) wrote:
Of course: silly me. We've just been through the End of
History, haven't we?
That's going to make life difficult...
Perhaps we should drop all these Middle
Ages/Renaissance/Modern classifications, and revert to
Tolkien - we must be still in the Third Age: the Age of Man.
That should suffice until the Elves come back.
Mary
Pilar Quezzaire
: In article <748u9r$k...@news3.newsguy.com>,
: wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
:> In article <746v0q$645$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>, quez...@fas.harvard.edu
: says...
:> >In what subject within history exactly? I'd argue that the attitudes that
:> >shape post-modern thought stem directly from the cynicism of the 60's in
:> >most. You begin to see deconstructionist and revisionist histories about
:> >that time--and I think such studies mark a change in thought that smacks
:> >of what we term post-modern.
:>
:> Umm, sounds like the right point, and (I think) it's fair to say it
:> wasn't a US only phenomenon. At least "The West" wide? Can we
:> claim it's wider than that?
: I think really you have to look to France first, I don't think deconstruction
: real hit history until well into the 1980s (literature is a whole different
: ball game, maybe cultural anthro too). I'm also a little unclear about
: "revisionist" history, what do ya'll mean by that? (Not posed as a naive
: question)
Umm, Foucault was writing WELL before teh 80's, and what about that entire
movement at Yale in the 60's against structuralism? I think
deconstructionism as a trend wasn'tPOPULAR until the 80's, but it sure was
around well before then, and in the US. Lots of little anti-Kublers
runningaorund and what not.
If you include the afrocentric revisionist histories of the 60's, we've
got serious dents in the 80's argument.
: Huh? You have to have a thesis of some kind before you begin, I mean
: how else do you decide where to look? Or are you talking about Thesis
: full speed ahead and damn the data?
I'm talking look-I've-got-model-wh-cares-if-it doesn't work--thesis damn
the data, yes.
Dick Wisan
>> thesis-first-data-afterwards historians.
>
>how else do you decide where to look? Or are you talking about Thesis
>full speed ahead and damn the data?
Yes.
The difference is between using a Thesis (that is, an idea) to guide the
search for data
(a) to test the thesis, adjusting it as you go to fit the data
you find and
(b) to support the thesis, selecting (and adjusting?) the data
you find to fit the thesis.
>>(Did anybody catch --does
>> anybody recall) the interview, some years ago, in which Adm. Morisson
>> explained how that came about?)
>
>No, could you give a nugget?
Umm, well, as I recall it, he explained that when he started out, if
you wanted to be a historian, you went to Harvard or [names of 3 or 4
other universities] and they taught you how to do it, and there weren't
very many of you. But, then, there came all of these state universities
[yup, "state universities"] and they needed lots and lots of historians
to staff them, and the standard deteriorated.
Magisterial figure, the Admiral.
--
collou...@my-dejanews.com
wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
> In article <749b7j$l1h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, collou...@my-dejanews.com
says...
> >
> >In article <748u9r$k...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> > wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
> >
> >> Within (the-writing-of) history, that's when we began to get avowed
> >> thesis-first-data-afterwards historians.
> >
> >Huh? You have to have a thesis of some kind before you begin, I mean
> >how else do you decide where to look? Or are you talking about Thesis
> >full speed ahead and damn the data?
>
> Yes.
>
> The difference is between using a Thesis (that is, an idea) to guide the
> search for data
>
> (a) to test the thesis, adjusting it as you go to fit the data
> you find and
> (b) to support the thesis, selecting (and adjusting?) the data
> you find to fit the thesis.
Just making clear. (the oh so precious temptation of (b))
> >>(Did anybody catch --does
> >> anybody recall) the interview, some years ago, in which Adm. Morisson
> >> explained how that came about?)
> >
> >No, could you give a nugget?
>
> Umm, well, as I recall it, he explained that when he started out, if
> you wanted to be a historian, you went to Harvard or [names of 3 or 4
> other universities] and they taught you how to do it, and there weren't
> very many of you. But, then, there came all of these state universities
> [yup, "state universities"] and they needed lots and lots of historians
> to staff them, and the standard deteriorated.
Hmnmm, sounds like a grumpy old aristo version of history. Of course there
has been an overproduction of historians, but I think the main journals all
look up to snuff.
Dick Wisan
This sub-thread has been turning up some very fine posts, but nobody
has commented on my plea for a new name for "modern" (and I suppose
"post-modern" and "early-modern") on the grounds that "modern" is the
wrong name for a period if it's over & "post-modern" is an oxymoron.
Again, suggestions anybody?
Benjamin P. Carter
>"modern" is the
>wrong name for a period if it's over & "post-modern" is an oxymoron.
As far as I can tell, "modern" usually means post-medieval, i.e., from
about 1500 to the present. This includes "recent" and "contemporary"
history and "current events", although for practical reasons a historian
may choose to ignore everything past a certain date.
--
Ben Carter
Dick Wisan
says...
>
>In article <74c79h$k...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
>
>> >>(Did anybody catch --does
>> >> anybody recall) the interview, some years ago, in which Adm. Morisson
>> >> explained how that came about?)
>> >
>> >No, could you give a nugget?
>>
>> Umm, well, as I recall it, he explained that when he started out, if
>> you wanted to be a historian, you went to Harvard or [names of 3 or 4
>> other universities] and they taught you how to do it, and there weren't
>> very many of you. But, then, there came all of these state universities
>> [yup, "state universities"] and they needed lots and lots of historians
>> to staff them, and the standard deteriorated.
>
>Hmnmm, sounds like a grumpy old aristo version of history.
Is it ever!
> Of course there
>has been an overproduction of historians, but I think the main journals all
>look up to snuff.
The question is whether the practice of research to prove a political
position publication adopted before the research is conducted is still
as fashionable as it was when Adm. M harrumphed.
Dick Wisan
Well, of course, if it's still going on, it's still ok to call it
the "modern" age. The problem comes for people who want to say that
it ended (1914? 1962?).
The posts which discuss the end of the modern era (presuming it _has_
ended) seem all to mention the "Enlightenment" and the "Enlightenment
Project". Since "the Enlightenment" usually refers (well, it used to
usually refer) either to a narrower age, essentially Louis XIV to the
French Revolution or to a specific movement which occurred in Europe
during that period, we'd better use a variant. How about calling it
the "Enlightened" period. That gives us "post-enlightened" (I am
trying to resist"un-enlightened"), which at least is not an absurdity.
But, if it's the "enlightenment project" which makes the "modern"
period, what are we doing with "early-modern". The Enlightenment,
in the narrow sense, occurred only at the tail end of our period.
Or, is there another Enlightenment? I know there's a Renaissance
of the twelfth century. Is there an Enlightenment of the sixteenth?
--
Mary Gentle
wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
>
> This sub-thread has been turning up some very fine posts,
>but nobody has commented on my plea for a new name for
>"modern" (and I suppose "post-modern" and "early-modern") on
>the grounds that "modern" is the wrong name for a period if
>it's over & "post-modern" is an oxymoron.
>
> Again, suggestions anybody?
'Industrial' followed by 'Information'?
Not very snappy, but nothing else occurs at the moment...
Mary
Paul J. Gans
>Mary
Soc.history.early-modern has finally arrived at my ISP, so
here I am. I'll be mostly lurking as early-modern isn't
really my thing.
But, according to the Gans Theory of Eras, each one runs
about a thousand years. For me "ancient" runs from about
1500 BC to 500 BC, "classical" from 500 BC to 500 AD,
"medieval" from 500 AD to 1500 AD, and "modern" from
1500 AD to 2500 AD.
So we've got a way to go before worrying about the next
era... ;-)
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Chris Jensen
: Mary Gentle <mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
: >'Industrial' followed by 'Information'?
: >Not very snappy, but nothing else occurs at the moment...
: But, according to the Gans Theory of Eras, each one runs
: about a thousand years. For me "ancient" runs from about
: 1500 BC to 500 BC, "classical" from 500 BC to 500 AD,
: "medieval" from 500 AD to 1500 AD, and "modern" from
: 1500 AD to 2500 AD.
: So we've got a way to go before worrying about the next
: era... ;-)
That's fine if you are ordering your history by the crate, but
individually wrapped slices don't last as long. e.g. Rennaisance, Dark
Ages, Early Modern. For the most recent periods I am partial to the
"Industrial" and "Information" monikers as I believe I mentioned in an
earlier post.
Chris J.
bga...@my-dejanews.com
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
> In article <74gvqj$o...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
>
> >
> > This sub-thread has been turning up some very fine posts,
> >but nobody has commented on my plea for a new name for
> >"modern" (and I suppose "post-modern" and "early-modern") on
> >the grounds that "modern" is the wrong name for a period if
> >it's over & "post-modern" is an oxymoron.
> >
> > Again, suggestions anybody?
>
>
> Not very snappy, but nothing else occurs at the moment...
It's so obvious! It's modern, but it's over by now. Call it Old Modern.
>
> Mary
John M. Atkinson
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>'Industrial' followed by 'Information'?
>
>Not very snappy, but nothing else occurs at the moment...
And my breakpoint is August 2nd, 1990, with the first "Information
Age" war beginning, wherein a prototype Information Age army utterly
destroyed an Industrial Age army. But then again, I put breakpoint
between Early Modern and Modern with the French Republic's declaration
of Conscription, so who am I to judge? Comes of having a narrow
topical focus.
John M. Atkinson
nospam becomes erols to reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. . .
it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as
FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
--Thomas Jefferson
Mary Gentle
bga...@my-dejanews.com () wrote:
> In article <F3nnC...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
> > In article <74gvqj$o...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> > wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This sub-thread has been turning up some very fine
>posts, but nobody has commented on my plea for a new name
>for "modern" (and I suppose "post-modern" and
>"early-modern") on the grounds that "modern" is the wrong
>name for a period if it's over & "post-modern" is an
>oxymoron.
> > >
> > > Again, suggestions anybody?
> >
> > 'Industrial' followed by 'Information'?
> >
> > Not very snappy, but nothing else occurs at the moment...
>
> It's so obvious! It's modern, but it's over by now. Call it
>Old Modern.
So are we now in New Modern? Or Modern Modern?
Mary
Gerrit Bigalski
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>In article <74klve$vvs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>bga...@my-dejanews.com () wrote:
>
>> In article <F3nnC...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
>> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>> > In article <74gvqj$o...@news1.newsguy.com>,
>> > wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > This sub-thread has been turning up some very fine
>>posts, but nobody has commented on my plea for a new name
>>for "modern" (and I suppose "post-modern" and
>>"early-modern") on the grounds that "modern" is the wrong
>>name for a period if it's over & "post-modern" is an
>>oxymoron.
>> > >
>> > > Again, suggestions anybody?
>> >
>> > 'Industrial' followed by 'Information'?
>> >
>> > Not very snappy, but nothing else occurs at the moment...
>>
>> It's so obvious! It's modern, but it's over by now. Call it
>>Old Modern.
>
>So are we now in New Modern? Or Modern Modern?
We are just up to date.
Gerrit
Chris Williams
> In article <74c79h$k...@news1.newsguy.com>,
> wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
>> But, then, there came all of these state universities
> > [yup, "state universities"] and they needed lots and lots of historians
> > to staff them, and the standard deteriorated.
>
> Hmnmm, sounds like a grumpy old aristo version of history. Of course there
> has been an overproduction of historians, but I think the main journals all
> look up to snuff.
I agree. 'More will mean worse' has been the cry of generations who wanted
to limit the historical profession to rich members of the ruling class.
Many of who, incidentally, weren't / aren't very good.
Chris
JOHN HUNDLEY IV
>
>Are we already off topic? Oh well.
>
>Chris J.
As an interested lurker, I wouldn't think that this is off topic. Isn't
this further defining the topic? I was asking myself what time frame
"early modern" designates when I saw the group in the listing. I would
imagine that we are living in the "Pre-millenial" or some such. My
impression is that "modern" came into use as soon as the species became
pretentious enough to believe that a peak of development had been reached.
As if "modern" actually sums up an attitude. i agree that the name
"information age" may be appropriate but I abhor the whole idea. Do we
really need to know even half of the "information" that throws itself at us?
Furthermore, I resent the fact that my own information has a life of it's
own, my credit report goes out more often than I do. Now THAT is off-topic!
I look forward to dropping in here.
JT
I think... therefore, I get distracted.
CG Luxford
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Mary Gentle wrote:
> bga...@my-dejanews.com () wrote:
> > mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
> > > wis...@hartwick.edu (Dick Wisan) wrote:
> > >
> > > > This sub-thread has been turning up some very fine
> >posts, but nobody has commented on my plea for a new name
> >for "modern" (and I suppose "post-modern" and
> >"early-modern") on the grounds that "modern" is the wrong
> >name for a period if it's over & "post-modern" is an
> >oxymoron.
This depends if we are using modern to refer to a specific period, or if
we are using it as a synonym for contemporary.
> > > > Again, suggestions anybody?
> > >
> > > 'Industrial' followed by 'Information'?
I've heard economics type people talking about post-industrial.
> > > Not very snappy, but nothing else occurs at the moment...
> >
> > It's so obvious! It's modern, but it's over by now. Call it
> >Old Modern.
>
> So are we now in New Modern? Or Modern Modern?
>
Oh but modern is so old fashioned now, utterly passe.
Mind you I still blame my lack of PhD funding on the fact that around
the time the decision was being made my supervisor went and talked about
post-modernism on TV.
It's unlikely that that is the reason, but hey...
Chris,
JOHN HUNDLEY IV
Dick Wisan wrote in message <74h82k$5...@news3.newsguy.com>...>says...
>
>The question is whether the practice of research to prove a political
>position publication adopted before the research is conducted is still
>as fashionable as it was when Adm. M harrumphed.
>
>R. N. (Dick) Wisan
Try profitable, not just fashionable. There's gold in them thar stunted
studies!
Mary Gentle
big...@uni-muenster.de (Gerrit Bigalski) wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:14:18 GMT,
>mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> >So are we now in New Modern? Or Modern Modern?
>
> We are just up to date.
Some of us are well past it. :)
Chris Williams
Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> Oh but modern is so old fashioned now, utterly passe.
As that great barometer of contemporary thought, Ozzy Osbourne, once sang:
"I've seen the future and I've left it behind."
Chris W
Gerrit Bigalski
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>In article <3678015b...@news.uni-muenster.de>,
>big...@uni-muenster.de (Gerrit Bigalski) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:14:18 GMT,
>>mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>> ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> >
>> >So are we now in New Modern? Or Modern Modern?
>>
>> We are just up to date.
>
>Some of us are well past it. :)
Really? Er. Should I feel sorry for these some?
Gerrit