Conclusion: The Big History of Globalization Told in Ten Pages

Author(s):  
Julia Zinkina ◽  
David Christian ◽  
Leonid Grinin ◽  
Ilya Ilyin ◽  
Alexey Andreev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 306-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Megill

In recent years David Christian and others have promoted “Big History” as an innovative approach to the study of the past. The present paper juxtaposes to Big History an old Big History, namely, the tradition of “universal history” that flourished in Europe from the mid-sixteenth century until well into the nineteenth century. The claim to universality of works in that tradition depended on the assumed truth of Christianity, a fact that was fully acknowledged by the tradition’s adherents. The claim of the new Big History to universality likewise depends on prior assumptions. Simply stated, in its various manifestations the “new” Big History is rooted either in a continuing theology, or in a form of materialism that is assumed to be determinative of human history, or in a somewhat contradictory amalgam of the two. The present paper suggests that “largest-scale history” as exemplified in the old and new Big Histories is less a contribution to historical knowledge than it is a narrativization of one or another worldview. Distinguishing between largest-scale history and history that is “merely” large-scale, the paper also suggests that a better approach to meeting the desire for large scale in historical writing is through more modest endeavors, such as large-scale comparative history, network and exchange history, thematic history, and history of modernization.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Christian

We live at a turning point in the history of planet earth, and we need to understand what is going on. Suddenly, we humans are becoming so powerful that what we do in the next few decades will shape the future of our planet. Unfortunately, most modern education is too narrow to help us see how our relationship with the planet is changing. To see that, and to understand the huge challenges we face, we need to understand the history of planet earth and how human history fits into the planet’s history. This is the story that is told in what are called big history courses. The task for the next generation is nothing less than to learn to manage an entire planet, and to manage it well for the sake of future generations. We have the resources we need, if only we can see the challenge clearly enough and agree on what needs to be done.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-101
Author(s):  
Paolo Vismara ◽  

With the Big History Italia BH678 Project I have introduced the Big History approach in the Italian middle schools, proposing an interpretation of the history of the universe as a way of creating a complex fusion among the sciences and a symbolic path for personal and spiritual growth. Starting from a deep love for complexity, I have written a novel, Storia interiore dell’Universo (now in print for the Italian market), that brings Big History into a poetic and psychedelic landscape. If you want to know the universe, probably, sometimes your body, your brain, your matter are enough; but if you desire to learn from the universe and you work in education, you should consider the whole Homo sapiens, as I believe our species learns only through feeling. Each Big History threshold is an opportunity to feel the echo of some keywords that contribute to developing our Inner Big History, taking off from apparently outer island-moments scattered across spacetime.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 263-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Voros

This paper does several things. First, it reports on some of the history of the Master of Strategic Foresight (MSF) at Swinburne (2001–2018) to provide some background information that, it is hoped, may be useful for others seeking to create or develop under- and postgraduate foresight courses in the future. Second, it also describes some observations made during the early years of the MSF regarding some of the characteristics of the students undertaking it—as compared with other nonforesight students also undertaking comparable-level postgraduate studies—which had a bearing on how we designed and revised the MSF over several iterations, and which, it is similarly hoped, may also be useful for foresight course designers of the future. Third, it notes that the introduction of “Big History” in 2015 at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels seems to have engendered a somewhat easier “uptake” of futures/foresight thinking by those students who were introduced to it, in contrast to cohorts of comparable students in previous years who were not. It is speculated that the Big History perspective was an important factor in this, and some related writings by other academics supporting this conjecture are sketched. It is then argued that, in particular, Big History seems to be especially well-suited to the framing of global-scale/civilizational futures. Finally, a number of remarks are made about how and why I believe Big History provides an ideal basis for engendering futures/foresight thinking, especially with regard to global/civilizational futures, as noted, as well as for framing The Anthropocene.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Daniel Barreiros ◽  
◽  
Daniel Ribera Vainfas ◽  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document