The Case for Big History
An Essay by David Christian
Argument and Counter-Argument
Analysis Outline
The question that Christian
addresses in his essay:


What is the scale on which history should
be studied (taught)? OR, how should
history be studied (taught)?
To answer this question– you need to
know what “scale” refers to…
Scale…


Scale = whatever time period seems appropriate
to the topic being studied (example: 100 years,
a decade, 500 years, 1000 years, etc.)
According to the author… “the appropriate time
scale for the study of history MAY be the whole
of time … on many different time scales up to
that of the universe itself– 10 to 20 billion years
ago.”
“Big History”

A way of studying history on a time scale
appropriate for studying a broad and
multiple-layered history of the past (to
answer complex questions about changes
that have occurred over a very long time).
David Christian’s Arguments


1.
2.
3.
4.
“Big History” allows big, meaningful questions
to be asked which encourages the search for
larger meanings about the past.
Examples:
What is the global context of specific societies?
What is the history of humanity?
What is the relationship between humans and
ALL living things?
How did life begin?
David Christian’s Arguments, con’t

“Big History” allows us to answer big
questions that merge several disciplines—
combining science and the humanities
(literature, history, philosophy, etc.).
Counter-Arguments by Historians Opposed
to “Big History”
(according to Christian)

1.
2.
3.
Studying “big history” is just not an acceptable
way of studying history (it violates historians’
conventional methods of studying history)
On a large time scale, history becomes too
general to be useful.
On a large time scale, there is too much detail
for the historian to handle.
Most historians do not have the expertise to
“handle” history on such a large scale.
Christian’s Rebuttal Arguments


“Detail” shouldn’t be an issue…
something that is important on one scale
may be “detail” on another or may
vanish completely on an even larger time
scale.
When using larger scales, detail is lost
BUT larger ideas become noticeable
(ideas that would never be noticed on a
smaller time scale).
More Rebuttal Arguments

If a question involves more than one
discipline (biology, anthropology,
astronomy, etc.), historians/teachers can
“team teach” the material or get help from
experts in these disciplines.
David Christian’s Rationale for
“Big History”


MAIN: Historians really cannot understand the
past fully unless they go back to the beginning
of time.
SUB: Studying “big history” allows historians to
overcome the problem of “not being able to see
the forest for the trees”– OR collecting too many
details from a small amount of time prevents
historians from seeing the “big picture.”
Christian’s Example:
What is the time scale on which we should
study the issue of economic growth in
human history?



According to E.L. Jones– the appropriate
scale is 5,000 years (this is how long
“civilizations” have been around–
beginning with the ancient
Mesopotamians)
What do you think?
What does Christian think?
What is wrong with considering
only the past 5,000 years?

According to Christian, how is “human
population” involved in the question of
economic development over the course of
history?