This week, ending in October 30 2014:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Just got the proofs for a book chapter I have coming out soon, and am pleased by how little needed to be changed. They may even be able to have the volume out by the end of the year!
Continuing to wait on word about a revised article I submitted earlier, however -- "by the end of October" is fast running out.
I'm designing an interdisciplinary project with my psych friend and I was wondering if there were any contemporary (2000s) books on the role of psychology in history. That's broad, so let me specify; we're looking at Aum Shinrikyo and Jonestown, both as "new religions" with apocalyptic agendas and disenfranchised followers. My research partner is using social psychology and personality psychology (followers and leaders, respectively) and so I'd prefer a reference to a book that connects these two sub fields of psychology to history.
If that is too specific a request to ring a bell, however, I'd appreciate any books or articles that talk about the role of psychology in historiography or vice versa. The only one I've found was published in '88, so no need to mention Runyan's Psychology and Historical Interpretation!
We'll it's #AskAnArchvist day on Twitter! I've been having fun under my institutional account and monitoring the feed, but if any of you want me in particular to answer you on Twitter you can tag @askhistorians and I'll answer there. :) Or just maybe hit reply here, whatever.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the theories of Anatoly Fomenko and his new chronology?
I know a little about his ideas although I haven't read his volumes of work on the subject.
I am very interested in the fact that he claims to have astronomical evidence supporting him. I am aware that his ideas are all regarded as ridiculous by historians but I would like to hear some arguments against him. Particularly one that points at flaws in his calculations.
Compared to all the experts on this sub, I am a layman when it comes to history but I'm willing to try to understand anything.