History often reveals the specificity and contingency of social, cultural, intellectual or political arrangements that appear natural or universal. At the same time, historical contextualization and comparison often undermine categorical distinctions and exceptionalist claims.
It seems to me that either giving up history as a study of the particular in favour of pursuing it as a putatively Big, predictive science, or turning it into a kind of junior political science via councils of historians, tends to work against both of these critical functions.
A focus on irreducible particulars is essential to what history does. So is a methodological diversity that resists routinization and (as is much lamented) even very large-scale collaboration. I think viewing history through the lens of science, pure or applied, is a big mistake.
Enjoy this slow-motion shell game, wherein the whiteness of the canon is obfuscated only so that it can be insisted upon as the only *safe* option... which is somehow also *meritocratic*
Shorter Bo Winegard:
- extremists agree that the canon is white, while moderates just think it's good
- the canon moderates like is also white, and if you change it there will be white backlash
- this one time we wedged in a couple nonwhite authors but that wasn't meritocracy
Note: this should be read while the Curb Your Enthusiasm music plays in the background
This is a very useful short guide to using a really wonderful resource for research and teaching about early modern science/medicine, but astrological medicine in itself and in social context.
ftr I think medical astrology is one of the most direct ways of looking at the social embedment of early modern scientific/medical practices. Sources like these preserve interactions between "ordinary people" and expert practitioners that are hard to find traces of elsewhere.
Maybe these pearls are supposed to land differently when they come from a fully licensed American Thought Leader but IMO this is pretty pedestrian stuff
Idk maybe this being surprising is just what happens when you build a career pretending to be a disaffected leftist while mouthing rightwing talking points. Seems peculiar as a hermeneutic for anyone else though