Re: historical change

From: Donald R. Oddy <donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:53:24 GMT


>From: Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_yahoo.com>

>I do have a couple problems with this thesis, though.
>Change in what are we purportedly measuring? If we
>are talking about technological progress, I would not
>disagree, since technological change appears to be a
>roughly cumulative function. Likewise for economic
>wellbeing. I am less certain about social change. It
>seems to me that religion changes less now than it did
>two hundred ot two thousand years ago. Fashion in
>America has not changed fundamentally since about 1820
>-- women still wear dresses and men wear pants (not
>togas, or tights, or kilts, or whatever).

There were several significant changes in fashions during the last century. Up to the 1920s just about all women wore ankle length dresses and it wasn't until the 1950s that they started wearing trousers. Now there are very few women who don't wear trousers at some time and skirt length is purely a matter of preference. The other big change is hats, 50 years ago everyone had at least one hat and wore them regularly, nowadays only a minority of people wear even a baseball cap.

Religion has changed as well, although perhaps not in some parts of the US. When my mother was young she was unusual in that she she didn't go to church and sunday school every week. When I was young church going was still pretty common, now regular attendance is exceptional and there are plenty who almost never go. Additionally over the last couple of centuries religious authority has given way to scientific authority (sometimes argued with a religious fervour) which is at least as significant a change as the birth of Christianity.

>Moreover, though it is somewhat of a side note, it
>seems to me that social change (though not technogical
>change) in the west is slower now than it was in the
>1800's, when you have massive rural to urban
>migration, a complete change in the manner and setting
>in which work is performed (factory vs. farm and all
>that goes with it), etc. I would hazard that none of
>us (unless there are immigrants reading this) have
>undergone that sort of wrenching change.

That date is applicable to the US and not Britain, rural to urban migration here started in the 1600s but was still going on a century ago. We tend to think of these changes occuring in a short space of but in practice they usually occur over decades rather than years. The fastest industrialisation I can think of was Russia between 1917 and 1939.

>My second problem is that, all of us being modern
>folks, we are fairly thoroughly indoctrinated in the
>ideology of progress -- that, since about 1450,
>technological and economic progress has accumulated
>and accelerated. It tends to arrange our point of
>view so that we see those things that support the
>thesis and ignore those that do not. I question
>whether we can genuinely judge such a subjective thing
>as the rate of change experienced by us vs. that
>experienced by our ancient ancestors.

Looking back over the last 30-40 years I would say there have been significant changes in technology. That has had some economic and social impact but far less than might be expected mainly because the introduction of new technology is more gradual than we might think from the way it is reported. There is also the fact that we live longer so experience more changes during our lives than in the past.

Dragging the subject back to Glorantha, I think the Hero Wars will probably have as big an impact for some cultures as anything we have seen in the real world. Some cultures will find their magic stops working while others become more powerful and that will have economic and social effects

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail