Monday, May 27, 2013

2013 read #64: Big History by Cynthia Stokes Brown.

Big History: From the Big Bang to the Present by Cynthia Stokes Brown
254 pages
Published 2007
Read from May 24 to May 27
Rating: ★★ out of 5

Big history -- the school of thought advocating a holistic, broad-scope view of history from the beginning of time on through geological history and into the present -- fits perfectly with my sensibilities. I didn't know "big history" was an acknowledged methodology until sometime this year, yet in a way it's been the central principle of my personal worldview as long as I can remember. The closest I can get to a "religious" or "spiritual" feeling is the humbling yet awesome sense of the vast depths of time, the huge processes of geology and biology and human history (which, after all, is only the subjective experience of one species produced and influenced by biology and Earth's systems) operating on a barely conceivable scale.

Big History the book, as my first introduction to the academic version of this concept, is really disappointing. The book is riddled with glaring factual errors; the most egregious comes when Stokes Brown gives a quick sketch of the solar system and turns Saturn's axis on its side, confusing it with Uranus, something no 9 year old would mistake. Her descriptions of evolution are almost equally cringe-worthy. "African descendents of Homo erectus," she writes, "mutated one more time into a fitter species, Homo sapiens." There are a lot of things wrong with that statement, involving terminology and "ladder of life" implications at the very least, but I'll leave that to you to parse out as a fun exercise. The rest of her overview of hominid evolution is almost as bad, though I don't know whether that results more from outdated information (our understanding of human evolution has changed rapidly with new discoveries and new information since this book was published) or from further misapprehension.

One risk inherent in the big history approach is the possibility of losing necessary detail in the big picture. Big History is often guilty of that, glossing over complicated historical questions and providing me, personally, with practically no new insights or information. To me, it reads like a freshman syllabus would read to a graduating senior. It reminds me of those lightweight courses I took to burn up credits my final undergraduate semester, where I barely had to show up in order to ace the class. I'm sure such a shallow reading would be of some value to somebody, perhaps someone with the bare minimum of historical knowledge, but the blatant factual errors and overly simplistic narrative make Big History unsuitable for even such a humble task.

No comments:

Post a Comment