“The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Palmeira, Miguel Soares
Data de Publicação: 2018
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Política & Sociedade (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/politica/article/view/2175-7984.2018v17n38p340
Resumo: This article re-examines a debate that classical scholars took for especially meaningful in their field during the second half of the twentieth century: the discussion over the nature of the ancient (Greek and Roman) economy and the proper way to approach it. The debate is/was structured around opposite pairs: “primitivist” vs. “modernist” was the main opposition from which related forms of antagonism unfolded. Those who took part in the debate often referred to it as a conceptual trap and as an obstacle to progress in the field of ancient economic history. Considering recent literature on scientific and philosophical controversies, I propose to analyse how the debate institutes its own social logic and establishes the conditions of its reproduction. I will argue that: 1) the fixation of a founding dichotomy works as a catalysing factor of the “oikos controversy”; 2) every proclaimed attempt to overcome dichotomy is doomed to a ritual assimilation to one of the original parts in dispute. My primary sources are to be found in scholarly work on the ancient economy and letters exchanged between the debaters.
id UFSC-18_68e556481112f72afd10974107db805c
oai_identifier_str oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/57526
network_acronym_str UFSC-18
network_name_str Política & Sociedade (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy“A Economia Antiga é um Campo de Batalha”: história social de uma controvérsia eruditaThis article re-examines a debate that classical scholars took for especially meaningful in their field during the second half of the twentieth century: the discussion over the nature of the ancient (Greek and Roman) economy and the proper way to approach it. The debate is/was structured around opposite pairs: “primitivist” vs. “modernist” was the main opposition from which related forms of antagonism unfolded. Those who took part in the debate often referred to it as a conceptual trap and as an obstacle to progress in the field of ancient economic history. Considering recent literature on scientific and philosophical controversies, I propose to analyse how the debate institutes its own social logic and establishes the conditions of its reproduction. I will argue that: 1) the fixation of a founding dichotomy works as a catalysing factor of the “oikos controversy”; 2) every proclaimed attempt to overcome dichotomy is doomed to a ritual assimilation to one of the original parts in dispute. My primary sources are to be found in scholarly work on the ancient economy and letters exchanged between the debaters.Este trabalho propõe revisitar um debate que os praticantes da classical scholarship consideram especialmente significativo em sua área de atuação: as discussões travadas na segunda metade do século XX sobre a natureza da economia greco-romana antiga e sobre as formas adequadas de abordá-la. Estruturado em torno de pares de opostos teóricos (“primitivistas” versus “modernistas”, oposição principal que se desdobra em uma série de antagonismos homólogos), o debate é sucessivamente invocado pelos debatedores como armadilha conceitual, como obstáculo ao avanço das pesquisas de história econômica antiga. Em diálogo com a literatura sobre controvérsias científicas e filosóficas, analisam-se aqui os expedientes que imprimem ao debate uma sócio-lógica própria e instauram as condições de sua reprodução. Argumentarei que a fixação de uma dicotomia fundadora opera como elemento catalisador da “controvérsia do oikos” e condena toda e qualquer tentativa expressa de superação da dicotomia a uma assimilação ritual a uma das partes “originárias” da disputa. Os dados para análise serão construídos pelo exame de textos publicados de historiografia econômica referente à Antiguidade Clássica e de cartas trocadas entre os debatedores.Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)2018-06-08info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/politica/article/view/2175-7984.2018v17n38p34010.5007/2175-7984.2018v17n38p340Política & Sociedade; Vol. 17 No. 38 (2018); 340-372Política & Sociedade; Vol. 17 Núm. 38 (2018); 340-372Política & Sociedade; v. 17 n. 38 (2018); 340-3722175-79841677-4140reponame:Política & Sociedade (Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/politica/article/view/2175-7984.2018v17n38p340/36868Copyright (c) 2018 Política & Sociedadeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPalmeira, Miguel Soares2018-06-08T14:08:54Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/57526Revistahttp://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/politicaPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/politica/oai||ernesto.seidl@ufsc.br|| ps@cfh.ufsc.br2175-79841677-4140opendoar:2018-06-08T14:08:54Política & Sociedade (Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
“A Economia Antiga é um Campo de Batalha”: história social de uma controvérsia erudita
title “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
spellingShingle “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
Palmeira, Miguel Soares
title_short “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
title_full “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
title_fullStr “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
title_full_unstemmed “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
title_sort “The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
author Palmeira, Miguel Soares
author_facet Palmeira, Miguel Soares
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Palmeira, Miguel Soares
description This article re-examines a debate that classical scholars took for especially meaningful in their field during the second half of the twentieth century: the discussion over the nature of the ancient (Greek and Roman) economy and the proper way to approach it. The debate is/was structured around opposite pairs: “primitivist” vs. “modernist” was the main opposition from which related forms of antagonism unfolded. Those who took part in the debate often referred to it as a conceptual trap and as an obstacle to progress in the field of ancient economic history. Considering recent literature on scientific and philosophical controversies, I propose to analyse how the debate institutes its own social logic and establishes the conditions of its reproduction. I will argue that: 1) the fixation of a founding dichotomy works as a catalysing factor of the “oikos controversy”; 2) every proclaimed attempt to overcome dichotomy is doomed to a ritual assimilation to one of the original parts in dispute. My primary sources are to be found in scholarly work on the ancient economy and letters exchanged between the debaters.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-06-08
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/politica/article/view/2175-7984.2018v17n38p340
10.5007/2175-7984.2018v17n38p340
url https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/politica/article/view/2175-7984.2018v17n38p340
identifier_str_mv 10.5007/2175-7984.2018v17n38p340
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/politica/article/view/2175-7984.2018v17n38p340/36868
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2018 Política & Sociedade
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2018 Política & Sociedade
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Política & Sociedade; Vol. 17 No. 38 (2018); 340-372
Política & Sociedade; Vol. 17 Núm. 38 (2018); 340-372
Política & Sociedade; v. 17 n. 38 (2018); 340-372
2175-7984
1677-4140
reponame:Política & Sociedade (Online)
instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
instacron:UFSC
instname_str Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
instacron_str UFSC
institution UFSC
reponame_str Política & Sociedade (Online)
collection Política & Sociedade (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Política & Sociedade (Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ernesto.seidl@ufsc.br|| ps@cfh.ufsc.br
_version_ 1789435205813010432