“The Ancient Economy is an Academic Battleground”: social history of a scholarly controversy
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |