Periodization according to Marshal Brown

Marshal Brown raises a very important issue in the essay "Period and Reisstances." Brown seeks to define and evaluate the importance of a period, how much it covers, and the validity of its coverage. For the most part, I did not find the essay interesting or groundbreaking as Brown procedeed to explain the different reasons and name of periods. However Brown does assert a crucial and very thought provoking point which that periodization does not concern knowledge. Rather it conerns thought. Hence what is periodized is not our empirical knowlege of history, but how we percieve it. Our relationship to periods it a troubled relationship: even if we do not want periods, we need them becuase periods are how we conceptualize world history.

Periods themselves are arbitrary. Periodization is not natural and does not make any real sense. By periodizing we are seeking to act upon history: it is ludicrous to rpesume that we cna look into history carefully group history into segments and units. With each unit begining and ending at a specific time, the arrogance of periodization assumes that history is not dynamic but static. Fro examples, the rupture between modernism and post-modernism is absolute and definite but fluid. We can assume dates but to declare that a new period emerges a completely seperate block from its predecessor is foolish.

With this mind, periods, nevertheless, are necessary. Periods are how we organize and classify our thoughts. History presents too rich and diverse of a narrative to our minds to process. By looking for similarities within certain historical times, we can better store and classify that information. For instance, the period of Romanticism is held, bound, and defined by certain chief provileged characteristics. In this way, the label of Romanticism perserves the information of that period in a way that can be easily retrieved. However the danger to this labeling is of course those privileged characteristics that hold together a period called Romanticism are also arbitrary. The make-up and identity of a period is far from objective as it is carefully constructed by whoever is doing the privileging. For all we know that gap of space of time that has been historically viewed as Romanticism could have been occupied by some other completely different had certain other traits of that age been privileged.

Hence, periodization is artificial insofar as all periods are subjective since they are constructed by humans. Periods simply cut the great narrative of history into small segments for easier classification, digestion, and retention.