Humanities Homework Help

Part One: Identifications 5pts x 6 IDs = 30%For each of the six concepts below, please provide a brief explanation in your own words describing what the term means. Please also provide an example from our course materials (readings, lectures, slides) that provides an illustration of each concept.

Please note: When providing each definition, please define the concept in general. You can then use a particular example to illustrate how the concept has been conceptualized/applied in a particular context.1.) Within-Case Comparisons 2.) Teleology 3.) Nomothetic Explanations 4.) Determinism (in relation to theories of history) 5.) Historical Materialism 6.) Ideographic Explanations

Part Two: Short Essay 70% Please choose one of the two following prompts to answer in a short-essay format. Please aim to make your response approximately 4-5 paragraphs.

Direct textual citations are not required, but folks are certainly welcome to include them. If quotations or paraphrases are included, please be sure to provide brief citations

In the first half of our comparative historical methodology course, we have been exploring a series of case studies that aim to explain how and why large-scale social movements and transformations 1.) emerge in particular historical contexts and 2.) develop in particular directions. Both Piven & Cloward’s and Federici’s texts seek to identify the key factors and variables at play in their respective historical case studies in order to provide not only descriptive but also explanatory accounts of precisely how and why social transformations took place as they did. Through careful analysis of primary and secondary historical materials, P&C and Federici offer detailed accountings of the who/when/where/how/why of social change.

1.) Please choose two of the three case studies (unemployed movement, industrial worker’s movement, Civil Rights movement) from Piven and Cloward’s Poor People’s Movementtext and reflect upon the following questions:

Why, according to P&C, did each of these two movements arise? In other words, what conditions of possibility were in existence that allowed for the emergence of each of movement?What were the demands or goals of each of the two movements? In other words, what changes or outcomes were the movements aiming to bring about?

According to P&C, what factors contributed to the success of each movement?What dynamics or variables were in place or developed over time that helped each of these movements – at least partially – achieve their goals?

According to P&C, what factors limited the success of each movement? What dynamics or variables were in place or developed over time that constrained or otherwise hindered the achievement of the movements demands/goals?

When considering both movements together, what, to your estimation, are the ‘punchlines’ or overall conclusions that P&C provide us with respect to analyzing and understanding social change? Do they provide anything like an overarching framework or perspective for conducting comparative historical research?

2.) Please reflect upon the analysis provided in Federici’s comparative historical study, Caliban and the Witch.

What is the central research question(s) that Federici aims to answer in this text? What, specifically, is she trying to figure out?

In developing her argument, Federici critiques a variety of previous scholarship pertaining to the ‘transition’ from feudalism to capitalism as well as previous scholarship pertaining to the witch-hunts in Europe. Why? What reasons motivate Federici to develop her critiques of previous historical analyses? In other words, what does Federici find inaccurate or missing from previous historical scholarshipwith respect to these topics?

In light of her research questions and analysis of previous scholarship, Federici goes on to identify a series of key variables and dynamics that, to her estimation, provide a more complete and more accurate explanation of how and why exactly capitalism as a mode of production ‘took off’ in the manner it did. Federici maintains that gendered and sexual divisions of labor were directly and significantly involved in this ongoing historical transformation. Why? What specific connections does Federici identify between class relations and gender/sex relations?How do the witch-hunts of Europe figure into Federici’s overall argument?

When considering Federici’s account as a whole, one notices that she is simultaneously providing a single extended within-case historical study – the study of the transition from feudalism to capitalism- and a comparative historical study of the roles/statuses/norms/practices relating to sex & gender as said transition from feudalism to capitalism developed.What, to your estimation, are the ‘punchlines’ or overall conclusions that Federici provide us with respect to analyzing and understanding social change? Does she provide anything like an overarching framework or perspective for conducting comparative historical research?