Change and continuity

Historians have questioned whether the New Deal in the US is best seen as a decisive change or more as being a case of societal continuity in the context ofAmerican history.The picture shows two children pumping water by hand. This was the sole water supply in this section ofWilder, Tennesseein 1942)

Change and continuityis a classicdichotomywithin the fields ofhistory,historical sociology,and thesocial sciencesmore broadly. The question of change and continuity is considered a classic discussion in the study of historical developments.The dichotomy is used to discuss and evaluate the extent to which a historical development or event represents a decisive historical change or whether a situation remains largely unchanged. A good example of this discussion is the question of how much thePeace of Westphaliain 1648 represents an important change inEuropean history.In a similar vein, historianRichard Kirkendallonce questioned whetherFDR'sNew Dealrepresented "a radical innovation or a continuation of earlier themes in American life?" and posed the question of whether "historical interpretations of the New Deal [should] stress change or emphasize continuity?"The issue here is if the New Deal marks something radically new (change) in US history or if the New Deal can be understood as a continuation (continuity) of tendencies in American history that were in place well before the 1930.

The dichotomy is important in relation to constructing, discussing, and evaluating historicalperiodizations.In terms of creating and discussing periodization (e.g.the Enlightenmentorthe Victorian Era,) the dichotomy can be used to assess when a period can be said to start and end, thus making the dichotomy important in relation to understanding historicalchronology.Economic historianAlexander Gerschenkronhas taken issue with the dichotomy, arguing that continuity "appears to mean no more than absence of change, i.e. stability."German historianReinhart Koselleck,however, has been said to challenge this dichotomy.