This is not meant to encourage the cultivation of ignorance, of course, but sometimes you’re in class, or part of a conversation that’s running a little bit over your head, and you need to contribute something to the conversation that others can run with. Ideally, that something will be broadly true, act as a springboard for more informed minds to carry on, and will not require any follow-up from you.

For example, one can almost always say of any period, since at least the fourteenth century, that the “middle class was newly emerging,” and it’s very unlikely anyone will challenge your claim. If, however, you try to claim that during this same period the middle class was being invented for the very first time, you’re likely to get a lot of follow-up questions like “Really?” and “I’m not so sure about that” and “What’s your source on that?” You’re not trying to set the world on fire, you’re merely looking for a statement that contributes, if not truth, plausibility, without exposing you to further scrutiny. No one’s ever going to say “No, they weren’t” if you say “The emerging middle class was newly ascendent in 1890s Philadelphia” or “early dynastic Egypt” or “post-feudal Japan.”

Feel free to choose any of the following historical/social/political claims from the list below, all of which have been carefully vetted for the purpose. “This era…”

“Was characterized by new ideas about what constituted private and public”
“Totally transformed the concept of the child”
“Saw an influx of new markets that ultimately collapsed on themselves”

Generally speaking, you’re almost always going to be safe saying something like a given era was characterized by new ideas about something, although you shouldn’t get carried away – don’t try to claim that the 12th-century Middle East totally upended ideas about what night was or something (although you can probably get away with the night business in the 19th century if you like). Crime is always a safe bet. “New ideas about crime and punishment,” that’s probably true. “Perspectives on ‘criminality’ were rapidly changing as a result of,” just to be on the safe side let’s say “new markets” again. New markets changed that.

Here’s the formula, then:

A change in (“material change in” if you want to get fancy) [commerce, geography, weapons, inventions, something broad and physical] + “totally upended” or “reintroduced” or “complicated” + “ideas about/of” + [something safely broad and conceptual, like “etiquette” or “filial piety” or “the hour”].

So, for example:

“Well, the introduction of canals would have totally upended their ideas about what it meant to mark the passage of time.”

“Of course, the newly-consolidated postal system would have entirely destabilized the dowry system.”

“I wonder how all this might have been complicated by sudden influx of electricity? That would have really introduced some new ideas about what constituted the public and the private, I’ll bet.”

Just watch the conversation glide safely away from the crux of danger after you give ‘em that!

The Chatner

Claims You Can Always Safely Make Without…