Scholars who analyze history in terms of power relations like Foucault?

[ranttila1]

I am currently an undergraduate who is looking for history professors who have studied under Foucault or have been influenced by him in their work. I want to study how different power relations have evolved throughout history in their various political, social, economic, etc. contexts. I know Foucault is further towards the side of a philosopher than a historian, but I want to use the same tools as he has to look at history, not just philosophize. 
 

Does anyone know of any historians that are close to or fit what I am looking for? I would like to study under one for a PhD.

[dr. t]

Foucalt has had a pretty large impact on both the humanities and social sciences. Every professor trained after ca. 1980 fits this description.

[Tigla]

What is your region/theme (other than power relations) that you want to study? What is your time frame? How do you want to study power relations? Do you have a specific area that you want to focus on, such as the global economy, the household, political movements, ideas and their "spread," and many more?

If you give us a bit more info, then we can help you narrow your search further.

[ranttila1]

51 minutes ago, Tigla said:

What is your region/theme (other than power relations) that you want to study? What is your time frame? How do you want to study power relations? Do you have a specific area that you want to focus on, such as the global economy, the household, political movements, ideas and their "spread," and many more?

If you give us a bit more info, then we can help you narrow your search further.

My main interest is in ideas and how they have spread throughout societies by way of power and the actions that it enacts. I want to study how what people perceive as “truth” has developed over time and why it has developed in that way. I am interested in not only moral notions of “truth”, but also in the obligations which have been internalized in people and have those obligations have came to be.

Does that help?

[Glasperlenspieler]

2 hours ago, ranttila1 said:

Does that help?

Not really.

Here are three topics of study that could conceivably fall under the description you gave:

1. The suppression of a particular heresy in monastic communities in Italy in the 14th Century

2. Philanthropic responses to poverty (and the surrounding discourse) in Victorian England

3. The American federal government's rhetoric and response to the AIDs epidemic in the 1980s

An account of any of these topics would almost certainly pertain to an account of the power structures that determine "what people perceive as truth" in a given society and at a given time, as the "obligations which been internalized in people" in those societies as well as how those obligations came to be. And any of these projects could plausibly benefit from a Foucauldian theoretical orientation.

If you want to get admitted to a graduate program in history, those are the sorts of projects you will need to propose. And, as will be clear, each of these projects will likely demand a radically different methodology, set of research skills, historiographical awareness and knowledge base. Furthermore, each project would require a very different doctoral advisor.

[TMP]

Foucault has been such an influence that my adviser told me to throw out my mention of Foucault in my research proposal because, well, unless you're literally and directly engaging with Foucault's work. Otherwise, it looks like a throwaway sentence at this point.

[psstein]

15 hours ago, telkanuru said:

Foucalt has had a pretty large impact on both the humanities and social sciences. Every professor trained after ca. 1980 fits this description.

Not in history of science, but that's probably due to the field's history and contours. 

[ranttila1]

19 hours ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

Not really.

Here are three topics of study that could conceivably fall under the description you gave:

1. The suppression of a particular heresy in monastic communities in Italy in the 14th Century

2. Philanthropic responses to poverty (and the surrounding discourse) in Victorian England

3. The American federal government's rhetoric and response to the AIDs epidemic in the 1980s

An account of any of these topics would almost certainly pertain to an account of the power structures that determine "what people perceive as truth" in a given society and at a given time, as the "obligations which been internalized in people" in those societies as well as how those obligations came to be. And any of these projects could plausibly benefit from a Foucauldian theoretical orientation. 

If you want to get admitted to a graduate program in history, those are the sorts of projects you will need to propose. And, as will be clear, each of these projects will likely demand a radically different methodology, set of research skills, historiographical awareness and knowledge base. Furthermore, each project would require a very different doctoral advisor.

I apologize for my ambiguity. More specifically, I am interested in the early-mid 19th century in Great Britain and the United States. I want to look at how new social norms and truths evolved in the context of a great leap in scientific discoveries and the changes of thought processes which were their effect.
 

At the moment, I am doing an independent research project on how new geological findings in the early 19th century shaped theological thought. Some of my further interests include different medical practices in the same time period such as hydropathy. I want to take new “scientific” practices and findings and place them in a social context, tracing how “truth” evolved from them and how it changed the thoughts of people (through primary sources used the same way as Foucault used them). Would this be historical sociology?

 

I want to expand my research to include the tools that Foucault has offered through his books. This means going into the area of “critical history” (Or historical sociology?) — critical theory + history. My problem is I do not know how to find professors who 1. fit my early-mid 19th century American/British history of scientific thought interest and 2. apply critical theory.

Edited November 2, 2019 by ranttila1

[Strider_2931]

11 hours ago, ranttila1 said:

I apologize for my ambiguity. More specifically, I am interested in the early-mid 19th century in Great Britain and the United States. I want to look at how new social norms and truths evolved in the context of a great leap in scientific discoveries and the changes of thought processes which were their effect.
 

At the moment, I am doing an independent research project on how new geological findings in the early 19th century shaped theological thought. Some of my further interests include different medical practices in the same time period such as hydropathy. I want to take new “scientific” practices and findings and place them in a social context, tracing how “truth” evolved from them and how it changed the thoughts of people (through primary sources used the same way as Foucault used them). Would this be historical sociology?

 

I want to expand my research to include the tools that Foucault has offered through his books. This means going into the area of “critical history” (Or historical sociology?) — critical theory + history. My problem is I do not know how to find professors who 1. fit my early-mid 19th century American/British history of scientific thought interest and 2. apply critical theory.

The advice you've received so far has been stellar. I'm giving my input because of my general interest in Foucauldian theories vis-a-vis the history of science, body history, and intellectual history. Also, our research interests are very similar (which is v cool). I'd suggest reflecting on what most of the others have said or hinted at in their comments above. Before engaging directly with Foucault's corpus, you want to think about how his philosophical system can reveal certain aspects of specific historical topics and debates.

You're on the right track with geology, hydropathy, and theology. However, each of those are fields of scientific inquiry and not specific enough as a source base in their own right. I'd recommend moving concepts like 'historical sociology' to the back-burner; prioritize finding a specific group of sources that have been written about in journals over the past decade or two. In other words, start with a source or a group of sources you're interested in; delve into the secondary literature that would best frame those sources; explain how you would balance what the sources reveal with the claims and arguments in the secondary literature. Foucault is going to be with you (figuratively, of course) when you attempt to rectify the sources you're analyzing in your own unique way with what the secondary literature has claimed about similar sources.

From what you've brought up so far, our research interests are quite similar. I focus on the late nineteenth century US in my master's thesis, but I'm investigating 'new social norms' in light of 'scientific discoveries,' as you say. It's quite good to see someone express similar research interests. I think a more prevalent word for your concept of 'thought processes' would be epistemology. When I first read Foucault, the clarity of his elaboration on modern epistemologies was what stuck with me. I take it this is what you refer to when you say you're interested in Foucault's methods. At the basic level, as you rightly state, Foucault was philosophizing about 'critical theory + history'. But remember, he wasn't writing in English. Point being, there are many levels to dig through to settle on a professor who fits #1 and #2 of your description. I'd start with sources that show ideas from geology and hydropathy making their way through popular culture. Don't forget to note the scholars that are writing about what you're interested in and look up more of their published work.

[AP]

On 11/1/2019 at 4:25 PM, TMP said:

Foucault has been such an influence that my adviser told me to throw out my mention of Foucault in my research proposal because, well, unless you're literally and directly engaging with Foucault's work. Otherwise, it looks like a throwaway sentence at this point.

Ditto.

13 hours ago, ranttila1 said:

My problem is I do not know how to find professors who 1. fit my early-mid 19th century American/British history of scientific thought interest and 2. apply critical theory.

I disagree. You don't need a professor that mirrors your interests. You need a professor that can advise you. You need a department that can support you. So find 1. and then check if anybody else in that department or affiliate departments work on critical theory (or vice-versa). The originality of your research is that it is your research. 

(though if you find a professor that ticks your boxes, cool!)

[WhaleshipEssex]

On 11/2/2019 at 1:13 AM, psstein said:

Not in history of science, but that's probably due to the field's history and contours. 

Foucault has greater influence within STS studies, if that distinction is really of any use at this point.

[AfricanusCrowther]

On 11/1/2019 at 2:49 PM, telkanuru said:

Foucalt has had a pretty large impact on both the humanities and social sciences. Every professor trained after ca. 1980 fits this description.

I think "Foucault" is sort of a stand-in for a broader set of concepts and intellectual movements of which he formed the critical and most important part -- i.e., the cultural turn. The influence of a diverse range of thinkers before and after him, including Bourdieu, Althusser, Gramsci, E.P. Thompson, and Joan Scott, get sort of collapsed into Foucauldianism. I also think few scholars in the wake of Foucault really buy the theoretical implications of this work whole-sale. There's a great article that analyzes this sort of weak Foucauldianism in contemporary historiography but I can't find it. William Sewell has also written about it.

[WhaleshipEssex]

15 hours ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

William Sewell has also written about it.

Seconding Sewell here, Logics of History is a fantastic read.

[psstein]

On 11/3/2019 at 6:23 PM, WhaleshipEssex said:

Foucault has greater influence within STS studies, if that distinction is really of any use at this point.

I'm probably in the dwindling minority who thinks it does, but that's because Wisconsin has Nicole Nelson, who's a phenomenal STS scholar, but is the first to say she's not a historian.

[derphilosoph]

On 11/4/2019 at 1:59 AM, AfricanusCrowther said:

I think "Foucault" is sort of a stand-in for a broader set of concepts and intellectual movements of which he formed the critical and most important part -- i.e., the cultural turn. The influence of a diverse range of thinkers before and after him, including Bourdieu, Althusser, Gramsci, E.P. Thompson, and Joan Scott, get sort of collapsed into Foucauldianism.

I tend to agree that it may be daunting to try to find people that were influenced by Foucault (as surely he is to the history profession what Camus/Sartre are to philosophy or perhaps Chomsky to linguistics. Not all scholars may agree with their ideas, but most recognize their influence.)

I suggest looking around for some general Historiographical, Intro to History, Intro to the Study of History syllabi online. Most of these syllabi will have an array of intellectuals who have critically assessed the historical discipline through their works on power (as Foucault), but also other important "themes" that historians should know:

Just a non-exhaustive list in no particular order:
E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (class consciousness)
E.P. Thompson, Customs in Common
Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition (really every article in this edited book is worth reading)
Eric Hobsbawm, the four-party long-19th century series
Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, eds., Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology
Dennis Dworkin, Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origin of Cultural Studies
Historians of gender: Lyndal Roper, Isabel Hull, Natalie Zemon Davis, Elizabeth Heineman, Bonnie G. Smith
Historians of postcolonialism: Dipesh Chakrabarty, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Gyan Prakash, Partha Chatterjee

[historygeek]

Not a historian (an English professor, actually), but you may find interest in Anne McClintock's Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest.