The future of history

[qbtacoma]

I think it would be a fun activity to speculate on the future of our field while we are waiting for the admissions ball to get rolling. Here are my thoughts:

1. Obviously transnational history is coming into vogue - Atlantic world, diaspora studies, etc. I'm waiting for Pacific world history to exist since that matches my regional interests.

2. I am SO glad I will not be a historian of the Internet age. I predict a huge swing toward quantitative research in the future and a demand for computer science-trained historians since for the first time we'll be able to search all existing sources in a particular medium for, say, the number of times people mention "mincemeat pies" per election cycle.

3. In the other direction, I wonder if there is going to be a scholarly acceptance of discussing emotions and other "presentist" ties to our subjects. I say this because I just finished reading Tiya Miles' Ties That Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom and one thing she does is interpret the experience of slavery through Toni Morrison's Beloved. The point was not only that the female slave's emotional experience has not been recorded and that fiction can help us understand what she may have felt, but also a discussion of the inadequacy of words to describe slavery and why the lack of sources is part of that. It was, I think, a successful discussion, but I don't know if I would be brave enough to use that strategy myself. It gets at a sore point of history in that we aren't *supposed* to judge people of the past based on modern feelings, but no one studies history without an emotional connection to the material somehow.

4. Military history is definitely on the down and out in academia, but it is probably the most popular of the popular histories. When do you think this worthy area of study will make a come back?

What do you all think?

[BadgerHopeful]

Interesting post and excellent predictions! But I think you've missed the largest one - In the 60s and 70s, women's history become a genre of historical studies in its own right. Studying the history of women was no longer just a subset of studying society/culture at large. Instead, faculty began to devote whole articles, books, and classes on the history of women. Yes, this did happen here and there before the 60s/70s, but it wasn't until then that women's history really became a solid, legitimate field.

In the future, this will happen with gay history. Queer history will come to have its own genre. It's definitely an emerging field now, but it has quite a bit of room to grow.

[qbtacoma]

Yes, and hopefully history of sexuality generally will also have a big surge of interest. I think people have thus far been squeamish about teaching it/don't want to deal with undergraduate squeamishness. I wasn't assigned readings about sexuality until my very last semester.

[qbtacoma]

Yes, and hopefully history of sexuality generally will also have a big surge of interest.

Though, of course, queer history isn't just about sexuality.

[Paradeplatz]

I think it would be a fun activity to speculate on the future of our field while we are waiting for the admissions ball to get rolling. Here are my thoughts:

1. Obviously transnational history is coming into vogue - Atlantic world, diaspora studies, etc. I'm waiting for Pacific world history to exist since that matches my regional interests.

2. I am SO glad I will not be a historian of the Internet age. I predict a huge swing toward quantitative research in the future and a demand for computer science-trained historians since for the first time we'll be able to search all existing sources in a particular medium for, say, the number of times people mention "mincemeat pies" per election cycle.

3. In the other direction, I wonder if there is going to be a scholarly acceptance of discussing emotions and other "presentist" ties to our subjects. I say this because I just finished reading Tiya Miles' Ties That Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom and one thing she does is interpret the experience of slavery through Toni Morrison's Beloved. The point was not only that the female slave's emotional experience has not been recorded and that fiction can help us understand what she may have felt, but also a discussion of the inadequacy of words to describe slavery and why the lack of sources is part of that. It was, I think, a successful discussion, but I don't know if I would be brave enough to use that strategy myself. It gets at a sore point of history in that we aren't *supposed* to judge people of the past based on modern feelings, but no one studies history without an emotional connection to the material somehow.

4. Military history is definitely on the down and out in academia, but it is probably the most popular of the popular histories. When do you think this worthy area of study will make a come back?

What do you all think?

1. Really looking forward to that one. After all, especially in intellectual history and history of science, the strict separation of US an European history simply sucks, but I'm still forced to decide for one of the two.

2. Not too sure about that one. The internet will be the source for finding primary and secondary sources, but until primary sources (up to 20th cen.) will be online, a lot of time will pass. Literature management on the computer is already a huge thing. But I'm not sure about the quantitative stuff, because the sociologists are already doing stuff like this, however their findings are for the most part sooo boring, precisely because they insist on being scientifically rigorous. I'm confident that, should "mincemeat pies" become important, some historian would pick up on it without these tools.

But of course, with the growing amount of electronic data available, historians of the 20th century will use statistics more often.

3. This will remain in constant debate. But I don't really see hermeneutics becoming big, unless they can draw on a large collection of sources and still, they will always be shaky.

4. Give us a major, continent sized war and we'll be back on it. (Own involvement helps stirring up interest)

History of sexuality: Won't that already be through by the time we really get to do research? It's not exactly a new field. (though that may be because I'm European)

Queer history: Somewhat small pool of people don't you think? While many women do women's studies, the pool of LGBT doing queer history seems somewhat small.

What I think:

1. Input from Anthropology, Sociology, Philosophy and Psychology will grow. The "pure" historian will die out, because its approach is limited.

2. Especially neuroscience will become an influence in conjunction with constructivist psychological/sociological theories, as this allows to account for perspectives, idiosyncrasies and will maybe lead to a new solution in the structure/agency controversy.

3. History of science will transform into history of knowledge (just a personal hope)

4. I'd be interested to see some comparative histories of the US and continental Europe, because having studied at both places: How did these cultural differences emerge?

5. Studies into the present production of the past are and will be fun (medieval markets, reenactments, films, literature)

6. All the topics already en vogue now, will be somewhat old when we get to do research. Searching for the next big thing already might be the best strategy.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Paradeplatz

[history_PhD]

I want to counter the negativity about being a historian in the digital age. I think it will be easier to do primary source research. This is due in large part to Google Books. I can find several books written in the 1800s that are downloadable and fully searchable. About a month ago, I located a book that a Chicago Tribune journalist wrote during Reconstruction. Because these used to be (still are, in a sense) rare books, you would have to travel to access them. Interlibrary loan, in my experience, is reluctant to send these kinds of books. I also don't think you can overstate the importance of these books being digitized and fully searchable. Dissertations should actually be getting better/ more comprehensive because the access to sources has increased so dramatically.

[BadgerHopeful]

"Queer history: Somewhat small pool of people don't you think? While many women do women's studies, the pool of LGBT doing queer history seems somewhat small."

This makes no sense. This statement assumes that ONLY women study women's history and only queer people study queer history? Huh?

Edited December 21, 2010 by BadgerHopeful

[Riotbeard]

1. Queer history is already pretty big. As a americanist, I think we need to start looking at paradigms of class, gender, race and sexuality as fundimentally tied to modern identity construction, but instead of writing queer theory vs. race theory vs. feminist theory... we need to start thinking about how all the identities converge and affect eachother.

2. I also think we need to look more and more to literary criticism/theory for influence, but historians have been reluctant to do this. I hope we bury the idea of history as a social science and just accept we are a humanities.

[StrangeLight]

1) transnational history is already pretty big. so is atlantic/world history. most job postings i see, in any subfield, demand that applicants demonstrate they can teach world history survey courses. in fact, it's pretty rare when i see a job listing that doesn't mention world history, atlantic history, or transnational history. if anything, in 10 years' time there will be a demand to return to national histories while applying the new theories that a transnational methodology has offered us. i too think/hope pacific history will expand, as will indian ocean history.

2) the internet age searching is actually pretty damn easy. KEYWORD SEARCHES. they will save your life. dealing with paper documents, you end up actually typing all that information into databases so you can conduct keyword searches on them. if only they were already digitized... and the fact that the net makes quantitative analysis easier doesn't mean that's the only type of work people will do.

3) i feel like presentism is already fairly well accepted. i mean, some people are definitely really against it and always will be, but there are probably just as many who embrace it. i don't really see this shifting in one direction or the other.

4) i don't know that military history will come back. the social history of military incursions, the cultural history of the military institution, etc., will definitely be big, but the history of battles and stuff? i can't see that being big, outside of public history/state department sort of stuff.

5) queer history - already its own field. the history of gender and/or sexuality is already really, really big. and the exciting place it's starting to go now is using queer theory or gender theories to apply it to heterosexuality or men. some of my favourite work on gender has been examining the roles of straight men and the construction of masculinity. amazing what you can learn by spreading the theory around. the same way race theory or ethnicity theory applied to white people or dominant groups can uncover really interesting new angles. and i'd have to echo the sentiment that it's kind of ridiculous to think only women do women's history (not true at all) or only LGBT do queer history (also super-not true).

6) "pure" history dying out - what IS pure history? historical anthropology, historical sociology, and historical geography borrow so much from history, and history borrows so much from anthro, sociology, and geography that the distinction between disciplines isn't really that clear anymore. historians already borrow all of the other disciplines' methodological approaches as it suits them. i can't think of a single "pure" historical methodology. content analysis? even that's heavily influenced by/borrowed from lit studies.

7) neuroscience entering historical methodology, rather than becoming a historical subject, really, really scares me. there's too much opportunity for biological essentializing there.

8) comparative history of US and continental europe... seems like something that should've been done by now, if it hasn't been. but then i feel like comparative history in general is kind of on the way out, in favour of "connective" histories like world, atlantic, transnational, etc.

9) present reconstructions of the past - seems like a cool new slant on stuff. deals with memory and re-creating and all that, which has been big for about 5-10 years now. definitely a growth field, i think.

10) my prediction for next big thing: shifting scales/units of analysis. not microhistory, not world history, not national history, not regional history, but constantly shifting from one size to the other. and the other next big thing (this one's mine, you can't have it) is to abandon studies that "want to look at race in the 20th century US" or "gender in 19th century cuba" or whatever. rather than defining the project around race or gender or ethnicity or religion, it'll be defined around something else (voting, participation in social clubs, residence in shantytowns) and then race or gender or ethnicity will play into that. so you still ultimately study those social dimensions but you don't define your research design around those categories.

them's my 10 cents.

Edited December 21, 2010 by StrangeLight

[StrangeLight]

1. As a americanist, I think we need to start looking at paradigms of class, gender, race and sexuality as fundimentally tied to modern identity construction, but instead of writing queer theory vs. race theory vs. feminist theory... we need to start thinking about how all the identities converge and affect eachother.

i took a seminar last spring called "gender, ethnicity, race, religion," and we did exactly that. read books and articles that spanned 1000 years and most geographical subfields but all dealt with gender and/or sexuality and/or race and/or ethnicity and/or religion. usually multiple identity categories in a single study, examining how they influence and are interconnected with each other. complemented by some key theory pieces (barth, butler, bourdieu, brubaker, other B's) that offered different strategies for analyzing the multiplicity of categorizations. hands down the best course i've taken in graduate school. i could send you the syllabus if you're interested.

[history_PhD]

"Queer history: Somewhat small pool of people don't you think? While many women do women's studies, the pool of LGBT doing queer history seems somewhat small."

This makes no sense. This statement assumes that ONLY women study women's history and only queer people study queer history? Huh?

It doesn't always happen that way, but I would say it is a safe generalization to argue that people usually study the group with which they identify with; i.e., women often study women's history, Jews often study Jewish history, African Americans tend to study African American history, etc. I don't know that this applies to other countries though?

[history_PhD]

8) comparative history of US and continental europe... seems like something that should've been done by now, if it hasn't been. but then i feel like comparative history in general is kind of on the way out, in favour of "connective" histories like world, atlantic, transnational, etc.

9) present reconstructions of the past - seems like a cool new slant on stuff. deals with memory and re-creating and all that, which has been big for about 5-10 years now. definitely a growth field, i think.

10) my prediction for next big thing: shifting scales/units of analysis. not microhistory, not world history, not national history, not regional history, but constantly shifting from one size to the other. and the other next big thing (this one's mine, you can't have it) is to abandon studies that "want to look at race in the 20th century US" or "gender in 19th century cuba" or whatever. rather than defining the project around race or gender or ethnicity or religion, it'll be defined around something else (voting, participation in social clubs, residence in shantytowns) and then race or gender or ethnicity will play into that. so you still ultimately study those social dimensions but you don't define your research design around those categories.

I agree with all of these. I'm not sure if this will be an emerging field, but taking a more global approach, say, how Europe viewed events happening in the US, or vice versa would be enlightening. The new term in business (been around a few years actually) is globalism. This assumes that this is a new phenomenon though. I would submit to you that there has always been globalism in that events in one area of the world have always affected other areas. Events such as famines and shortages (surpluses) in one continent have affected other areas of the world for at least the last 300 years: cotton prices in the South, Irish Potato Famine, pogroms in Eastern Europe, etc. In short, I would like to see more application of the idea of a global (not international) world to events in the past.

[natsteel]

1) In my field of early American history, Atlantic history has been a distinct subfield since the 1970s and only continues to grow. Anyone in my field's marketability increases greatly if they can teach Atlantic World courses.

2) I also agree with history_phd, the digital age is a boon for historians. In my field during the 60s and 70s, grad students writing dissertations would spend weeks driving around New England spending their days in the dusty basements of small town halls and their nights sleeping in their hatchback. I just recently did an honors research essay which involved extensive use of colonial newspapers and official correspondence and I was able to do 95% of it online with the help of Readex and Google Books. I don't really see quantitative history becoming a dominant force in the field again any time soon.

3) In my field, there have been some successful and well-received "emotional histories" done recently. I'm still not too sure how I feel the sub-field in general, but, so far, I think when it's done well, it can be very interesting.

As for presentism, I personally am not a big fan, but it does seem to have a wider acceptance, at least in some fields and sub-fields, than ever before.

4) Military history, in its old-school guise, is through. What will remain, however, is social/military history, issues of recruitment and the like...

[TMP]

I think it would be a fun activity to speculate on the future of our field while we are waiting for the admissions ball to get rolling. Here are my thoughts:

1. Obviously transnational history is coming into vogue - Atlantic world, diaspora studies, etc. I'm waiting for Pacific world history to exist since that matches my regional interests.

It's still a fuzzy thing. Historians have yet to grasp the exact definition or it or exactly how to conceptualize it. Some historians get very annoyed when it's used interchangeably with "International History," with is supposedly more diplomatic focus.

2. I am SO glad I will not be a historian of the Internet age. I predict a huge swing toward quantitative research in the future and a demand for computer science-trained historians since for the first time we'll be able to search all existing sources in a particular medium for, say, the number of times people mention "mincemeat pies" per election cycle.

Why? I am already am very interested in quantitative research and it certainly has nothing to do with politics but rather an analysis of budgets from business lens and community from sociological lens. I like numbers to give more of a stark view of what exactly happened and how it all tied with my findings and analysis. Also Internet is proven to be incredibly. You just need to be adept at keyword searches. It takes serious practice and spending a lot of time with the Subject category in your library's database. You also learn to read your sources much more closely to find more specific keywords that will help you with your computer searches. Even better, it has taught me to be more efficient researcher by scanning only for those keywords and telling the archivists precisely what I'm looking for and get the right reel. On the other hand, I am glad I'm not going to be Obama's or Dubya's historian, with all the news and blogs out there. There's also the problem of determining whether or not that blog is legit for a source. I have mixed feelings, really.

3. In the other direction, I wonder if there is going to be a scholarly acceptance of discussing emotions and other "presentist" ties to our subjects. I say this because I just finished reading Tiya Miles' Ties That Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom and one thing she does is interpret the experience of slavery through Toni Morrison's Beloved. The point was not only that the female slave's emotional experience has not been recorded and that fiction can help us understand what she may have felt, but also a discussion of the inadequacy of words to describe slavery and why the lack of sources is part of that. It was, I think, a successful discussion, but I don't know if I would be brave enough to use that strategy myself. It gets at a sore point of history in that we aren't *supposed* to judge people of the past based on modern feelings, but no one studies history without an emotional connection to the material somehow.

I do use presentism in my work because I deal with immigration and public responses. I have to show their emotions to dramatize my story and make my point clear. My advisor also goes for that style.

4. Military history is definitely on the down and out in academia, but it is probably the most popular of the popular histories. When do you think this worthy area of study will make a come back?

The next Cold War, or World War III. Although it can come back, but will be more focused on the current hot spots (Israel-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan/India, N. Korea). So I wouldn't expect much of US-focused military history.

5) queer history - already its own field. the history of gender and/or sexuality is already really, really big. and the exciting place it's starting to go now is using queer theory or gender theories to apply it to heterosexuality or men. some of my favourite work on gender has been examining the roles of straight men and the construction of masculinity. amazing what you can learn by spreading the theory around. the same way race theory or ethnicity theory applied to white people or dominant groups can uncover really interesting new angles. and i'd have to echo the sentiment that it's kind of ridiculous to think only women do women's history (not true at all) or only LGBT do queer history (also super-not true).

Oh, I agree! I'm actually getting a kick out of reading my topic from feminist or female perspective, as well as gay. Although I'm still reluctant to take women's history seriously but I am open to it. I'm just more drawn in ethnicity, which I do believe that within American history, it's very, very important. It would be interesting to see if it spreads over to Europe with the recent immigration.

6) "pure" history dying out - what IS pure history? historical anthropology, historical sociology, and historical geography borrow so much from history, and history borrows so much from anthro, sociology, and geography that the distinction between disciplines isn't really that clear anymore. historians already borrow all of the other disciplines' methodological approaches as it suits them. i can't think of a single "pure" historical methodology. content analysis? even that's heavily influenced by/borrowed from lit studies.

Agreed. I use a combination of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics to analyze my findings. This is why I despite methodology classes. I just find "straight" history to be quite boring. I've challenged my professors on the readings- asking why this or that, taking from another discipline's approach.

8) comparative history of US and continental europe... seems like something that should've been done by now, if it hasn't been. but then i feel like comparative history in general is kind of on the way out, in favour of "connective" histories like world, atlantic, transnational, etc.

Agreed. I've been asked whether I do transnational or comparative history. If I suggest comparative, they find it a lot less interesting than if I say transnational. Sometimes you'll discover that historical events are truly apples and oranges that there's nothing to discuss. However, one can salvage a project by making a fluid connection between subjects in a way that it all ties to one them instead of saying "A is this, B is not that." But more like "A went through this, and then later B went it and we can examine through the lens of one and another of what was available and what was not." If one gives a full picture, it's much more engaging than doing a comparative paper like we used to do in elementary or middle school.

It doesn't always happen that way, but I would say it is a safe generalization to argue that people usually study the group with which they identify with; i.e., women often study women's history, Jews often study Jewish history, African Americans tend to study African American history, etc. I don't know that this applies to other countries though?

Always funny to see historians read books written by someone who would not strongly identify with the subject. They become baffled but truly appreciate the perspective.

My prediction is a chance to step back and re-examine 20th century when papers become declassified and as this generation becomes part of a more globalized world than in the past... And then take our perspectives and connect themes to previous centuries to see how much the human world really has evolved. Sometimes, though, I fear that historians will say that nothing's evolved, and then I'll ask what the hell I was studying for, if there's nothing to study.

Also, Wikileaks is SO not part of the future. It's my nightmare as a historian. Anyone see that latest Chronicle opinion article about it?

[StrangeLight]

It doesn't always happen that way, but I would say it is a safe generalization to argue that people usually study the group with which they identify with; i.e., women often study women's history, Jews often study Jewish history, African Americans tend to study African American history, etc. I don't know that this applies to other countries though?

i actually don't think that's a safe generalization at all. like, not even a little bit. i think you'll find when you're in a grad program that your cohort rarely "is" what they study. very, very rarely.

[StrangeLight]

double-post.

so instead i'll say...

tickle, you should give women's history a chance. i came into my program very anti-gender theory and anti-women's history. i don't know why but it just didn't seem as interesting or as important to me as ethnicity or race did. but my exposure to the theory that came out of women's history really cracked my head open and now i've designed a dissertation project that (among many other things) includes some discussion of gender and the social construction of men's work and women's work, blah blah blah.

Edited December 22, 2010 by StrangeLight

[ChibaCityBlues]

Great topic.

Among many in my cohort, myself included, there is a general sense that the "cultural history" intervention has run its course. Mostly, I feel more and more dissatisfied with the politics of scholarship that, from whatever perspective, concludes that race and/or gender were primary ways the lives of overlapping groups of individuals were ordered. Those were essential points that needed to be made, but it feels more and more like that's a type scholastic refuge for Prius driving, Birkenstock wearing, sustainability conscious, politically liberal, people who "care" about the inequitable and unjust situations of most people as long as that neighborhood and those people are somewhere else. I think StrangeLight is right in that having learned from race and gender and sexuality and all that, the next big thing will be a return to more socially oriented scholarship that attempts to engage and explicate structural inequalities.

[BadgerHopeful]

" Although I'm still reluctant to take women's history seriously but I am open to it"

Ummm.....

[TMP]

" Although I'm still reluctant to take women's history seriously but I am open to it"

Ummm.....

BadgetHopeful and Strangelight, I know, I know, I know. My first college was an all-women's college! I was seriously never exposed to this kind of thinking, thinking about gender, and it was quite bit of a shock.

The least I can say is that I have discussed gender history as one of my professors in my MA program. She was a historian of Jewish women and, believe me, you could not have a discussion with her without thinking about gender. So her seminar was quite enlightening when she included women's history books. I just haven't quite found where precisely women could fit in my research projects for me to take advantage of this popularity.

History_PhD, it IS a gross generalization to say that historians tend to identify with a particular group Subscribe to a H-Net listserv and you will see conferences held and books published all over the world. To cite an example, ancient history, particularly religion, has serious scholarship in Germany and Austria even though one wouldn't expect it there. Historians in China have an interest in other fields besides Chinese and Asian history and their perspectives are so fascinating. So get your passport ready for some international conferences!

[history_PhD]

i actually don't think that's a safe generalization at all. like, not even a little bit. i think you'll find when you're in a grad program that your cohort rarely "is" what they study. very, very rarely.

Perhaps I should have stated this in the negative: men do not tend to be historians of women, non-Jews do not tend to study Jewish history. Several professors of mine have generally said the same thing, making the argument that historians like to research events and people that have personal meaning to them. It obviously does not have to caused by identity; it could be that it is just the effect of minority histories being overlooked for so long. I do think there is a correlation between history becoming a more diverse profession and minority histories (i.e., non-European white history) becoming more emphasized. Personally, I think it is better if historians branch out in subject-matter.

This whole thread has been quite interesting!

[StrangeLight]

Perhaps I should have stated this in the negative: men do not tend to be historians of women, non-Jews do not tend to study Jewish history. Several professors of mine have generally said the same thing, making the argument that historians like to research events and people that have personal meaning to them. It obviously does not have to caused by identity; it could be that it is just the effect of minority histories being overlooked for so long. I do think there is a correlation between history becoming a more diverse profession and minority histories (i.e., non-European white history) becoming more emphasized. Personally, I think it is better if historians branch out in subject-matter.

This whole thread has been quite interesting!

no, i got what you were trying to say. i still strongly disagree with it, based upon my limited experience from my own graduate program and the several conferences i've attended and the applicants for my department's last 5 job searches. but okay. i'm just saying it is not a safe generalization to make. insisting on it actually suggests a lack of familiarity with the major works in those disciplines.

[GK Chesterton]

no, i got what you were trying to say. i still strongly disagree with it, based upon my limited experience from my own graduate program and the several conferences i've attended and the applicants for my department's last 5 job searches. but okay. i'm just saying it is not a safe generalization to make. insisting on it actually suggests a lack of familiarity with the major works in those disciplines.

Perhaps the most complicating part is that the reason some "minor histories" are written more frequently now by people who identify with those minorities is because the universalizing tendency of straight, white, male historians were presenting an "objectively disinterested" viewpoint that tended to confirm precisely their own subjective point-of-view. Look at the various interventions in American Indian/Chicano history by Americo Paredes or whatever; you had people like Frederick Turner and Walter P. Webb writing histories that either excluded these groups entirely or made them into villians/victims/standers-by. Obviously white straight Christian males were at one point historians of women, Jews, blacks, etc. - however, they tended to portray them in ways that marginalized the contribution these groups had or the role they played in a history determined by straight white men.

[qbtacoma]

It is really interesting to hear not only predictions for the field, but also ideas on what trends are already present.

To clarify on the Internet issue, I didn't mean to imply anything bad about digital technology and history (Google Books is a lifesaver!), but I was thinking more along the lines of how overwhelming it will be to use the Internet for sources, especially for the history of regular people. It's going to be the first time ever that we see people of all kinds speaking for themselves, with greater frequency than ever before. This is opposed to, say for a random example, only one surviving account of a riot from the perspective of the rioters is an editorial claiming to explain everyone's grievance. As of right now it is still the case that we read between the lines of the privileged recorders to uncover what the majority has said. I personally consider any surviving text or artifact to be a potential source (though not all sources are suited to certain lines of inquiry, obviously), so to sort through all the content even with good organizing will be quite a task.

As far as women's history, I don't see myself doing research in the short term that will explicitly focus on women, but I definitely think the kinds of questions brought up by gender analysis etc. are invaluable. The reality is that not only did women experience things differently based solely on gender, but also that people were aware of this disparity and often emphasized it, so research that explores that is relevant and shouldn't be shunted off to a "minor" status. (Not that anyone here is advocating that.) When writing about women (or men!) it is important to remember and comment on the fact that gender molded their choices. As ChibaCityBlues points out, analysis that is relentlessly focused on that aspect of gender can obscure other important things about the ordering and priorities in peoples' lives. But people should be more aware that there isn't some mystical level playing field in which all people are empowered to make the same choices; women's history points out some of that.

Perhaps the most complicating part is that the reason some "minor histories" are written more frequently now by people who identify with those minorities is because the universalizing tendency of straight, white, male historians were presenting an "objectively disinterested" viewpoint that tended to confirm precisely their own subjective point-of-view. Look at the various interventions in American Indian/Chicano history by Americo Paredes or whatever; you had people like Frederick Turner and Walter P. Webb writing histories that either excluded these groups entirely or made them into villians/victims/standers-by. Obviously white straight Christian males were at one point historians of women, Jews, blacks, etc. - however, they tended to portray them in ways that marginalized the contribution these groups had or the role they played in a history determined by straight white men.

GK Chesterton has it exactly right. White straight dudes have often refused to see that they were writing *their* histories, which were selectively edited (consciously or not). Plenty of white straight dudes are writing histories these days that don't do this, but plenty of them are as well, which is why there is a division between "general" history and "minority" history, as though white straight dudes aren't a small group in and of themselves. This isn't a problem specific to history, though - think of Hollywood, where the vast majority of movies are made with white straight dudes as protagonists even though most people are not white and straight and male. This self-centered viewpoint needs to be pointed out.

[StrangeLight]

Perhaps the most complicating part is that the reason some "minor histories" are written more frequently now by people who identify with those minorities is because the universalizing tendency of straight, white, male historians were presenting an "objectively disinterested" viewpoint that tended to confirm precisely their own subjective point-of-view. Look at the various interventions in American Indian/Chicano history by Americo Paredes or whatever; you had people like Frederick Turner and Walter P. Webb writing histories that either excluded these groups entirely or made them into villians/victims/standers-by. Obviously white straight Christian males were at one point historians of women, Jews, blacks, etc. - however, they tended to portray them in ways that marginalized the contribution these groups had or the role they played in a history determined by straight white men.

i get what you're saying.

what i am saying is that, today, many of the most respected scholars in these fields, the ones truly sensitive to their subjects and not marginalizing them, are not from the minority groups that they study. just look at african american or african diaspora history. much of the best scholarship from the last 30 years to the present day is done by people who aren't black.

native american history? how many historians of native american descent are there in academia? but i'm sure the scholars writing on native americans today are capable of doing nuanced, sensitive, high-level scholarship.

as for women, seriously... lots of guys write great women's history. today. at this moment. right now.

in my program of 60-odd students, only TWO are studying what they are (or self-identify as). two. at the conferences i've been to (international ones, one of them being the biggest for a variety of fields), i'd hazard a guess that well over a third of the participants did not identify with whatever group they study.

in fact, this may be a sad testament to the lack of equal opportunity affirmative action hiring in my department, but of our 50-odd faculty members, only three of them study what they are, but we manage to cover every minority or marginal group in most historical periods and geographical regions.

[Safferz]

Something I'd like to throw out for the Americanists - will we be seeing the study of the 1980s?