The future of history

[TMP]

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

Two years ago, in the last seminar, my professor announced to my class, "I think it's wonderful that some of you are looking at 1980s for your analytical papers. I think it's finally time to study the 1980's."

I asked her afterward, "Why? You taught this course in mid-1980s and now you think we should study 1980's?"

She responded, "Sure, I think it's time. Back then it was obviously too soon."

I asked, "But, wait, how long are we *supposed* to wait before studying the next decade?"

She responded, "Historians generally accept about 30 years, so it makes sense to study 1980s now."

Blargh, I really don't want to study my childhood just yet! Although the long-term effects of the Fall of the Wall are just too fascinating...

[Riotbeard]

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.

I would really appreciate looking at the syllabus. I also agree that your racial, gender, class, sexual identities do not by any means point to what you will study. Pragmatically, as a white hetero male of protestant upbringing (now an agnostic), it would be risky to study this group from a professional standpoint, because they have received so much attention in the past. When I look at my cohort, I am the only person I know who does some queer history. The other person in my cohort who studies African Americans is also a white male. Two non-latinos study latin America. For the most part you would not be able to guess our course of study by our identities, etc.

[BadgerHopeful]

Ticklempink, I see what you're saying now. I'm glad you clarified.

I really feel compelled to say that queer history is not a "big field" already. Sure, it may seem big compared to 40 years ago, when there was close to zero scholarship on queer history outside of the ancient world. It only seems like a "big field" because there was virtually no scholarship on queer history (except ancient Greece/Rome) 40 years ago. The field of queer history has a long, long way to go. How many programs can you name that do not have at least one facultyperson focusing primarily on women's history? I would guess zero. How many programs can you name that do not have at least one facultyperson focusing primarily on queer history? Several. If you're already in a program, how many students focus on women's history? How many on queer history?

As we progress into this century, I think we will see an explosion of sensitive, thorough, and though-provoking scholarship on queer history. I think one day it will be common - standard, even - to have at least one facultyperson in every program that focuses primarily on gay history. Several students in the program will focus on queer history instead of just two or three. It will be much more common to have both undergraduate lectures and graduate seminars that focus on queer history, more articles will be dedicated to the subject in our most prominent journals, and more books will be published in the area.

Of course this isn't to discount the significant strides that have been made in queer history, particularly American and English queer history, in the past few decades. If you're insterested in gay history, check out:

George Chauncey: urban gay history of the early 20th century, particularly New York (Yale)

John D'Emilio (University of Illinois, Chicago)

Judith Butler: gender, the body, masculinities, feminities (Berkeley, moving to Columbia)

Michael Sherry and Lane Fenrich (Northwestern)

Nancy Enke and Susan Johnson (Wisconsin)

Matthew Houlbrook: 20th-century English gay history (Oxford)

Edited December 24, 2010 by BadgerHopeful

[Riotbeard]

Of course this isn't to discount the significant strides that have been made in queer history, particularly American and English queer history, in the past few decades. If you're insterested in gay history, check out:

George Chauncey: urban gay history of the early 20th century, particularly New York (Yale)

John D'Emilio (University of Illinois, Chicago)

Judith Butler: gender, the body, masculinities, feminities (Berkeley, moving to Columbia)

Michael Sherry and Lane Fenrich (Northwestern)

Nancy Enke and Susan Johnson (Wisconsin)

Matthew Houlbrook: 20th-century English gay history (Oxford)

D'Emilio is amazing. His bio of Bayard Rustin is great.

I would add:

Stein, Marc. City of Sisterly and Brotherly Loves: Lesbian and Gay Philadelphia, 1945-1972

Hurewitz, Daniel. Bohemian Los Angeles and the Making of Modern Politics

Wallace, Maurice. Constructing the Black Masculine... Can't remember the subtitle.

[TMP]

I don't know whether there are lurkers here giving thumbs up or down to some of these posts or regular posters doing it or not, but I am curious to know why some of the posts got "thumbs down" times several times. De-lurk, people, and discuss why you don't like some of my responses or other people's. This is a discussion thread, after all.

[qbtacoma]

I don't know whether there are lurkers here giving thumbs up or down to some of these posts or regular posters doing it or not, but I am curious to know why some of the posts got "thumbs down" times several times. De-lurk, people, and discuss why you don't like some of my responses or other people's. This is a discussion thread, after all.

Seconded. We can all disagree amicably, and have a better discussion for it.

[qbtacoma]

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.

You know, I'm wondering about this. I've had no lack of great professors doing very interesting work on ethnicities of all kinds, but all of them have been white except for two. What's up with that? I don't know if this is the exception rather than the rule, but I wonder at the capacity of the department/university to want certain content to be taught but not make an effort to address the employment gap. The student body was also really white as well, but I think that is laziness on the part of the admissions department.

I also ran across a site that reports income at universities by seniority, field, race, etc. Female faculty at my private, regionally prestigious undergrad made less than half of the salaries the men did. WTF! I can't believe that any of the faculty or staff would put up with that, but apparently so!

[BadgerHopeful]

You know, I'm wondering about this. I've had no lack of great professors doing very interesting work on ethnicities of all kinds, but all of them have been white except for two. What's up with that?

The university I currently attend has a grand total of zero* black academics on staff. There is not a single black faculty member, in any department.

*Yes, you read that right.

[StrangeLight]

the graduation rates for first-generation college students from PhD programs is dismally low. i think first gen-GRADUATE students (so they've had relatives go to college, but not grad school, before them) are only 10% of PhD holders in the humanities/social sciences. the number for first-gen COLLEGE students getting their PhD is even lower. first-gen students tend to be women and minorities, which is why you'll see fewer women and minorities on faculty.

for me, as a first-gen college student, i know that i could lead a happy and full and valuable life if i decide to leave my PhD program. this isn't the only thing i could do, it's never been expected that i'll go to grad school somewhere for something. i know that for many of my colleagues with parents who hold masters or PhDs, it wasn't a matter of if they were going to graduate school, but where and for what. that sort of culture or expectation just isn't fostered in first-gen college kids.

but it's not just white anglo-saxon protestant males studying "the minorities." i'm female, jewish, canadian, my parents are english and hungarian, my father's side of the family spent the 30s and 40s in concentration camps and ghettos, and in the 50s fled to north america as refugees during the '56 revolution. there's a lot of deep, complicated, interesting history just one generation removed from me, and i study.... afro-indigenous populations in caribbean central america. i do study gender a bit, but i focus on men as much as women, so i study one identity category to which i belong.

there's a professor applying for a job at my school who is chinese-american and studies germany. i think that's pretty cool, but of course everyone asks him how he managed to get interested in germany (which i also get asked constantly about central america). fuck. the same way that WASP kid got interested in japan. why is he allowed to go so far outside of his ethnic or gender or racial category and no one bats an eye, but if someone sufficiently "ethnic" (i.e. not a WASP) studies something they're not, everyone expects them to have some sort of personal history that connects them to their topic. it drives me nuts, i actually find it kind of offensive. which is why the comments in this thread by some posters about how "most" people study what they are, or don't study what they aren't, really got under my skin. how come my "ethnic" last name gets me the third degree about why i study what i do but no one blinks an eye when a "johnson" or a "smith" or a "charles" studies french colonial africa or native american history?

[MegMill]

the graduation rates for first-generation college students from PhD programs is dismally low. i think first gen-GRADUATE students (so they've had relatives go to college, but not grad school, before them) are only 10% of PhD holders in the humanities/social sciences. the number for first-gen COLLEGE students getting their PhD is even lower. first-gen students tend to be women and minorities, which is why you'll see fewer women and minorities on faculty.

for me, as a first-gen college student, i know that i could lead a happy and full and valuable life if i decide to leave my PhD program. this isn't the only thing i could do, it's never been expected that i'll go to grad school somewhere for something. i know that for many of my colleagues with parents who hold masters or PhDs, it wasn't a matter of if they were going to graduate school, but where and for what. that sort of culture or expectation just isn't fostered in first-gen college kids.

but it's not just white anglo-saxon protestant males studying "the minorities." i'm female, jewish, canadian, my parents are english and hungarian, my father's side of the family spent the 30s and 40s in concentration camps and ghettos, and in the 50s fled to north america as refugees during the '56 revolution. there's a lot of deep, complicated, interesting history just one generation removed from me, and i study.... afro-indigenous populations in caribbean central america. i do study gender a bit, but i focus on men as much as women, so i study one identity category to which i belong.

there's a professor applying for a job at my school who is chinese-american and studies germany. i think that's pretty cool, but of course everyone asks him how he managed to get interested in germany (which i also get asked constantly about central america). fuck. the same way that WASP kid got interested in japan. why is he allowed to go so far outside of his ethnic or gender or racial category and no one bats an eye, but if someone sufficiently "ethnic" (i.e. not a WASP) studies something they're not, everyone expects them to have some sort of personal history that connects them to their topic. it drives me nuts, i actually find it kind of offensive. which is why the comments in this thread by some posters about how "most" people study what they are, or don't study what they aren't, really got under my skin. how come my "ethnic" last name gets me the third degree about why i study what i do but no one blinks an eye when a "johnson" or a "smith" or a "charles" studies french colonial africa or native american history?

here, here!

[Melissa33]

Delurking (but haven't used my thumbs!)... just joined while I wait out PhD application results and see that I am not alone in that agony.

I want to add that my primary area of interest is Romani Studies particularly in SE Europe. I am not Roma (not even the tiniest percent) and am American. It is a field that I believe will also begin to emerge, especially in Europe, but also in the US. I know of one American university that has discussed starting a Romani Studies PhD program.

I also find interesting the comments on quantitative history and drawing more from the social sciences. My BA and MA is sociology and I've argued that will provide a solid foundation for historical research.

[meh123]

queer history is already pretty big, i think sociology probably does more now. to expand i think there needs to be another Gay new york written, but for women or lesbians. so much of the work done has been male centered - Foucault, Chauncey, and for reference matt houlbrooks book -Queer London.

as an amercianist id love to see more studies on the 80's, but im not sure where to turn, since Los Angeles is my city of interest. if the 80's havent been touched i would doubt people would be even eager to touch the 90s. i wonder if there is work to be done on riot grrrr.

[BadgerHopeful]

queer history is already pretty big, i think sociology probably does more now. to expand i think there needs to be another Gay new york written, but for women or lesbians. so much of the work done has been male centered - Foucault, Chauncey, and for reference matt houlbrooks book -Queer London.

as an amercianist id love to see more studies on the 80's, but im not sure where to turn, since Los Angeles is my city of interest. if the 80's havent been touched i would doubt people would be even eager to touch the 90s. i wonder if there is work to be done on riot grrrr.

Yes, those works and authors have already been mentioned in previous posts. Chauncey is currently working on his "sequel" (for lack of a better word). The new work will focus on immediate postwar New York to the late 70s, I believe. Also, the exclusive nature of Chauncey and Houlbrook's work is not a bias on their part. Rather, their work is single-sexed because there are very, very few sources with which to work when it comes to ,lesbianism during this time period.

[sankd]

Yes, those works and authors have already been mentioned in previous posts. Chauncey is currently working on his "sequel" (for lack of a better word). The new work will focus on immediate postwar New York to the late 70s, I believe. Also, the exclusive nature of Chauncey and Houlbrook's work is not a bias on their part. Rather, their work is single-sexed because there are very, very few sources with which to work when it comes to ,lesbianism during this time period.

A sequel to Gay New York?! Awesome.

[kotov]

For what it's worth, I'm interested in the Holocaust and some other Jewish topics and I'm not Jewish. Also interested in Romania and Eastern Europe (and to a lesser extent Turkey) even though I'm of German descent. I guess they're still white ethnic groups and I'm not branching out across the globe, but it's a little variety I guess.

[meo03]

Well, to provide a counter example to some of y'all, I consider myself a political historian of the U.S. South, perhaps the most staid and well worn topic within American history. Also, I myself am Southern. Trying to sell oneself as a political historian period, takes some gall these days. Not being terribly interested in either quantitative analysis or electoral politics- but unwilling to call myself a social or cultural historian- I stick with politics because I am mostly interested in questions of power, and how power is maintained within systems of varying levels of identity and material codependency.

I've had many professors remind me that political history has been out of fashion since the social turn of the sixties and the cultural/linguistic turns, ect. Granted, that is an over-simplistic telling of how the academy has developed, and many of the foundational works of Southern political history have been written in the past 20-25 years.

As to my thoughts on the future of history.. I suppose if we are talking about the academy- and largely we are talking about the western academy- then my speculation is that professional history will-

a) become increasingly more inclusive of what is considered source material, and what is "the archive."

return, I hope, to a more activist role in shaping political discussion.

c) I think that the rise of transnational history points to a future for history in a possible "post-national" political structure. Granted, that has been posited before, and here we are in the 21st century, still living in nation-states.

d) while some point to quantitative methodologies gaining more and more prominence, I think that it's important to note that history has turned, and returned to quantitative or otherwise "scientific" historical methodology, most notably at the turn of the century, and then again in the 60s and 70s. If it happens again, it'll be same song, different verse.

I hope we remain mindful (and I try to remind myself daily, through this process) that while professional history projects a sense of itself as everlasting; the inheritors of a tradition from Herodotus through Van Ranke on to today, in many ways- like any institution- has a myth of origin, is largely preoccupied with self perpetuation, and exists on a foundation that is both largely out of its own control can certainly be shaken.

While humans will never stop interpreting the past, our fashion of doing so through the medium of academic history is fairly distinct, rarefied, and new. We'll see what happens.

Then, later, we and our progeny will write about it.

[StrangeLight]

A sequel to Gay New York?! Awesome.

chauncey's been working on the sequel since gay new york came out. i'd love it if he finished it, but i'll believe it when i see it.

[BadgerHopeful]

chauncey's been working on the sequel since gay new york came out. i'd love it if he finished it, but i'll believe it when i see it.

He's been working on it since the mid-90s. I'm not really sure what the hold-up is.

Edited January 6, 2011 by BadgerHopeful

[qbtacoma]

c) I think that the rise of transnational history points to a future for history in a possible "post-national" political structure. Granted, that has been posited before, and here we are in the 21st century, still living in nation-states.

Thinking about history through the nation-state perspective has obscured the fact that many people don't practically live under that structure (tribal leadership in Afghanistan, for instance). I think we'll see some modification of the nation-state era to include discussions of why societies didn't jump on the nation-state train. I've seen a lot of discussion of this in political science but not in history (but that may just mean I'm uninformed).

[meh123]

chauncey's been working on the sequel since gay new york came out. i'd love it if he finished it, but i'll believe it when i see it.

i beleive in the hardcover version in the back flap it even had a working title already. its been about 15 years already. i dont know what the hold up is either. maybe he is dedicating himself to more activism than researching?

[meo03]

Thinking about history through the nation-state perspective has obscured the fact that many people don't practically live under that structure (tribal leadership in Afghanistan, for instance). I think we'll see some modification of the nation-state era to include discussions of why societies didn't jump on the nation-state train. I've seen a lot of discussion of this in political science but not in history (but that may just mean I'm uninformed).

I tend to agree with you here. Furthermore, I think it has obscured the fact that nation-states are a relatively recent, and European, construction. As long as we-- historians-- see living within nation-states as the norm, it will color how we come to know, and to write about those largely living outside that structure. That goes both for our times and for the historical period we write about. If we see as the development of nation-states as inevitable, or even as progressive, then it seems that our understanding as that nation-states are to be the expected cross-cultural norm, and the way in which functioning complex societies organize themselves.

Part of what I see going into that is the fact that professional history, as well as the apparatus which has supported it (the archives, university systems, and funding) is largely connected to nation states, and to the perpetuation of national and institutional systems. I think that idea certainly bears itself out in the case of the United States, and one can at least see the influence of nation in the development of the academy in other nations, for reasons both material and ideological.

[kotov]

I tend to agree with you here. Furthermore, I think it has obscured the fact that nation-states are a relatively recent, and European, construction. As long as we-- historians-- see living within nation-states as the norm, it will color how we come to know, and to write about those largely living outside that structure. That goes both for our times and for the historical period we write about. If we see as the development of nation-states as inevitable, or even as progressive, then it seems that our understanding as that nation-states are to be the expected cross-cultural norm, and the way in which functioning complex societies organize themselves.

Part of what I see going into that is the fact that professional history, as well as the apparatus which has supported it (the archives, university systems, and funding) is largely connected to nation states, and to the perpetuation of national and institutional systems. I think that idea certainly bears itself out in the case of the United States, and one can at least see the influence of nation in the development of the academy in other nations, for reasons both material and ideological.

I would think the fact that historians of the post-WWII era would HAVE to get away from the nation-state paradigm, since neither of the dominant players for most of that era, the US and USSR, were true nation-states. Also, since most places want you to have a thematic field outside of your geographic/temporal focus, you're almost forced to use a comparative (and at least somewhat transnational) approach. That said, revolutionizing what has become the conventional method of history, on the whole, is going to take a while. I've certainly been guilty of it in my work on the Ukraine, though that's a unique situation, as the more nationalist elements are trying to create a nation-state, while others realize that the sizable ethnic Russian population make that impossible. It may be an okay in a specific situation like that where it really is an important way to frame a discussion and is a paradigm that the people themselves want to apply. Does that make a lick of sense to anyone or am I rambling?

[qbtacoma]

I would think the fact that historians of the post-WWII era would HAVE to get away from the nation-state paradigm, since neither of the dominant players for most of that era, the US and USSR, were true nation-states. Also, since most places want you to have a thematic field outside of your geographic/temporal focus, you're almost forced to use a comparative (and at least somewhat transnational) approach. That said, revolutionizing what has become the conventional method of history, on the whole, is going to take a while. I've certainly been guilty of it in my work on the Ukraine, though that's a unique situation, as the more nationalist elements are trying to create a nation-state, while others realize that the sizable ethnic Russian population make that impossible. It may be an okay in a specific situation like that where it really is an important way to frame a discussion and is a paradigm that the people themselves want to apply. Does that make a lick of sense to anyone or am I rambling?

How were the US and USSR not nation-states?

[TMP]

How do you define nation-states?

I would certainly agree with kotov. I would argue that the US and USSR were never nation-states when you think deeply about how they were formed. Both had to acquire land, although by different means. The United States bought a lot of vast, empty land (with some exceptions to the Mexican Cession and Texas) and people had to migrate to these lands from the East Coast, carrying the American culture with them. These lands were eventually formed into states with similar government framework as existing states. The way the United States became a country was very much unlike Germany or Italy.

I'm sore kotov can explain USSR a bit better than I can articulate.

[kotov]

Even Russia today isn't a nation-state. There are over 100 different languages and ethnicities in the Russian Federation. In the USSR, there were closer to 200; some of the states that formed from the former USSR are nation-states, like Estonia and Armenia, however, some, like Kazakhstan and Ukraine aren't.