BadgerHopeful Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I think it would be helpful to create a list of the leading academics in each genre/sub-genre of history if we can. This list has the potential to be helpful to both current graduate students and future applicants. I do queer history, so here goes: Queer History: George Chauncey, Yale, late 19th and 20th-century urban queer history Matthew Houlbrook, Oxford, early 20th-century urban (mostly London) queer history John d'Emilio, UI at Chicago, urban/modern queer history Judith Butler, Berkeley (soon to be Columbia), masculinities, femininities, the body Michael Sherry, Northwestern, gay artists, 20th-century modern Kevin Murphy, Minnesota, modern masculinity Nancy Enke, Wisconsin, modern masculinity/femininity, modern homosexuality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melo Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I think it would be helpful to create a list of the leading academics in each genre/sub-genre of history if we can. This list has the potential to be helpful to both current graduate students and future applicants. I do queer history, so here goes: Queer History: George Chauncey, Yale, late 19th and 20th-century urban queer history Matthew Houlbrook, Oxford, early 20th-century urban (mostly London) queer history John d'Emilio, UI at Chicago, urban/modern queer history Judith Butler, Berkeley (soon to be Columbia), masculinities, femininities, the body Michael Sherry, Northwestern, gay artists, 20th-century modern Kevin Murphy, Minnesota, modern masculinity Nancy Enke, Wisconsin, modern masculinity/femininity, modern homosexuality Anne Enke, Wisconsin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerHopeful Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 Oops, you're right. How ironic that I thought it was "Nancy." Ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepoorstockinger Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 My understanding is that D'Emilio is in the process of retiring and isn't taking on anymore students, but I could be wrong. Judith Butler isn't a historian by any stretch of the imagination and does not teach or supervise in history at UC Berkeley. Maybe she will at Columbia, but that would just be strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerHopeful Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) My understanding is that D'Emilio is in the process of retiring and isn't taking on anymore students, but I could be wrong. Judith Butler isn't a historian by any stretch of the imagination and does not teach or supervise in history at UC Berkeley. Maybe she will at Columbia, but that would just be strange. D'Emilio has been "in the process of retiring" for about 7 or 8 years now. I'll believe it when I see it. Butler is in the Rhetoric Department at UC Berkeley, focusing on gender and sexuality. She'll be housed in English at Columbia. History graduate students at Berkeley have the option of doing a DE, or a Designated Emphasis, as long as you are admitted to the DE BEFORE qualifying exams. One of the DE areas is Women, Gender, and Sexuality, of which Butler is a faculty member. So one would be incorrect to assume that a history PhD student could not work directly and closely with Butler for auxiliary supervision. Edited February 6, 2011 by BadgerHopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricaMarie Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 This is slightly off-topic, I know, but for the sake of not sounding ignorant should the topic arise again-- What exactly is queer history? JustChill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsldonk Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 This is slightly off-topic, I know, but for the sake of not sounding ignorant should the topic arise again-- What exactly is queer history? homosexual history history_PhD, Emerson, violetvivian and 4 others 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeLight Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 homosexual history uhhh... it's the history of gender and sexuality, using gender theory and/or queer theory. Jeppe, StrangeLight and JustChill 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsldonk Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) uhhh... it's the history of gender and sexuality, using gender theory and/or queer theory. I know, I just wanted to make it as simple as possible. Edited to add: And it doesn't help if you define a term someone doesn't understand by using that same term. If someone doesn't know what queer history is, talking about queer theory won't help in explaining it. Edited February 6, 2011 by rsldonk StrangeLight and history_PhD 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeLight Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 right, but it isn't "homosexual history." queer history is not (just) the history of homosexuals (or gay people), it's the history of sexuality. sexual norms and sexual deviance, masculinities and femininities and androgyny. the same way that gender history is not "women history." sure, the history of women is part of gender history, but it's not synonymous with it. JustChill, TMP and violetvivian 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iknownothing Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 You mentioned Minnesota's Kevin Murphy (love him!). I would also add Regina Kunzel from UM as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qbtacoma Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 right, but it isn't "homosexual history." queer history is not (just) the history of homosexuals (or gay people), it's the history of sexuality. sexual norms and sexual deviance, masculinities and femininities and androgyny. the same way that gender history is not "women history." sure, the history of women is part of gender history, but it's not synonymous with it. Especially since it would be very incorrect to project modern understandings of sexuality onto the people of the past. What is most interesting to me is how fluid sexual choice can be. So "homosexual history" doesn't cut it at all, in addition to being a bit rude since bigots like to talk about the homosexual agenda and basically do their best to turn a descriptive term into a dehumanizing one. Emerson and TMP 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qbtacoma Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Medical historians (these are US-centric and not particularly exhaustive): Margaret Humphreys, Duke, infectious diseases in the American South, 19th and 20th centuries Peter Ward, University of British Columbia, racism, gender, public policy in Canada, 19th century Jessica Wang, University of British Columbia, scientific research and its political influences, US public policy, rabies, 20th century The University of Wisconsin: Judith Walzer Leavitt, women, social history of medicine, childbirth and gynecology, infectious disease, 19th and 20th centuries Susan Lederer, history of medicine, media and medicine, medical ethics, 20th century Judith Houck, menopause, sexuality, history of women's health, race, 20th century See the whole list here A bunch at the University of Michigan as well: Howard Markel, immigration, US public health, late 19th and 20th centuries Alexandra Minna Stern, eugenics, public policy, genetic counseling, California, gender and sexuality, 20th century Joel D. Howell, US, healthcare choices, history of medicine, human experimentation, 20th century Nancy Rose Hunt, Africa (Congo-Zaire), women, infertility, abortion, birth, sexuality, colonialism, 20th century Regina Morantz-Sanchez, US, women, gender, the family, sexuality, women physicians, Jewish history, 19th and 20th century Martin Pernick, history of medicine, mass media and medicine, eugenics and other bioethical issues, 20th century Michelle McClellan, gender, addiction, public history, 20th century Here are a few outside of history whose work is still quite relevant and who may also assist in supervising history students depending on university policy: Gretchen Condran, Sociology Department at Temple University, mortality transition between the late 19th and 20th centuries especially in Philadelphia, infant mortality Werner Troesken, Economics Department at the University of Pittsburgh, waterborne diseases, environmental toxins, race, 19th and 20th century US Dora Costa, Economics Department at UCLA, race, aging, war and disease, long-term population health trends Perhaps I will add to this later, but this is a start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsldonk Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Especially since it would be very incorrect to project modern understandings of sexuality onto the people of the past. What is most interesting to me is how fluid sexual choice can be. So "homosexual history" doesn't cut it at all, in addition to being a bit rude since bigots like to talk about the homosexual agenda and basically do their best to turn a descriptive term into a dehumanizing one. Well, we've already established I'm a bigot who doesn't like Roma and now homosexuals. I made an admitted oversimplification to clarify something to someone who had no idea what you were even talking about. I understand all that you say above, but just understand, when you say "queer history" you will be hard pressed to separate the term queer from the term homosexual to about anyone outside the field. Like it or not. StrangeLight and JustChill 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qbtacoma Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Well, we've already established I'm a bigot who doesn't like Roma and now homosexuals. I made an admitted oversimplification to clarify something to someone who had no idea what you were even talking about. I understand all that you say above, but just understand, when you say "queer history" you will be hard pressed to separate the term queer from the term homosexual to about anyone outside the field. Like it or not. I'm so sorry! I didn't mean to imply you yourself are a bigot - just that bigots are the ones who have made "homosexual" a disrespectful term. I am ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now