Fall 2012 Applicant Chit Chat

[New England Nat]

How are your parents holding up? I'm sure Safferz's parents must be... so over the moon with their daughter's incredible success. It's the American Dream.

The Canadian Dream

[StrangeLight]

i agree, i think it serves as a good introduction to the major trends in historiography before the cultural turn. but... i think it's usefulness begins and ends as an introduction. the last 20 years has led to some real changes in the profession's method. maybe novick will write a second edition. (or has he? i've seen reprints but not a new edition).

P.S. canada's the best. totally. i'm gonna go get married to someone of the same sex while we get free health care and smoke our decriminalized weed.

[mstrandmark]

I am also waiting to hear from Indiana. I am a History/Library Science dual degree applicant, so I don't know if that makes any kind of difference in when I will hear from them. I called the secretary last week who was very polite and kind, but couldn't give me any definitive answer and said that I would be emailed as soon as decisions were made. She said (one week ago) that they were reviewing my application group the next day, but still nothing. Do we think it's in alphabetical order? My last name begins with S, so I guess it is still feasible.

[Gene Parmesan]

I'm intrigued by these discussions of Novick and Bloc, and a little bit embarrassed to admit I haven't read them yet. I found Michael Denning's article/overview on marxist cultural studies a great read.

[TMP]

The Canadian Dream

Ugh, my bad. Maybe that's why Canadians are rockin', they're better than us.

[Simple Twist of Fate]

How are your parents holding up? I'm sure Safferz's parents must be... so over the moon with their daughter's incredible success. It's the American Dream.

My mom seems to equate a history phd with law school. It's a minor source of frustration to me.

[crater21]

Yeah, I agree about "That Noble Dream" - it's very comprehensive and a very good introduction to the field.

But, if you're looking for something shorter and less of a survey, I'd recommend Richard J. Evans's "In Defense of History". It is very polemical, which makes it an engaging read.. And, because it was written in the 90s as a kind of rebuttal to the postmodernists, it is able to tackle some of the recent developments in the field.

I still think we need a work that moves us beyond these entrenched positions of "objective history" and "postmodern history". Perhaps that has already been written (can anyone recommend something?). But, Novick is, in some ways, a good starting point to understand what the arguments and positions are, I think.

Edited February 15, 2012 by crater21

[New England Nat]

I think the Noble Dream is a good backstory to a lot of fights in history but it has limited reach for those who come from fields that aren't standard political or even social history. And it's of only limited value to anyone who isn't an Americanist. I preferred Bloc. Now the book I really suffered through was Hayden White's Metahistory. If you want ... well just imagine all the fancy words that could mean bull shit...

My sibling, also a trained historian called Princeton's emphasis on objectivity (we read a history of science book also on the subject) "the Harvard-Princeton echo chamber". I'm not sure that's totally fair but it's also not completely off the mark.

I'm the black sheep of my family and it took me a long time to get my shit togeather. My parents have hard science PhDs and my mother is from the deep south. She dismissed her PhD institution (an Ivy) because she hated it there, and didn't like that i applied there. Princeton though... now Princeton is the southern ivy....

It was kind of hilarious to watch her be so excited about me for once.

[StrangeLight]

you guys, the 90s was still 12+ years ago!!

georg iggers wrote a book called "historiography in the twentieth century: from scientific objectivity to the postmodern challenge" that was updated with a new epilogue in the mid-2000s. his engagement with postmodernism (or lack thereof) is actually pretty problematic, but it's still a decent overview of historiographical trends since ranke. and it at least gets to postmodernism, even if the section heading is "the end of history?"

i don't know of any historian that's written a good how to do history in the 21st century book, but... frankly... historians aren't very good at theory. that said, i think many of them have incorporated the lessons of postmodernism pretty well already. situate yourself, acknowledge your inherent biases, acknowledge multiple readings of sources, multiple legitimate historical narratives, destabilize the "objectivity" of historical sources, etc.

... i liked hayden white. but then, i also really liked foucault (for the theory, not for his "history").

Edited February 15, 2012 by StrangeLight

[virmundi]

I think the Noble Dream is a good backstory to a lot of fights in history but it has limited reach for those who come from fields that aren't standard political or even social history. And it's of only limited value to anyone who isn't an Americanist. I preferred Bloc. Now the book I really suffered through was Hayden White's Metahistory. If you want ... well just imagine all the fancy words that could mean bull shit...

I agree with you on Metahistory -- 800 pages of pain. I don't entirely agree regarding Novick, however. I am as far afield as one can be from being an Americanist, but I still found it to be a useful guide to the trends in historical study. I, too, preferred Bloch, however, simply because of his brevity.

Frankly, there are a host of texts that are somewhat painful to have to read in the "Methodology and Historiography" (or whatever your institution may call it) course... I sat in on your HIST 500 session last October when you guys were discussing E.P. Thompson, and while I was very impressed by the caliber of the discussion and the think-pieces, I couldn't help but be secretly pleased that I hadn't had to read his book again. I'm sure that I'll be forced to revisit it once again though, wherever I happen to end up!

Edited February 15, 2012 by virmundi

[virmundi]

I like Iggers okay... I have the his "A Global History of Modern Historiography" (co-written with Q. Edward Wang and Supriya Mukherjee) on my shelf here... basically, roughly 1/3 of it reads precisely like a precis of his "Historiography in the Twentieth Century" while the other portions deal with historiography in other parts of the world (ie. non-Euro-American) -- both in relation to how history is written about other places and also how it has developed in those places. It is a pretty decent text and it does a valiant effort to tie it all together, but it suffers from Igger's inability to really grapple with postmodernism and also the inability to really tie all of the diverse parts of the book together.

Oh well -- at least they tried. It really is a pretty decent stab at it.

[StrangeLight]

i loved EP thompson. (i also loved the new one that joan scott tore him). y'all are breaking my heart here.

[New England Nat]

Frankly, there are a host of texts that are somewhat painful to have to read in the "Methodology and Historiography" (or whatever your institution may call it) course... I sat in on your HIST 500 session last October when you guys were discussing E.P. Thompson, and while I was very impressed by the caliber of the discussion and the think-pieces, I couldn't help but be secretly pleased that I hadn't had to read his book again. I'm sure that I'll be forced to revisit it once again though, wherever I happen to end up!

I didn't mind E.P. Thompson.

And I remember you

[crater21]

i don't know of any historian that's written a good how to do history in the 21st century book, but... frankly... historians aren't very good at theory. that said, i think many of them have incorporated the lessons of postmodernism pretty well already. situate yourself, acknowledge your inherent biases, acknowledge multiple readings of sources, multiple legitimate historical narratives, destabilize the "objectivity" of historical sources, etc.

Actually, the only 21st century one I can think of is David Cannadine's "What is History Now?" it's a collection of essays by a number of historians. Very accessible and a good, basic overview of the issues. But, it is dominated by what New England Nat called the "Harvard-Princeton echo chamber" and so heavily tilted towards the "objectivity" side of the argument.

I don't know if historians have incorporated the lessons of postmodernism well.. Maybe. In some ways, I think the historical establishment, particularly at the elite institutions, were very, very resistant to postmodernism, and it seems that they have just over-ridden it.

[Safferz]

How are your parents holding up? I'm sure Safferz's parents must be... so over the moon with their daughter's incredible success. It's the American Dream.

My grandma is the most excited -- she lives in northern Somalia, a brilliant woman with no formal schooling so she doesn't recognize the names of any of the schools I've gotten into. But she was ecstatic to hear Obama went to two of them Warms my heart.

[StrangeLight]

oh yeah... i read some of cannadine's book in an undergraduate history seminar. i... yeah. i didn't like it. but then, i've changed a lot since then. i still probably wouldn't like it.

well, the ivy league in particular is an intellectually conservative space (within history departments, very generally speaking). but places like michigan and berkeley are very friendly to boundary-pushing and cutting-edge argumentation. in many ways, i think we're products of our teachers' teachers, and mine have spared me the false hope of objectivity. we only read the historical establishment to trash it, basically (which is fun, but not always productive).

[virmundi]

I didn't mind E.P. Thompson.

And I remember you

Were you the student sitting next to (or at least very proximate to) Barnett on his left?

[virmundi]

I don't know if historians have incorporated the lessons of postmodernism well.. Maybe. In some ways, I think the historical establishment, particularly at the elite institutions, were very, very resistant to postmodernism, and it seems that they have just over-ridden it.

I don't know if they have either, Crater! I think that what many historians have become very good at is creating a sort of straw-man of postmodernism and then explaining why they can knock it down (or at least avoid its problems) with their particular argument... I feel like I am joining in that very fine tradition with my methodological/theoretical section in my M.A. -- but it is sort of what is expected of me, so . . .

[New England Nat]

Were you the student sitting next to (or at least very proximate to) Barnett on his left?

No, I was in Naquin's section, sitting on the edge on the other side of the room from you. We shook hands though when your friend introduced you. Alas I'm a modern Americanist so I didn't think I had much to offer you during your visit so let the hordes of people closer to your area talk to you.

[StrangeLight]

damn... are any of you being taught that postmodernism was a much-needed and necessary intervention into our field?! where are all the cultural turn historians at your schools? i mean, there are plenty of objectivist professors that subscribe to the harvard-princeton echo chamber at my program, i just don't talk to them. hahahaahah.

[New England Nat]

well, the ivy league in particular is an intellectually conservative space (within history departments, very generally speaking).

I was once told by a pretty boundry pushing professor that you could stand in the middle of Princeton's campus shouting Marx and still seem conservative. The power of the place just makes everything seem that way. There are plenty of people at elite institutions pushing boundries and who welcome the pushing of boundries. You just have to be willing to defend that work. YMMV.

[New England Nat]

damn... are any of you being taught that postmodernism was a much-needed and necessary intervention into our field?!

You have obviously never met D. Graham Burnett, who loved all the books you love and is a really neat guy to talk to. And teaches History 500 at Princeton almost every year. Trust me, you are not alone in your love of the postmodern.

[goldielocks]

My grandma is the most excited -- she lives in northern Somalia, a brilliant woman with no formal schooling so she doesn't recognize the names of any of the schools I've gotten into. But she was ecstatic to hear Obama went to two of them Warms my heart.

This makes me so happy. Good for you, Safferz. So happy to see such incredible results for you!

[StrangeLight]

yeah, that's why i said generally speaking. even if there are people who will do the cutting edge work, the culture of the departments at ivies tends to be intellectually conservative (although not necessarily politically conservative).

this is why i like interdisciplinary conferences. the objectivists are usually in the minority.

[StrangeLight]

You have obviously never met D. Graham Burnett, who loved all the books you love and is a really neat guy to talk to. And teaches History 500 at Princeton almost every year. Trust me, you are not alone in your love of the postmodern.

i have not met him, but i did see his tremendously pretentious department profile photo he used to have up. sitting in front of an open window, curtains blowing, his pressed white shirt open down his chest, as he pouted those pretty lips to the camera. i mean, goddamn. i've seen some terrible profile pictures (profs with their cats, pictures of obi wan), but i nearly bruised a rib laughing at that. i was disappointed to see he changed it.

i'm sure he's a cool guy, though.