Humanities v. Social Science

[dr. t]

This has been bugging me for a while.

 

The history subforum here sits in the Humanities section, yet every program I applied to (8) in this past cycle had the history department as part of the Social Sciences division. On the other hand, I've encountered problems with anthropologists and the like when I've tried to insist on that point.

 

What are we? Are we undergoing a change or has it already happened? Did it never happen?

[sarab]

What do you think?

I think there are definitely a lot of components that are very similar to social sciences. I have many classmates who are History majors minoring in Anthropology, and there are similar methodologies, analyses, approaches, and perspectives.

[Riotbeard]

I think it depends on what you do.  My work has the aims of the humanities mostly and not the social sciences.  It is about studying the human condition for me and language.  I use a lot of literary theory, but I think people whose methodologies are more rooted in the social sciences probably feel the opposite from me.  I think there is room for history to staddle that line.  I believe at my university, history is considered a humanities (at least in bureaucratic terms), but I am not sure it's university placement matters.

[TMP]

I prefer to be a social scientist with numbers and data but I've taken a good number of literature courses that has given me tools to analyze personal histories as a text, not just context. I'm a mix of both but prefer to categorize history under social sciences.

[Riotbeard]

I prefer to be a social scientist with numbers and data but I've taken a good number of literature courses that has given me tools to analyze personal histories as a text, not just context. I'm a mix of both but prefer to categorize history under social sciences.

 

I used to yell and scream, history is a humanities, but I think I came to terms with my more social scientist oriented friends, and prefer the approach of saying, that is not what I do, but what they do is valid (almost as valid as what I do    ).  I guess that is just my post modern relativism, maaaaaan!

[dr. t]

What do you think?

 

 

I think it depends on what you do.  My work has the aims of the humanities mostly and not the social sciences.  It is about studying the human condition for me and language.  I use a lot of literary theory, but I think people whose methodologies are more rooted in the social sciences probably feel the opposite from me.  I think there is room for history to staddle that line.  I believe at my university, history is considered a humanities (at least in bureaucratic terms), but I am not sure it's university placement matters.

 

I'm in a very humanities part of history- social/intellectual/religious history of the high Middle Ages. Nonetheless, a lot of what I do is informed by the social sciences, and I feel there is a distinct need for quantitative methods in what have been purely qualitative fields. I also think that attempts to keep history in the humanities also is detrimental to the field as a whole, because social science methods should inform the entire discipline, including those of us who are mainly bookworms. I worry a lot about silos.

[ReallyNiceGuy]

I prefer to be a social scientist with numbers and data

 

 

I am firmly behind TMP.

[Sigaba]

This has been bugging me for a while.

 

The history subforum here sits in the Humanities section, yet every program I applied to (8) in this past cycle had the history department as part of the Social Sciences division. On the other hand, I've encountered problems with anthropologists and the like when I've tried to insist on that point.

 

What are we? Are we undergoing a change or has it already happened? Did it never happen?

 

FWIW, in History: Professional Scholarship in America, John Higham discusses the push / pull historians have had with the humanities and the the social sciences.

 

What do you think?

 

I strongly recommend that one take a deliberate, considered approach to answering this question and phrasing one's answers provisionally. Do not let anyone force you to answer this question until you've had a lot of time to read up on and to think about the issues. This is a topic that can see unsuspecting graduate students ending up as chew toys for grumpy professors and bitter ABDs.

 

 I worry a lot about silos.

 

Not to add to your angst, but an additional concern to have is the declining relevance of history to more and more Americans. (FWIW, as you progress in your work, you will likely develop the skills and historiographical knowledge to see multiple connections among silos. As a mentor once told me "a historian is a historian is a historian" regardless of areas of emphasis and topics of specialization.

 

ETA: In my view, history is a humanity.  IMO, the craft can and should be informed by the methods and sensibilities of the social sciences. However, historians should be ever more wary of getting ensnared in the broader debates of the social sciences. Historians should also be vigiliant about incursions from other fields.  One of the bigger reasons OEF and OIF were FUBAR was the blurring of the debate over the RMA (revolution in military affairs) with the historical scholarship on military revolutions and post-war reconstruction.  The RMA debate allows for "case studies" across time and space and pushes towards policies, strategies, and operations that leave military and naval historians shaking their heads in disbelief.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Sigaba

[ReallyNiceGuy]

 

Historians should also be vigiliant about incursions from other fields. 

 

 

I wish this board had some sort of "high-5" emoticon; if it did I would post it right here.

[Josh J.]

Modernism, with its tendencies towards absolutes, attempted to make history a science.  Until the 60's, many historians were continually attempting to identify general historical theories/laws that they could apply towards the disciplines as a whole, and there was a push for history to be a subject that could use to predict the outcomes of future events. That view of history placed it within the social sciences, which were created specifically to generalize and predict.  It seems to me that history, as a descriptive discipline, better belongs in the humanities.  However, as has been pointed out above, some of the best history is very well informed by the social sciences (as well as the other humanities).

[czesc]

Honestly, to me history's ambivalent status vis a vis the humanities and social sciences is what makes history attractive. I love the range of methodologies that are available...and it doesn't hurt that history is (usually) respected both by social scientists and literary theorists.

[frundelson2]

I second czesc's view. I find history appealing because it really draws from both camps and can utilize the best of both the social sciences and the humanities. With that said, I more consistently find history listed as a social science. 

[Katzenmusik]

These walls between disciplines are all quite artificial. Before it became its own field, history was taught through other subjects across the academy.  

 

If we must categorize, I'd consider history to be a humanities field, since it is primarily about the interpretation of texts.  But historians often weave in quantitative analysis and social science methods, making history (to my mind) the perfect mix of not-flaky but also not-boring.

[Chiqui74]

I consider History is a humanites, that said, my school has it under Social Sciences (actually, it's under International and Public Affairs, along with Political Science, International Relations, Religious Studies, Modern Languages, etc.). Philosphy and Psychology are grouped with Math, Chemistry, and Physics.  Go figure!

Edited September 2, 2013 by Chiqui74

[czesc]

I'd be curious to know if the categories different universities place history in result in different pressures to justify hiring decisions/research grants that shape their character. For example, I know Cornell considers history one of the humanities, but Chicago places it within its social sciences division. Has anyone noticed differences in the output of institutions under similarly distinct umbrellas, or know if there's a causal link between these categorizations and the ways these departments operate?

[dr. t]

It would be a pretty interesting navel-gazing experiment to make a little database of which schools consider history a social science and when they started doing so. At Harvard it is also a social science. IIRC, this pattern holds for most (all?) T1s. 

 

A further question: is the question of humanities v. social science inextricably bound up in the quant/qual debates (and their fallout) of the 1970s and beyond? Is this a useful way to look at the distinction, or does it blind us to more productive discussions we might be having?