Crucial Theory for Historians

[kdavid]

I've been reading a book recently which posits its arguments on/around ideas postulated by Jurgen Habermas.

 

I've also seen Foucault cited quite a bit.

 

This has led me to wonder which key thinkers/theorists are crucial to understand for historians?

 

I'm sure this is going to vary by sub-field, but I'm curious what everyone believes the "must-reads" are for all historians. (Feel free to add in specifics for your various sub-fields.)

[czesc]

I'm guessing you mean other than historians? It varies a lot, as you said. Beyond the two you mentioned, Marx and Weber are big. Various Marxists like Gramsci and Lenin. Also Edward Said (for Orientalism), and maybe Gayatri Spivak (for subaltern studies) or Walter Benjamin as (usually for his essay On the Concept of History). Economists tend to crop up a lot - so Smith and Schumpeter, to start. I could go on, but this list is obviously biased toward my interests in Europe and imperialism.

Edited September 24, 2013 by czesc

[Bactrian]

I second the names czesc has tossed out. For more cultural approaches the big name would Clifford Geertz but you'll see some Victor Turner, Marshall Sahlins and others as well. I see Lacan and Derrida fairly often but I'm not sure I'd consider them crucial unless you do postcolonial or gender stuff (which is where I've seen them used the most). It really does depend on your focus because there are so many worthy theorists that it's hard to know where to stop.

 

Are you asking just out of curiosity or are you trying to put together a list of theorists you want to be familiar with?

Edited September 24, 2013 by Bactrian

[kdavid]

Are you asking just out of curiosity or are you trying to put together a list of theorists you want to be familiar with?

 

 

I'm trying to put together a list of those I need to be familiar with.

[dr. t]

Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History.

[jmu]

Walter Rodney was a historian and critical theorist. Spivak, as mentioned, critiques the idea of linear history in her Critique of Post colonial Reason. A lot of critical geographers deal in history as well. If you talk about your interests I may be able to give you more people to look into.

[turnings]

I don't think there's really any excuse for a lack of familiarity with major theoretical trends. Every historian should have at least a broad strokes understanding of the history of philosophy - there is a disappointing tendency to read big 20th century names (Foucault especially) with no attempt to contextualize them. Kant and Hegel especially are thinkers people avoid taking the time to read (because they are very difficult) but you can't really get what's going on in most of western thought through to the present without them. Hegel particularly is important for historians; too many people read trendy Marxist thinkers without really understanding dialectical method.

[kdavid]

I don't think there's really any excuse for a lack of familiarity with major theoretical trends.

 

 

What would you say these major trends are?

[annieca]

So good and bad news -

 

Good news - you will almost certainly have to take a theory class at some point so you'll get a broad stroke of everything.

 

Bad news - this is absolutely no way you can cover everything.

 

Trends that I've noticed -

 

Postmodernism/Anti-modernism/"There is no such thing as modernity"

Structuralism

The Economic people

Gender 

Nationalism

Micro-history

The Long Duree

Memory

 

I could list more... or I can give you a link to my theory's syllabus. It's basically a semester's crash course in theory and it even leaves out some big names (Butler for gender, Anderson for nationalism) but again, there just isn't time in a semester.

[kdavid]

A link would be fantastic, especially if it includes a book list!

 

Thanks, annieca!

[annieca]

http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~cooperma/History601Fall2013/?9

 

There you all are!

[dr. t]

So there's not any real Holy Bible for this, and it hasn't been mentioned here, but I think we're now at the stage that any historian now entering a PhD program who wants to pursue research at any serious level needs to be pretty well versed in the underlying principles of the digital humanities. 

 

I have a syllabus with some pretty great links. I don't think I have the instructor's permission to post it, but when I have a bit I will throw up some of them.

[Katzenmusik]

Marx is huge for historians.  Even if straight-up "Marxist history" is more a thing of the 70's, so many other philosophies/theories/histories build on Marx that it's very useful foundation to have.

 

Next I'd say Gramsci and Foucault are both extremely influential.  Their ideas pop up everywhere.

 

Beyond that it will depend on your interests.  You might consider Raymond Williams, Edward Said, Pierre Bourdieu, Benedict Anderson, Joan Scott, Clifford Geertz, Homi Bhaba, Walter Benjamin... the list goes on.

[Riotbeard]

It really depends on what you do and your approaches.  I use a lot of Foucault.  He is for my work the most important theorists.  I also like Hayden White.  Marx is big for everybody (at least everybody has to know Marx a little bit).  There really isn't a good answer for this, because it's mostly a matter of what type of history you pursue.  I do cultural history, but I don't use many anthropologists.  I lean towards literary critics, and use a lot of deconstruction and close reading. I would ask a professor what you should be reading based on your interests/projects.  Ther are a couple of good theory overviews that can be a good starting point.  I would ask a professor for a reccomendation. 

[ProfMoriarty]

I think every historian needs to be familiar with the Annales school.

[seaofghosts]

I'm surprised he hasn't been mentioned, but I see Emile Durkheim mentioned quite a bit. Max Weber has been mentioned in several of my classes, and I plan on reading some of his writings before graduating. 

 

Awesome thread, by the way, because I've been wondering this myself! Whenever I think about anything academic, my first thought is to compile an Amazon wishlist. 

[architecture 604]

This thread is extremely helpful! Thanks! I'm an architectural historian but I focus mostly on looking at architecture through its context and within the realm of memory studies, so I read a lot of Pierre Nora, Bourdieu, Anderson and Bhabha. But all these suggestions are very helpful. 

[New England Nat]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned.  Bruno Latour is all over history of science, environmental history and history of medicine.  I'm not a theory heavy person and I use Latour.  But I'm also very fond of Ludwig Fleck, but most of the time when I'm using theory it's about knowledge transfer and how knowledge communities are formed.

[annieca]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned.  Bruno Latour is all over history of science, environmental history and history of medicine.  I'm not a theory heavy person and I use Latour.  But I'm also very fond of Ludwig Fleck, but most of the time when I'm using theory it's about knowledge transfer and how knowledge communities are formed.

 

Love Latour! Turns out he's teaching an MOOC sometime soon too! http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/532 In case anyone is interested.

[czesc]

Be careful about promoting MOOCs too widely if you ever want a teaching job.

 

Though Latour's might be an exception. What other MOOC seems so perfectly tailored to confer the conceptual tools to critique MOOCs?

[annieca]

Be careful about promoting MOOCs too widely if you ever want a teaching job.

 

Though Latour's might be an exception. What other MOOC seems so perfectly tailored to confer the conceptual tools to critique MOOCs?

 

I am not going to say I don't want a teaching job because it will be an option post-PhD - not an option I'm considering as of the moment but... I digress. 

 

No, in general I am not a fan of MOOCs at all. But Latour is one I would take simply because of who he is. It makes his genius a little more accessible. 

[Sigaba]

I don't think there's really any excuse for a lack of familiarity with major theoretical trends. Every historian should have at least a broad strokes understanding of the history of philosophy - there is a disappointing tendency to read big 20th century names (Foucault especially) with no attempt to contextualize them. Kant and Hegel especially are thinkers people avoid taking the time to read (because they are very difficult) but you can't really get what's going on in most of western thought through to the present without them. Hegel particularly is important for historians; too many people read trendy Marxist thinkers without really understanding dialectical method.

 

I think your expectations are unrealistic.

 

What would you say these major trends are?

 

Exactly.

 

To students of naval, military, and diplomatic history, the most important theorists of the last two centuries are people of whom you've not heard. Their theories of grand strategy, policy, and warfare have shaped every aspect of global history. Yet, it would be in appropriate to insist that all historians should know these theorists and their works.

[junotwest]

I've just taken a course on History & Theory! I swim in cultural and intellectual history so I found: Geertz, Foucault, Said, Darnton, White, and La Capra to be the most useful for me although we had to read many others in my course.  

 

I would call "crucial" anything that makes clear that empiricism isn't the only avenue to producing quality scholarship.   

[kdavid]

http://terpconnect.u...y601Fall2013/?9

 

There you all are!

 

 

Anyone else no longer able to access this link?

Edited January 6, 2014 by kdavid

[Nikos Evangelos]

I think your expectations are unrealistic.

 

 

Exactly.

 

To students of naval, military, and diplomatic history, the most important theorists of the last two centuries are people of whom you've not heard. Their theories of grand strategy, policy, and warfare have shaped every aspect of global history. Yet, it would be in appropriate to insist that all historians should know these theorists and their works.

 

Are you saying I haven't heard of Mackinder, Mahan, Haushofer, Clausewitz, Rumsfeld and Sun-Tzu? How dare you!