Crucial Theory for Historians

[hdunlop]

Was Rumsfeld a theorist or philosopher? To find the answer to this known unknown, one must look east, west, south and north somewhat.

 

Man. That 2003-2006 period really feels like a dream sometimes.

[Nikos Evangelos]

Unfortunately, it's like the dream in the movies. You wake up from it, relieved, only soon to discover you're still in it.

[czesc]

Unfortunately, it's like the dream in the movies. You wake up from it, relieved, only soon to discover you're still in it.

 

"We know there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld, February 2002

[Imenol]

Recovering this thread. What has changed? As of 2018, what do you think that any historian is expected to have read before entering grad school, theory-wise?

Also, telkanuru, do you have permission to post that syllabus on DH now? 

[narple]

Like most things in this discipline, I think it largely depends on your topic area. A broad understanding of previously mentioned theorists are important to be sure, but someone doing post-colonial stuff will be dealing with a different set of expected “literary capital” than a medievalist.

I will say a more recently emerging field that my courses have trended towards is gender and queer discussions as a lens for historical inquiry (Joan Scott, Laura Belmonte etc.)

I also really enjoyed Francois Hartog and Reinhart Koselleck re: the philosophy of history as an idea and discipline.

Edited January 23, 2018 by narple
Context

[khigh]

I try to read a lot of Hegel, Braudel, and Turner, but I'd be interested also in what has changed the past few years.

[Tigla]

I highly suggest buying Foucault's works and reading them. I have read his book on state security/police and governmentality (Sicherheit, Territorium, Bevölkerung. Geschichte der Gouvernementalität, sorry I cannot remember the English version) several times, and I still do not think I understand his entire argument. Regardless, a lot of people (at least in my seminars) will say "Foucault says..." or "If we use a Foucaultian framework..." Therefore, understanding his work will help you grasp their comments and critiques better, but also you will be able to actually engage with those comments and critiques rather than brushing them off.

Plus, it is Foucault. He is basically a buzzword for any research dealing with post-colonial states and center-periphery relationships.

[Kingsouth]

Unless your field is insanely populated, I'd take the three major books from your subfield and trawl through their bibliography. Most scholars will at points name drop large works from theorists.

That being said, going back to the basics and reading an introductory book on political theory will also direct you toward some major thinkers. As will similar works on economic theory.

Unfortunately with theory, most of it is picked up along the way and is subfield specific. For instance if you're in some form of British colonial history, then you'd be expected to know Hobbes, Locke and Smith. If you're a German medievalist, these writers, whilst interesting, I can't imagine being helpful.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Kingsouth

[Yellow Mellow]

4 hours ago, narple said:

Like most things in this discipline, I think it largely depends on your topic area. A broad understanding of previously mentioned theorists are important to be sure, but someone doing post-colonial stuff will be dealing with a different set of expected “literary capital” than a medievalist.

I will say a more recently emerging field that my courses have trended towards is gender and queer discussions as a lens for historical inquiry (Joan Scott, Laura Belmonte etc.)

I also really enjoyed Francois Hartog and Reinhart Koselleck re: the philosophy of history as an idea and discipline.

You would be surprised about what people expect from medievalists these days... postcolonial stuff is actually growing in the field, and there are tons of conferences and edited collection on "The Postcolonial Middle Ages" and things of the sort.

[psstein]

For history of science, Foucault remains important, as does Latour, though MANY dislike Latour's work. Kuhn's Structure shows no signs of declining in importance.

Harry Collins' article on the TEA Laser remains a classic of SSK. Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History also remains important in HoS.

[narple]

46 minutes ago, Yellow Mellow said:

You would be surprised about what people expect from medievalists these days... postcolonial stuff is actually growing in the field, and there are tons of conferences and edited collection on "The Postcolonial Middle Ages" and things of the sort.

I don’t disagree. I just meant to say that the expectations of incoming students wouldn’t be universal, not that there wasn’t utility in being more knowledgeable particularly regarding your chosen subfields. 

I think @Kingsouth‘s point about picking it up along the way is a good perspective. No school is going to expect you have complete theoretical knowledge upon entry, but rather a willingness to read and pick things up as you go according to specific projects and as you specialize.

I also forgot to mention last time that I really like Sewell, but don’t really know how others feel about him.

Edited January 23, 2018 by narple
Grammar

[DGrayson]

Hayden White and Bourdieu if they haven't already been mentioned. I'm also a fan of Eliade, though he has fallen out of favor as of late. Also, Latour is becoming more popular in sociology so perhaps there may be some crossover. If you're interested in religion, there's a nice book that sums up some of the major theories: Nine Theories of Religion by Daniel Pals. 

[dr. t]

10 hours ago, Imenol said:

Also, telkanuru, do you have permission to post that syllabus on DH now? 

God, probably, but they're all certainly bullshit now.

[Yellow Mellow]

20 hours ago, DGrayson said:

Hayden White and Bourdieu if they haven't already been mentioned. I'm also a fan of Eliade, though he has fallen out of favor as of late. Also, Latour is becoming more popular in sociology so perhaps there may be some crossover. If you're interested in religion, there's a nice book that sums up some of the major theories: Nine Theories of Religion by Daniel Pals. 

May I ask what is it that you like about Eliade? I have never read him but one of my professors (a very prestigious scholar, Macarthur Fellow and all) described him as an extremely pernicious influence on his field, one that had not contributed to but rather slowed down the advancement of knowledge (he is an anthropologist, with a focus on Pre-Columbian societies). Honestly, I have never read him so I don't know what the fuzz is all about. Could you tell me what you found inspiring, and why you think he has fallen out of favor?

[TheHessianHistorian]

On 10/20/2013 at 8:39 PM, ProfMoriarty said:

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

I was wondering when someone was going to mention this. Kind of shocked no one has brought up Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre, and only @khigh has mentioned Fernand Braudel.

I also found Edward Carr and David Cannadine helpful.

[khigh]

On 1/25/2018 at 1:50 AM, TheHessianHistorian said:

I was wondering when someone was going to mention this. Kind of shocked no one has brought up Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre, and only @khigh has mentioned Fernand Braudel.

I also found Edward Carr and David Cannadine helpful.

Braudel and I get into arguments when I'm reading his history of the Mediterranean. Frederick Jackson Turner is another that I'm surprised people haven't mentioned. I thought his frontier thesis was crucial for study of the American West, but I could be mistaken. 

[emperor norton]

5 hours ago, khigh said:

Frederick Jackson Turner is another that I'm surprised people haven't mentioned. I thought his frontier thesis was crucial for study of the American West, but I could be mistaken. 

Turner might be the perfect example of a theorist who is so-oft cited that you can generally afford not to read him. Unless you work explicitly on the frontier/borderlands or intellectual/cultural history touching closely upon him, you will be familiar enough with his work to summarize it while teaching and there are few scholars embracing his thesis today. Given how limited time is as a resource, it's not necessarily worth diving in. Given how diffuse different subfields' canons are, this applies for a large portion of the above-mentioned texts as well. Unless I'm working on hegemony, I can get by with Gramsci filtered through Genovese, etc.

[khigh]

25 minutes ago, emperor norton said:

Turner might be the perfect example of a theorist who is so-oft cited that you can generally afford not to read him. Unless you work explicitly on the frontier/borderlands or intellectual/cultural history touching closely upon him, you will be familiar enough with his work to summarize it while teaching and there are few scholars embracing his thesis today. Given how limited time is as a resource, it's not necessarily worth diving in. Given how diffuse different subfields' canons are, this applies for a large portion of the above-mentioned texts as well. Unless I'm working on hegemony, I can get by with Gramsci filtered through Genovese, etc.

That's good to know.  I tried to avoid taking any American history classes (took only the required amount) and my senior capstone class was on the American West. Turner was required reading. I hated Turner, but I came through my program hating American history.  We were a very split bunch between Europeanists and Americanists. The Europeanists had t-shirts that said "Turner couldn't even find the borderland." Americanists had shirts that said "History didn't start until 1776." 

[AP]

On 10/20/2013 at 9:39 PM, ProfMoriarty said:

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

Yes, I was going to add the French guys (international student here, where the French had a big influence): Braudel, Bloch, Febvre (not the Lefebvre, but you should also read him), Le Goff, Duby, Le Roy Laurie. They all were influenced by marxism. Speaking of marxism, the British guys: Hobsbawm, Carr, and E.P. Thompson. 

My two cents.

[Yellow Mellow]

18 minutes ago, AP said:

Yes, I was going to add the French guys (international student here, where the French had a big influence): Braudel, Bloch, Febvre (not the Lefebvre, but you should also read him), Le Goff, Duby, Le Roy Laurie. They all were influenced by marxism. Speaking of marxism, the British guys: Hobsbawm, Carr, and E.P. Thompson. 

My two cents.

Interesting that so many of the French ones are medievalists (Bloch, Le Goff, Duby, Le Roy Laurie, and you could add Aries). What is it about the study of the Middle Ages in France that routinely produces the most creative and influential historians?