Has history as a dscipline been diluted?

[Fianna]

We had a really interesting debate on this topic in the seminar where we read Guldi and Armitage. It's an... odd book, but it's worth a read as one of the more current "state of the discipline" debates. Their thesis is interesting, and I found a lot to agree with there, but I think their execution and some of their argument was poor. I sort of boiled it down to "economists and political scientists have stolen our cookie and we're sad". But to be fair, it's a lot more complex than that.

 

I work with a lot of social history traditions, looking at the development of race as a legal and non-porous category during colonial and early national America, and one of my goals as a PhD is to broaden that to look at it from a comparative colonial perspective. This, I think, sort of effectively blends me between more "traditional" institutionalist perspectives, but looking at those institutions from a cultural-impact point of view. I like that Guldi and Armitage are calling for a return to more "big history" works, rather than lots of smaller microhistory works with very narrow perspective. There's definitely a space for that, and I would not call for it to go away, but I think the idea of writing histories that speak to broader issues would make history more relevant outside the discipline.

 

There is some interesting stuff in the Manifesto which talks about the ways in which training in the discipline as well as the drain in university budgets and the corresponding tightening of the job market makes the idea of eternally-narrowing expertise something which historians and departments feel they need to do... however, I think a lot of that is changing on its own. Transnational and comparative studies are becoming really "fashionable" again in history, and that's going to open up broader spaces for people to work in.

[Josh J.]

What a great conversation regarding historiography/philosophy of history.  It strikes me here that one of the main issues here that we aren't addressing head on, but instead are beating around the bush for, is that of privilege.  "Traditional" history, whatever that is (Consensus and military, perhaps), as we probably all know, was dominated by politics, capitalist economics, and supposed "great men."  So the so-called dilution of history by the inclusion of those subjects and peoples that were marginalized or just simply ignored by those wealthy white men who were telling the story is simply a corrective force against their hegemony.  

 

That said, correctives, in my personal opinion, often go too far the other direction.  I think that right now, we are starting to see things swing back the other way a bit.  Many historians, I think, are coming to the conclusion that social and cultural history is just uninteresting if it isn't tied into politics and larger cohesive narratives, and so political history is seeing somewhat of a resurgence, but in a non-traditional way.  

 

At the same time, I must say that when I was looking at different departments that I was interested in based upon the reputation of their prior scholarship, there were a few where I was just like, do they really need EIGHT historians who more or less study the same damn topic from the same "sexy" methodology that lots of people are into right now?  There were a few departments that I have planned to apply to that in the past had great faculty that would have worked well for my topic, but that have packed their faculties so full of historians that study certain niches that I was pretty frustrated.  That is, in some ways, connected to this traditional/non-traditional argument, and, I wonder, some of what might be driving this conversation.

[Vr4douche]

It may just be me but I see a sort of hypocrisy here...you praise the 'openness' of history then a few sentences later explain why military history is shunned. It seems, therefore, that history has been defined and traditional approaches are out. I think that those of you on the positive side of the definition perceive an openness that does not truly exist. If it were truly open proposals would not have to include popular methodological catch phrases.

[jpb]

It may just be me but I see a sort of hypocrisy here...you praise the 'openness' of history then a few sentences later explain why military history is shunned. It seems, therefore, that history has been defined and traditional approaches are out. I think that those of you on the positive side of the definition perceive an openness that does not truly exist. If it were truly open proposals would not have to include popular methodological catch phrases.

I don't think anyone suggested military or wartime history is unimportant and shouldn't be studied. Instead, people have questioned the methodology utilized in traditional military history. Simple strategical analysis that ignores social, cultural and political ramifications will ultimately be dogged by the "so what?" question. How does traditional military history help us understand how military battles and wars shaped and changed a culture, a people, a nation, an institution? Perhaps you have an insightful response to that, which could then thrust narrow military history back into popular historiography and be gold for your statement of purpose. History isn't just becoming more "open," it's becoming more inclusive and attempting to embrace a methodology, rather than a specific set of agreed upon subjects that must be divvied up within a department, if that makes sense.

[mvlchicago]

If the latter point is geared to me, there's a specific difference between saying that history should incorporate all elements that can demonstrate to their utilities to the larger project that is the historical discipline, and that this means all trends will be equally loved. Far from it. This whole "histories from below" discussion has only started about a century ago; if one takes a historical (heh heh) look at the situation, military, political and other modes of "traditional" history have long dominated the conversation since Gibbons started to futz with primary sources. That we're even considering military/political stories under the term "traditional" denotes specifically just how much power those narratives have had over the discipline.

As many people have said on this thread, we're no longer in a period where the "fact gathering" is the dominant paradigm of historical inquiry. What's more the point is to figure out at what points collections of facts become narratives and how that relates to the transmission of information in particular contexts. That's been the goal of a number of projects that came out of the New Left (and hence, their intrinsic connection to the sort of political conceptions people to which they get nailed), and military history can certainly be part of that trajectory; it just needs to take a new mode of inquiry. 

[ashiepoo72]

I'm a little offended that you think military history is shunned. I study military history, as I've said several times. Maybe it isn't the traditional battles and guts and generals version, though I do look at that stuff, but the core of my work involves the study of war and how the nation goes to and conducts modern warfare. I view that as military history, and you seem to be suggesting that doesn't count. Who gets to define what military history is? In your conception, my work would be obsolete, whereas traditional history has now been submerged into how the discipline as a whole studies history. It hasn't disappeared. If it did, FDR and LBJ and Westmoreland wouldn't factor into my research, and for better or worse they certainly do. There shouldn't, IMO, be a "great man" school of history, but there certainly are so-called "great" (or influential) men and women in history.

You're discounting the fact that traditional military history is still EXTREMELY popular among armchair historians--probably one of the most lucrative fields of pop history. You can make a ton of money writing traditional military history for popular audiences. Maybe it's a loser in academia if it's not intersecting with other historical facets, but you'd be better off financially than any academic historian.

History is now more inclusive, expanded and reaches deep into messy and complicated areas. I'm sorry if I don't see this as a bad thing. In fact, I'm looking forward to when "history" doesn't have to be qualified with words like "environmental" and "gender" and "immigration" but the expectation is that it is all those things. Call me a dreamer, a la John Lennon.

[TMP]

Your questions will be discussed when you take historiography, required for all doctoral students in the history department.

 

Also, you mentioned you're in Canada.  In the US, we do have very, very few departments that have fields in military history such as Ohio State.  

 

Military history has been integrated into other fields of historical study.  Scholars have examined "the history of war" through particular lenses such as women's role, labor, politics, etc.  These historians do not wish to analyze battlefield tactics and consider various outcomes (i.e. what if the British had won the Somme if they had done X instead of Y?).  They take war as it is (To quote Leopold von Ranke, the father of the modern history discipline, "Wie es eigentlich gewesen" ("how things actually were")) and consider the participants and factors in shaping the moment.   In that context, they may consider the physical body of exhausted soldiers, the food supply, the natural physical conditions of trenches (they were very muddy indeed, inviting all sorts of diseases), and social tensions as factors for the outcomes of various battles.

 

Isabel Hull's Absolute Destruction is a wonderful example of non-operational military history.  She analyzes a number of ways the Germans continued to push forward to the point of extreme violence such as unchecked public opinion and separation of the military and imperial government during the Second German Empire (the 1871 constitution had given the military uncontested powers, unlike the 1789 US constitution which placed the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the military thereby tying the government and military together).  Hull's multi-faceted approach to German military history offers insights for those interested in European colonialism, WWI, and the workings of the Third Reich's military forces as well as other historians who might wish to take her as a platform for analyzing class differences, health, role of Jewish, Catholic, and/or Polish soldiers, etc.

[Vr4douche]

If the latter point is geared to me, there's a specific difference between saying that history should incorporate all elements that can demonstrate to their utilities to the larger project that is the historical discipline, and that this means all trends will be equally loved. Far from it. This whole "histories from below" discussion has only started about a century ago; if one takes a historical (heh heh) look at the situation, military, political and other modes of "traditional" history have long dominated the conversation since Gibbons started to futz with primary sources. That we're even considering military/political stories under the term "traditional" denotes specifically just how much power those narratives have had over the discipline.

As many people have said on this thread, we're no longer in a period where the "fact gathering" is the dominant paradigm of historical inquiry. What's more the point is to figure out at what points collections of facts become narratives and how that relates to the transmission of information in particular contexts. That's been the goal of a number of projects that came out of the New Left (and hence, their intrinsic connection to the sort of political conceptions people to which they get nailed), and military history can certainly be part of that trajectory; it just needs to take a new mode of inquiry. 

 

Ok, so apparently I have to "open in a new tab" to quote...

 

No not you specifically. But it seems to me that you have a narrow understanding of what came before the 'from below' focus. Do you really think that historians before 1960 were just fact grabbers? Do you really think there was no analysis of sources? There seems to be a perception that 'Rankeans' or empirical historians simply believed everything they read...not the case.

 

But again, are you not saying that there is no room for the old school and only room for this new left?

[Vr4douche]

I'm a little offended that you think military history is shunned. I study military history, as I've said several times. Maybe it isn't the traditional battles and guts and generals version, though I do look at that stuff, but the core of my work involves the study of war and how the nation goes to and conducts modern warfare. I view that as military history, and you seem to be suggesting that doesn't count. Who gets to define what military history is? In your conception, my work would be obsolete, whereas traditional history has now been submerged into how the discipline as a whole studies history. It hasn't disappeared. If it did, FDR and LBJ and Westmoreland wouldn't factor into my research, and for better or worse they certainly do. There shouldn't, IMO, be a "great man" school of history, but there certainly are so-called "great" (or influential) men and women in history.

You're discounting the fact that traditional military history is still EXTREMELY popular among armchair historians--probably one of the most lucrative fields of pop history. You can make a ton of money writing traditional military history for popular audiences. Maybe it's a loser in academia if it's not intersecting with other historical facets, but you'd be better off financially than any academic historian.

History is now more inclusive, expanded and reaches deep into messy and complicated areas. I'm sorry if I don't see this as a bad thing. In fact, I'm looking forward to when "history" doesn't have to be qualified with words like "environmental" and "gender" and "immigration" but the expectation is that it is all those things. Call me a dreamer, a la John Lennon.

 

I do not mean to offend anyone and I'm non of this is intended as ad hominem attacks. That said, it concerns me that you are offended...I don't think it is healthy to be so attached to your work that you are offended by criticism of it...but that's just me! I don't think your study is less worthy than any other. I have no idea what you are studying but I'm sure I would be interested.

 

I still do not see how history is more inclusive. It was inclusive in the 1960s and 70s when the old time historians made way for the new fangled approaches. Now it seems that history is more limited than ever. If your work does not fit into the modern approach you SOL.

 

Any your point about arm-chair historians is interesting. It seems to me that more and more history departments focus on histories that are only interesting to historians and other academics. Maybe it is time we stop focusing on how historians study history and start thinking about how our work is received in our societies. Do we really write only for a small group of academics who appreciate novel methodologies? Does that not represent the 'ivory tower' syndrome that Beard decried in the 1930s?

[jpb]

Ok, so apparently I have to "open in a new tab" to quote...

 

No not you specifically. But it seems to me that you have a narrow understanding of what came before the 'from below' focus. Do you really think that historians before 1960 were just fact grabbers? Do you really think there was no analysis of sources? There seems to be a perception that 'Rankeans' or empirical historians simply believed everything they read...not the case.

 

But again, are you not saying that there is no room for the old school and only room for this new left?

 

There's certainly room for the "old school," as long as that old school methodology is contributing to the larger historical project. If military historians are merely seeking to uncover strategy on the battlefield or determine the number of casualties in a given conflict or describe the military greatness of a specific general, I'm not sure that's going to recapture significant space in the academy. At least, in a narrow sense. That type of military history seems to struggle to take the story a step higher and engage with theoretical concepts and questions, and that's really where historians should live. Studying war and military conflict through a historical lens is imperative, but only insofar as it moves us toward understanding something about the larger historical moment -- and if it can do the latter, there's always room at the inn for that type of history.

[Vr4douche]

Your questions will be discussed when you take historiography, required for all doctoral students in the history department.

 

Also, you mentioned you're in Canada.  In the US, we do have very, very few departments that have fields in military history such as Ohio State.  

 

Military history has been integrated into other fields of historical study.  Scholars have examined "the history of war" through particular lenses such as women's role, labor, politics, etc.  These historians do not wish to analyze battlefield tactics and consider various outcomes (i.e. what if the British had won the Somme if they had done X instead of Y?).  They take war as it is (To quote Leopold von Ranke, the father of the modern history discipline, "Wie es eigentlich gewesen" ("how things actually were")) and consider the participants and factors in shaping the moment.   In that context, they may consider the physical body of exhausted soldiers, the food supply, the natural physical conditions of trenches (they were very muddy indeed, inviting all sorts of diseases), and social tensions as factors for the outcomes of various battles.

 

Isabel Hull's Absolute Destruction is a wonderful example of non-operational military history.  She analyzes a number of ways the Germans continued to push forward to the point of extreme violence such as unchecked public opinion and separation of the military and imperial government during the Second German Empire (the 1871 constitution had given the military uncontested powers, unlike the 1789 US constitution which placed the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the military thereby tying the government and military together).  Hull's multi-faceted approach to German military history offers insights for those interested in European colonialism, WWI, and the workings of the Third Reich's military forces as well as other historians who might wish to take her as a platform for analyzing class differences, health, role of Jewish, Catholic, and/or Polish soldiers, etc.

 

Actually, my MA program required a course on historiography which discussed this 'debate' and which introduced us to the various approaches to history.

 

Don't you think that "wie es eigentlich gewesen' is taken too literally? I mean, Ranke never  practiced the type of empirical history people seem to think. His work involved interpretation and analysis not just blind acceptance of whatever the sources report.

 

[ashiepoo72]

I'm not offended about my work...you're welcome to criticize it, and I'm happy to debate it. And I also am highly invested in it, otherwise I wouldn't be doing a 5-7 year PhD program to study it in more depth, so your comment about attachment seems off to me. I'm offended because I'm getting the sense that because history has evolved into something you don't approve of, you say that history should be defined within certain parameters, presumably ones you DO approve of. I don't think it's our place to define those parameters, it's the job of the discipline as a whole.

Your discussion of whether the discipline has become too inwardly focused is interesting to me. I struggle with this, because I'm a person who thinks popular history can and is useful and that historians need to reach broader audiences. But I don't think traditional history is the only way to do that.

[navyblackmaroon]

I disagree with the notion that there is a monolithic "modern approach" to history. In fact, it seems that there is a plethora of different approaches that historians can use as they see fit. That wasn't necessarily the case back 50 years ago. A contemporary historian has the advantage of selecting tools and approaches that simply did not exist back then.

 

I also disagree with the belief that history was more inclusive back in the 1960s and 1970s. First, the boundaries of appropriate historical subjects and problems has expanded. We now have less restrictions on what we can research. Historians can now study history of gender or history of "whiteness" while still continuing to work on older traditions like women's history or history of a specific racial group. Secondly, the academy has become more inclusive of non-white, non-male, non-straight historians. It is not perfect. However, it is certainly better than it was back then.

 

At the end of the day, I insist, everything hinges on your ability to market your topic and present how it is relevant to the historiography. I know people who work on diplomatic history, another field that has experienced a decline in importance, who were able to successfully navigate modern trends to develop and sell their projects. 

[qeta]

There's certainly room for the "old school," as long as that old school methodology is contributing to the larger historical project. If military historians are merely seeking to uncover strategy on the battlefield or determine the number of casualties in a given conflict or describe the military greatness of a specific general, I'm not sure that's going to recapture significant space in the academy. At least, in a narrow sense. That type of military history seems to struggle to take the story a step higher and engage with theoretical concepts and questions, and that's really where historians should live. Studying war and military conflict through a historical lens is imperative, but only insofar as it moves us toward understanding something about the larger historical moment -- and if it can do the latter, there's always room at the inn for that type of history.

I hope you all will forgive my intrusion here, as I only have an undergraduate degree in history and study political science at the grad level. jpb's comments here strike me as a very accurate description of the current historiographical project. One of the books I read as an undergrad was Odd Arne Westad's Decisive Encounters about the Chinese Civil War. It is an old-school military history in some ways and at least 4-5 chapters are devoted to analyzing the tactical moves of the CCP and the KMT armies on the battlefields, as well as the KMT's diplomatic maneuverings. But in the rest of the chapters, Westad also pays attention to the social and political restructuring of the countryside by the CCP cadres - the changes in their interactions with the peasants, the middle farmers, the landlords, and the women over the course of the civil war. It is precisely because Westad approaches the CCP's victory through these different lenses that he is later able to write his last chapter on the post-civil-war transformation of Chinese society and politics in such a decisive way. Focusing on the military tactics and battles alone would not enable this comprehensive picture and would not do much to clarify why the CCP's victory in the Chinese Civil War was so very pivotal.

[ashiepoo72]

Isabel Hull and Odd Arne Westad are 2 excellent examples of complex but rich military history that goes beyond the boundaries set by the "battle to battle" narrative. I'm so glad both names have popped up on this thread.

Anyone who says pre-1960s history is more inclusive has to ignore women and minorities entirely and believe wholeheartedly in Turner's frontier thesis, which in turn privileges white movement rather than multiethnic, multigendered points of contact and negotiated spaces. Also, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

[dr. t]

Isabel Hull's Absolute Destruction is a wonderful example of non-operational military history.  She analyzes a number of ways the Germans continued to push forward to the point of extreme violence such as unchecked public opinion and separation of the military and imperial government during the Second German Empire (the 1871 constitution had given the military uncontested powers, unlike the 1789 US constitution which placed the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the military thereby tying the government and military together).  Hull's multi-faceted approach to German military history offers insights for those interested in European colonialism, WWI, and the workings of the Third Reich's military forces as well as other historians who might wish to take her as a platform for analyzing class differences, health, role of Jewish, Catholic, and/or Polish soldiers, etc.

 

Is this not a social or institutional history which has chosen the military as part of its subject? I feel like this is distinct from "military history" as it is traditionally understood.

[jpb]

Is this not a social or institutional history which has chosen the military as part of its subject? I feel like this is distinct from "military history" as it is traditionally understood.

Certainly, but I think that was precisely the point of bringing it up, no?

[dr. t]

Certainly, but I think that was precisely the point of bringing it up, no?

 

Well, TMP defined it as an "example of non-operational military history", thus my question.

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[Vr4douche]

I'm not offended about my work...you're welcome to criticize it, and I'm happy to debate it. And I also am highly invested in it, otherwise I wouldn't be doing a 5-7 year PhD program to study it in more depth, so your comment about attachment seems off to me. I'm offended because I'm getting the sense that because history has evolved into something you don't approve of, you say that history should be defined within certain parameters, presumably ones you DO approve of. I don't think it's our place to define those parameters, it's the job of the discipline as a whole.

Your discussion of whether the discipline has become too inwardly focused is interesting to me. I struggle with this, because I'm a person who thinks popular history can and is useful and that historians need to reach broader audiences. But I don't think traditional history is the only way to do that.

 

Its not a matter of my disapproval of the new approaches. No one cares if I do disapprove and I've said over and over again that they have value. My concern is that the new approach is dominating the discipline and there is a almost complete disregard for the old approaches. As I said earlier, the three biggest schools in Canada have not one military historian on staff. I understand the priority given to social and cultural history but they cannot be the be-all-end-all.

 

Historians certainly need to reach broader audiences. We do not work in a bubble or in ivory towers in the sky. We work in schools funded by tax payers and donors who are probably not interested in complex modern methodologies, gender identities and other subjects popular in modern historiography.  

[Vr4douche]

Isabel Hull and Odd Arne Westad are 2 excellent examples of complex but rich military history that goes beyond the boundaries set by the "battle to battle" narrative. I'm so glad both names have popped up on this thread.

Anyone who says pre-1960s history is more inclusive has to ignore women and minorities entirely and believe wholeheartedly in Turner's frontier thesis, which in turn privileges white movement rather than multiethnic, multigendered points of contact and negotiated spaces. Also, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

 

Ya I wasn't seriously suggesting that it was more inclusive in the 60s...that was a tongue and cheek way of comparing the rigidity of the old system with the rigidity of the new one. The whole thing kind of reminds me of those civil rights activists from the 60s who were all about free speech until they go into a position of authority after which they realized the need to control the message.

[ashiepoo72]

Seems like you need to think outside the box. Just because they aren't traditional military historians doesn't mean professors can't supervise a military history project. This is assuming your project is viable--as in, contributes something to the historiography--and can be supported by the department as a whole. that doesn't mean it needs to be identical to what the scholars in the department are doing. Lots of us apply to work with people that don't completely match our interests. If a professor is doing the exact same thing as me, why would my project be viable? The point is to find someone who can train you to be a professional historian, not someone who will always agree with you.

[dr. t]

 My concern is that the new approach is dominating the discipline and there is a almost complete disregard for the old approaches. 

 

Assuming this were true, why is it a problem?

[Vr4douche]

I still think, however, that many people have a profound misunderstanding of the old-school historiography. Read some of the histories from the 20s and 30s on the causes of WW1 and tell me those historians were merely fact gatherers. They were much more contemplative and analytical than many of you seem ready to acknowledge...perhaps your knowledge of them is second hand.

[dr. t]

I still think, however, that many people have a profound misunderstanding of the old-school historiography. Read some of the histories from the 20s and 30s on the causes of WW1 and tell me those historians were merely fact gatherers. They were much more contemplative and analytical than many of you seem ready to acknowledge...perhaps your knowledge of them is second hand.

 

Yes, the social historians of the '20s and '30s were very good, particularly the German-trained ones. The Annales school has its problems, but it also provides valuable perspectives on the past. The methodologies and approaches of both are still in common use today.

 

However, none of these things are "military history" as traditionally defined, so I'm wondering what the relevance of this is to our discussion.

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[ashiepoo72]

The solution is simple. Create your own school of historical thought using those groundbreaking, radical methodologies that historians are now so callously ignoring. You can call it the Old-Timey School of History. If it takes off, I expect credit for the name