Has history as a dscipline been diluted?

[EndoftheLine]

As interesting a discussion as this would be, I'd gently suggest making a new thread where it won't come with the baggage of this one. 

 

Yeah, good point!

[YoungQ]

To the OP - yes, History is being diluted with radical post-modernist interdisciplinary nonsense. It truly is awful.

 

This does not mean I hate new ways of thinking and new approaches to things, but at a certain point History is not really History anymore... :/

[pro Augustis]

Can you give some examples of things that are no longer History? 

[stillalivetui]

52 minutes ago, YoungQ said:

To the OP - yes, History is being diluted with radical post-modernist interdisciplinary nonsense. It truly is awful.

 

This does not mean I hate new ways of thinking and new approaches to things, but at a certain point History is not really History anymore... :/

All I have to say is: WOAH.

[ashiepoo72]

I thought we killed this thread? Let's PLEASE kill this thread as a holiday gift to all.

[YoungQ]

To the last couple of posters:

 

You all need to chill out. I have said nothing new on this thread and was merely regurgitating what some others have said here and been attacked for saying. You say you support the "opening" and "liberalizing" of out-dated History but sure seem intolerant of those with different ideas.

 

When I say that a lot of pseudo-academic nonsense is getting taken seriously as scholarship what I am referring to is how a bunch of neo-extremists try to use the History discipline to further their political goals and do not use rigorous academic standards when doing so. For instance, I study the Modern Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Jewish-Muslim relations. In this area, we have radical leftists like Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Lila Abu-Lughod, and Joseph Massad who attempt to distort history to attack the West and promote Palestinian political aspirations. At the same time, we have radical fascists like Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'or who attempt to demonize the Islamic world to excuse the crimes of the West. It is the more traditional scholars - like Norman Stillman and Benny Moris -  who come to these debates with more objective and moderated views that actually contribute to our knowledge on these subjects.

 

To those who want to study "cultural studies" and embrace "post-modernism" as "sociologists" and "interdisciplinary scholars" - that's fine - you do that. However, History is supposed to be a serious academic discipline where research is supposed to be based on actual facts and objectivity and not "feelings" and "emotions." If you want to "study" in such a manner, there are many other disciplines out there for you. If you actually want to do research, then History is for you.

[stillalivetui]

I am chill. I just have a problem with how dismissive you are of other disciplines, and implicitly asserting they're not "serious." Needless to say, that's pretty insulting.

 

 

 

[ashiepoo72]

Exactly. You're purposely "regurgitating" (your words, not mine) information to get a rise out of others. Don't get offended when people call you on it.

I'm not a fan of postmodernism, and in fact disagree with many of the approaches derided in this thread, but assuming that people who study the so-called diluted areas of history aren't "serious" is pretentious and wrong. Who says history is supposed to be objective? Life isn't. This is something actively, and seriously, debated in grad programs across the country because the discipline hasn't come to a consensus on it. Throwing around a term like objectivity to criticize subfields you disagree with is ridiculous. Just because someone takes an interdisciplinary approach doesn't mean they are subjective. Anyone with a brain in their head knows that. Interdisciplinarity means using sources from multiple disciplines, in many ways a task that attempts to capture more faces of history that "pure" history does, one that is also attempting to be more representative of the human experience. Some might argue supposed pure history is subjective because it ignores these sources. I think there's a need for both (which sure is more tolerant than your position)...but you already think I'm irrational so I'm not going to try and defend myself. Scholarship needs to use certain tools and not obscure evidence that would detract from an argument, but that doesn't mean emotion has no place in history.

I am so sick of people assuming they know how to define history, and know what doesn't constitute history, and people who think they can belittle scholars who approach it differently. It is a complicated discipline with many facets and opinions, and that's what makes it viable. I can agree that scholars need to treat sources and historiography with an objective eye, but I won't pretend that I know what pure history looks like, nor will I force my opinion on others. I'm in the Zinn camp--subjectivity guides my choice of research topics, objectivity guides how I conduct research on said topics. That's the last thing I'm going to say on this thread.

[YoungQ]

stillalivetui - they are not serious in the sense that they are not as committed to objective analysis as most Historians are.

 

ashiepoo72 - you are correct in saying that a scholar can be both interdisciplinary and also objective. I completely agree and I believe that the famous Bernard Lewis is a great example of that (he now works in an interdisciplinary department). However, it is much harder to be both interdisciplinary and objective and when you stick to traditional academic approaches it is much easier to be objective.

[YoungQ]

There's something I forgot to add and that is about why exactly History is supposed to be objective.

 

The main reason that research should be objective - other than the fact that subjectivity pollutes facts and causes false information to spread - is the fact that there are so many other avenues out there for those who want to be political pundits. I am not attacking everyone who wants to distort reality to support a political agenda. After all, all societies need politicians to run them.

 

However, if you want to dabble in politics and not strive for the objective truth in everything you do then you can go into politics, become a journalist, or write a novel. You could join a military, become a celebrity, or get a job as a human rights worker. All of those things are fine and in those professions you can forgot objectivity all you want. I am not calling for everyone to leave those jobs and just start working in universities. Nevertheless, the whole point of academia is that it's supposed to be different (and I will even say, better) at understanding things than the rest of society. That's the whole point of the "elitist Ivory tower."

[turnings]

Hi I'm from 1893 and I'd like to tell you the objective truth about our cutting edge advances in racial science. Onward empire!

[ExponentialDecay]

Somebody didn't listen in their methods seminar. Somebody's gonna have a hard time getting into grad school.

[YoungQ]

How mature of you all. Well, get over it. I'm not going to change my opinion or omit facts because they "offend" you. That's completely contrary to the spirit of academia.

[mvlchicago]

yo that looks like delicious falafel in their profile pic tho. 

[YoungQ]

35 minutes ago, mvlchicago said:

yo that looks like delicious falafel in their profile pic tho. 

It's good that we can at least agree on something

[dr. t]

3 hours ago, YoungQ said:

How mature of you all. Well, get over it. I'm not going to change my opinion or omit facts because they "offend" you. That's completely contrary to the spirit of academia.

You shouldn't change your opinion or omit "facts" because they offended (ps: they didn't). You should change your opinion and reconsider your interpretation of facts because your analysis makes you look like a first year undergraduate.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

[boomah]

15 hours ago, YoungQ said:

In this area, we have radical leftists like Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Lila Abu-Lughod, and Joseph Massad who attempt to distort history to attack the West and promote Palestinian political aspirations. ... It is the more traditional scholars - like Norman Stillman and Benny Moris -  who come to these debates with more objective and moderated views that actually contribute to our knowledge on these subjects.

 

Said, Abu-Lughod, and Massad aren't historians, and none of them claim to be so. Despite your discomfort with them, they've all contributed to their fields in incredibly important ways, especially Said and Abu-Lughod. Abu-Lughod barely even works on Palestine in her professional work; you might be thinking of her colleague Nadia Abu El-Haj (another respected anthropologist). 

Khalidi is indeed a historian, and quite a widely admired one at that (he's currently Chair of Columbia's History department). His work--due to the subject area--is obviously politicized, but he has contributed important research on the history of Palestinian nationalism, and on pre-1948 history of the region more generally. 

And finally, Benny Morris is hardly "objective" (not that such a position exists). 

[YoungQ]

boomah - you are absolutely correct in assuming that those people are not all historians, although they are common reading materials in History courses. Therefore, I do think mentioning them is important. Likewise, they are all extremely motivated by politics and used in History courses, so that is my issue with them.

 

About Khalidi - my problem with him is that he's not motivated by traditional scholarly commitment to the truth, but is rather motivated by politics. The whole point of academia is to seek the truth without personal prejudices. If politics is your thing, then you can run for President of the United States, be an aid worker for the UN, or work for Fox News.

 

And about Morris - he is extremely objective and a fan of traditional academia. His main argument is all about how early Israeli historians were not practicing proper scholarship when writing about the early history of Israel.

[YoungQ]

telkanuru - perhaps you should read some of the recent posts. One of the posters literally said they were offended by my negative view of other disciplines. There is nothing stupid in negatively viewing other disciplines.

 

If, for instance, I said I hate Political Science (btw - I don't hate Poli Sci) because Political Scientists do a, b, and c yet they do none of those things, then that would show that I have no idea what I am talking about. However, that is simply not the case.

 

Rather, you are literally just attacking someone for having a different view from you. It's that plain and simple. You are intolerant of those favoring traditional academic methodologies. Period.

[YoungQ]

And one more thing to boomah - I would contest the idea that Khalidi is a widely admired historian. He is widely admired within a certain group, yes, but there are also many people who are extremely critical of him.

[YoungQ]

Another thing I forgot - Khalidi is a professor of Arab Studies, even though he also serves in the History Department. Therefore, he is hardly a typical historian.

[thedig13]

19 hours ago, YoungQ said:

There's something I forgot to add and that is about why exactly History is supposed to be objective.

 

The main reason that research should be objective - other than the fact that subjectivity pollutes facts and causes false information to spread - is the fact that there are so many other avenues out there for those who want to be political pundits. I am not attacking everyone who wants to distort reality to support a political agenda. After all, all societies need politicians to run them.

 

However, if you want to dabble in politics and not strive for the objective truth in everything you do then you can go into politics, become a journalist, or write a novel. You could join a military, become a celebrity, or get a job as a human rights worker. All of those things are fine and in those professions you can forgot objectivity all you want. I am not calling for everyone to leave those jobs and just start working in universities. Nevertheless, the whole point of academia is that it's supposed to be different (and I will even say, better) at understanding things than the rest of society. That's the whole point of the "elitist Ivory tower."

Good luck breaking into the historical profession, where the very definition/meaning/purpose of "objectivity" has been thrown into question.

All interpretations of anything are subjective. The very notion of "objectivity" was invented by white European men trying to argue that their own knowledge systems were more valid than those of nonwhites/non-Europeans/women.

[YoungQ]

Oh yes, because being objective surely is an evil oppressive concept.

 

By the way - most historians I have spoken with agree with me. I would argue that you are in the minority, not me.

 

I mean - I agree that many people claim to be objective and are not, but that doesn't mean that the basic idea of objectivity is bad.

[kblooms]

This has to be a troll. No one is seriously this Rankean in this day and age.

[pro Augustis]

3 hours ago, YoungQ said:

boomah - you are absolutely correct in assuming that those people are not all historians, although they are common reading materials in History courses. Therefore, I do think mentioning them is important. Likewise, they are all extremely motivated by politics and used in History courses, so that is my issue with them.

Rather ironically, your denunciation of these figures seems to be, at least as stated here, politically motivated more than methodologically. You say that Said, Khalidi, et al. are politically motivated. That does not surprise me, as, at least in the history classrooms I have been in, the assumption is that everyone (ancient source and modern scholar alike) approaches their world and work with a set of political biases. These become a problem, in scholarship, when they impair the scholar's ability to fairly/accurately assess their material. Then it is not a political problem but rather a methodological problem. This seems to be what you are suggesting, but so far your examples have not been about how this sort of scholarship methodologically fails (which I may or may not agree with but is surely a valid line of questioning) but rather how it is politically influenced (to which I say both obviously and so?).