Has history as a dscipline been diluted?

[Vr4douche]

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.

 

That seems idealistic. While there are exceptions to every rule, in my experience departments are interested in projects that feature sexy methodologies and current hot topics. Look through this board. There are many who complaint that they have a willing professor who could not convince the department that the project fit the department's agenda. Why do we have to fit a contrived notion of history? To my mind, anyone with a suitable background/grades, a well developed proposal, and a willing supervisor should be given an opportunity to pursue his/her interests.

[dr. t]

That seems idealistic. While there are exceptions to every rule, in my experience departments are interested in projects that feature sexy methodologies and current hot topics. Look through this board. There are many who complaint that they have a willing professor who could not convince the department that the project fit the department's agenda. Why do we have to fit a contrived notion of history? To my mind, anyone with a suitable background/grades, a well developed proposal, and a willing supervisor should be given an opportunity to pursue his/her interests.

 

I am not really sure the problem you posit is real so much as it is made up.

[jpb]

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.

Of course they critically analyzed documents and had a viable method for obtaining the answers they sought. I simply am unconvinced that the questions they asked were as important as the ones historians are asking now, especially those about war, which is why they've fallen out of favor in the academy.

[ashiepoo72]

I am not really sure the problem you posit is real so much as it is made up.

I wanna upvote this hard.

[dr. t]

As XKCD put it:

 

I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more?  Hint: it's the one that involves less work.

 

[mvlchicago]

I wanna upvote this hard.

I gotchu .

[Vr4douche]

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.

 

While I am quite fond of the Annales school that is a social-science approach and I was not referring to strictly social historians. As I said, there are fascinating works on the causes of the World War 1 that are deeply contemplative and analytical but which would never see the light of day today.

 

I don't know why you are so hung up on military history. I simply used it as an obvious example of a traditional subject shunned by history departments. I did not intend it as a discussions on the  definition of military history.

 

[mvlchicago]

While I am quite fond of the Annales school that is a social-science approach and I was not referring to strictly social historians. As I said, there are fascinating works on the causes of the World War 1 that are deeply contemplative and analytical but which would never see the light of day today.

 

I don't know why you are so hung up on military history. I simply used it as an obvious example of a traditional subject shunned by history departments. I did not intend it as a discussions on the  definition of military history.

 

?!? The Annales were primarily archival driven research, led by two historians. If your definition of history is set to exclude tax and crop records, I wonder what exactly you're trying to achieve.

[dr. t]

I don't know why you are so hung up on military history.

 

Honestly? Because this whole thread seems to be about how you're grumpy that no one's interested in discussing the relative advantages of 1940s German field artillery any more.

 

What exactly are these "old fashioned" historical methodologies that we have disregarded?

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[Vr4douche]

I am not really sure the problem you posit is real so much as it is made up.

 

I bet the old-school conservative historians of the 1960s who were in a position of privilege and who struggled against the new approaches felt the same way. I'm sure they felt there was nothing wrong with the status quo.

[ashiepoo72]

LOL

You guys, it's not worth it. Though I am sincerely amused, I will now do something useful like read up on the historiography of my field--including the pesky subfields that bore and/or aggravate me. Because I, sir, am a historian.

[dr. t]

I bet the old-school conservative historians of the 1960s who were in a position of privilege and who struggled against the new approaches felt the same way. I'm sure they felt there was nothing wrong with the status quo.

 

Who exactly are we talking about?

[Vr4douche]

Honestly? Because this whole thread seems to be about how you're grumpy that no one's interested in discussing the relative advantages of 1940s German field artillery any more.

 

What exactly are these "old fashioned" historical methodologies that we have disregarded?

I'm not grumpy at all, military history is not even my primary field of interest and I have been give the opportunity to study it if I wish to. I do take exception with your view that no one is interested in military history. There is a massive demand for military history in the general public. Sure, no one is interested in German field artillery...beside the military no one ever has been...but do you really hold this narrow view of military history? If so I suggest you read the studies on the WW1 Naval Arms Race, especially Sumida and Lambert. Maybe if historians paid more attention to what society wants there would be more funding for our work.

 

Who cares about methodologies? What is this fascination with approaches? as a medievalist I used 'postmodernist' approaches long before I learned about them. The problem is not that 'old fashioned' methodologies have been disregarded but that entire subjects have been essentially black-listed. If you are not studying society or culture you might as well pound salt!

[spellbanisher]

 Maybe if historians paid more attention to what society wants there would be more funding for our work.

 

So, aliens?

Edited February 22, 2015 by spellbanisher

[Vr4douche]

LOL

You guys, it's not worth it. Though I am sincerely amused, I will now do something useful like read up on the historiography of my field--including the pesky subfields that bore and/or aggravate me. Because I, sir, am a historian.

 

Not worth it? we have got you to think more deeply about historiography;)

[dr. t]

I'm not grumpy at all, military history is not even my primary field of interest and I have been give the opportunity to study it if I wish to. I do take exception with your view that no one is interested in military history. There is a massive demand for military history in the general public. Sure, no one is interested in German field artillery...beside the military no one ever has been...but do you really hold this narrow view of military history? If so I suggest you read the studies on the WW1 Naval Arms Race, especially Sumida and Lambert. Maybe if historians paid more attention to what society wants there would be more funding for our work.

 

Who cares about methodologies? What is this fascination with approaches? as a medievalist I used 'postmodernist' approaches long before I learned about them. The problem is not that 'old fashioned' methodologies have been disregarded but that entire subjects have been essentially black-listed. If you are not studying society or culture you might as well pound salt!

 

No (few) academics are interested in military history. If historians paid more attention to what society wants, we'd be the History Channel.

 

If we're not talking about methodologies, what are we talking about? The fact that people remembered that there were also women? What subjects have been "black-listed"?

 

I'm certainly not taking time to read about the First World War, but I can say that if you've actually studied medieval historiography, you'd know that the greats from the 20s and 30s---Kantorowicz, Grundmann, Tellenbach, Pirenne---are still quite relevant to modern approaches. Moreover, along with those stodgy 1960s conservatives---Southern, Strayer, Brundage---they form the starting point for modern study. They're not disregarded, they're incorporated, refined, and challenged.

 

So, I ask again, who exactly are we talking about?

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[jpb]

I'm not grumpy at all, military history is not even my primary field of interest and I have been give the opportunity to study it if I wish to. I do take exception with your view that no one is interested in military history. There is a massive demand for military history in the general public. Sure, no one is interested in German field artillery...beside the military no one ever has been...but do you really hold this narrow view of military history? If so I suggest you read the studies on the WW1 Naval Arms Race, especially Sumida and Lambert. Maybe if historians paid more attention to what society wants there would be more funding for our work.

 

Who cares about methodologies? What is this fascination with approaches? as a medievalist I used 'postmodernist' approaches long before I learned about them. The problem is not that 'old fashioned' methodologies have been disregarded but that entire subjects have been essentially black-listed. If you are not studying society or culture you might as well pound salt!

 

[ashiepoo72]

Dude, I already think plenty deep about historiography. If this thread convinced you to do so, now THAT would be something.

Psst...the writing of history didn't stop during "the 'Nam," and we will get through this. You're welcome.

[dr. t]

If so I suggest you read the studies on the WW1 Naval Arms Race, especially Sumida and Lambert. 

 

An aside: this would seem to fall into the category of social, economic, and political history.

[qeta]

Who cares about methodologies? What is this fascination with approaches? as a medievalist I used 'postmodernist' approaches long before I learned about them. The problem is not that 'old fashioned' methodologies have been disregarded but that entire subjects have been essentially black-listed. If you are not studying society or culture you might as well pound salt!

Academics in history, sociology, and political science (the three fields I have been involved in) all care deeply about methodology. Methodology lends rigour to the way researchers answer questions and increases the internal and external validity of the research. Methodology is also about field standardization - other researchers may not be able to verify all the empirical details of a certain work, but they can certainly evaluate its methodology. I almost had a heart attack reading "who cares about methodologies?" because the answer to me seems very obvious: every academic.

[Vr4douche]

No (few) academics are interested in military history. If historians paid more attention to what society wants, we'd be the History Channel.

 

If we're not talking about methodologies, what are we talking about? The fact that people remembered that there were also women? What subjects have been "black-listed"?

 

I'm certainly not taking time to read about the First World War, but I can say that if you've actually studied medieval historiography, you'd know that the greats from the 20s and 30s---Kantorowicz, Grundmann, Tellenbach, Pirenne---are still quite relevant to modern approaches. Moreover, along with those stodgy 1960s conservatives---Southern, Strayer, Brundage---they form the starting point for modern study. They're not disregarded, they're incorporated, refined, and challenged.

 

So, I ask again, who exactly are we talking about?

 

You seem to be validating my point that the 'new school' has become the entrenched privileged group who ardently protect their narrow view of history. It is the new school that is toiling away in the ivory towers producing work for the select few who are smart enough to appreciate it. Forget that it is those twits watching the discovery channel that fund the ivory tower.

 

I have a thorough background in medieval history. I turned to study medieval philosophy and late-antique intellectual history partially because I was sick of reading works like "female monasticism in 14th century England." Medieval history is dominated by those types of studies...history departments full of medieval professors with very specific specialties.  

 

But I'll give you an example of a 'black-listed' subject. I approached a few prominent professors with a project that questioned the validity of the Arab Agricultural Revolution. They were quite interested in it but told me that it would probably not be approved because it might offend Muslims and because it focused too heavily on irrigation and other agricultural developments and ignored social issues. I can also tell you that there is no appetite for a study on internment during the World War unless it approaches it from the social-justice perspective...Even though there are few studies on the military side of internment, many on the social side, if your project isn't social it aint happnin.

 

We are talking about a discipline that since the 1960s that become excessively social to the detriment of many who want to study history from a different perspective. Moreover, about a discipline that has a veneer of openness but is as rigid as ever.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Vr4douche

[dr. t]

...whelp. I don't know what reality you live in, but it's not one I recognize.

 

[dr. t]

Actually, no, I can't resist. Seratim:

 

Forget that it is those twits watching the discovery channel that fund the ivory tower.

 

Uh, only if they're paying tuition.

 

I turned to study medieval philosophy and late-antique intellectual history partially because I was sick of reading works like "female monasticism in 14th century England." Medieval history is dominated by those types of studies...

 

Apparently you haven't read very broadly in medieval history after all.

 

It might interest you to know that I study high medieval monasticism, with a particular interest in women. Not only do I not have any book about female monasticism in 14th century England on my shelf, I am not even aware that one exists.

 

history departments full of medieval professors with very specific specialties.  

 

Yes, specificity is what historians do. Butterfield's Whig Interpretation of History is a pretty important book. You should read it. This doesn't preclude the mapping of more general trends, of course, as innumerable recent works demonstrate.

 

They were quite interested in it but told me that it would probably not be approved because it might offend Muslims and because it focused too heavily on irrigation and other agricultural developments and ignored social issues. I can also tell you that there is no appetite for a study on internment during the World War unless it approaches it from the social-justice perspective...

 

I have a feeling this is more what you told yourself they said than what they actually said.

 

We are talking about a discipline that since the 1960s that become excessively social to the detriment of many who want to study history from a different perspective. 

 

This statement has no relation to reality.

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[ashiepoo72]

I can also tell you that there is no appetite for a study on internment during the World War unless it approaches it from the social-justice perspective...Even though there are few studies on the military side of internment, many on the social side, if your project isn't social it aint happnin.

 

Funny, I'm pretty sure Michelle Malkin feels the same way.

 

 

Is it just me, or does Fox News sound like a great department for this unicorn of a project in traditional history?

[L13]

I knew I shouldn't venture into this thread...