Has history as a dscipline been diluted?

[Vr4douche]

1) Every state school in the US and around the world is tax-payer subsidized.

 

2) It wasn't a serious example the point is that pretty much everything in medieval studies now focuses on 'the other'.

 

3) You see, I am not protesting new history approaches, I am complaining that their rise has not been met with an increase in space for traditional studies and so many have been forced out of the profession. I know one scholar who has written numerous best selling and scholarly books who cannot find stable academic employment.

 

4) You can believe me or not, I don't really care. I know what I have experienced and I know many other people who were advised not to apply to programs because their project was not social.

 

5) Take a quick look at the faculty of the big universities in Canada and the US and tell me social history is not dominant.

[qeta]

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.

I fail to see how you refuting the validity of the Arab Agricultural Revolution would offend Muslims or why any professor would say that. In fact, a cursory search on JStor on the topic brings up a refutation of Watson's thesis by Michael Decker written in 2009. Most of the sources he cites on farming machines, techniques, and systems were written after the mid-1980s.

 

ETA: I am also going to stop responding because I can no longer take anything you say seriously.

Edited February 22, 2015 by qeta

[dr. t]

1) Every state school in the US and around the world is tax-payer subsidized.

 

I'm really not going to get into the debate about why academia doesn't run on a business model, but it doesn't, and that's a good thing.

 

2) It wasn't a serious example the point is that pretty much everything in medieval studies now focuses on 'the other'.

 

Do you have a serious example? Doubtful.

 

3) You see, I am not protesting new history approaches, I am complaining that their rise has not been met with an increase in space for traditional studies and so many have been forced out of the profession. I know one scholar who has written numerous best selling and scholarly books who cannot find stable academic employment.

 

It's not a zero sum game. And have you looked at the job market recently? 

 

4) You can believe me or not, I don't really care. I know what I have experienced and I know many other people who were advised not to apply to programs because their project was not social.

 

Offensive foul: moving the goalposts; 15 yard penalty.

Yeah, some programs are going to have a social focus. If you don't want to do social history, you should apply to other programs.

 

5) Take a quick look at the faculty of the big universities in Canada and the US and tell me social history is not dominant.

 

Repeat offensive foul: moving the goalposts; second offense, 20 yard penalty.

 

Many departments have one social historian and one intellectual/economic/cultural/whatever historian in a given field. "Social history" is a fantastically big tent. So yeah, that means it's pretty easy to do social history. This doesn't mean it's to the detriment of doing other work. Also, since when is social history a new methodology? Have you read any German or French (or English) scholarship from the 20th century?

 

Oh, and I thought we weren't talking about methodology. 

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[APBrown]

So I would be careful asking, who cares about methodology? In all honesty, you won't pass a dissertation defense if you tell your committee that. Also, the new "narrow minded" approach to history is defined by including new methodologies into the fold of historical inquiry. So exactly how is that narrow? Again, few people believe that traditional histories have no place. I include traditional diplomatic history in my own work but it more helps influence my own research rather than define it. I read Kristin Hoganson's book Fighting for American Manhood and in the endnotes I found many citations for Brian Linn's traditional military histories of the Philippine-American War and the War of 1898. Historians taking non-traditional approaches incorporate traditional histories but often traditional historians fail to incorporate new methodologies in their research or teaching. In that case, "narrowly focused" historians are better hires because they will provide the department with a wide array of approaches whereas traditional historians will not. Lastly, many traditional historians, when they are on the job market, fail to connect their research or interests to those of the existing faculty members. If they are not able to sell their approaches, they will not be attractive candidates for job openings.That is not just true for traditional historians but anyone on the job market.

[Vr4douche]

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?

 

I cannot comment on that book as I have not read it. It was not out when I was thinking about that project and my project focused on World War 1 internment of Germans. Based on Wikipedia it is a product of a Fox News personality, one with a BA who is no historian. If it is as poorly researched and argued as I assume it is I would probably hate it. I wouldn't hate it, however, because she doesn't use some fancy methodology.

 

But the emotional reaction to the book is amazing. 30 something historians and researchers penning a letter in protests of the work seems awfully similar to the response of objectivists had to relativism.

 

[dr. t]

As a thought exercise, I went through the schools I applied to:

 

UCBerkely: 2 political/institutional historians

Chicago: 1 intellectual, 1 social, 1 cultural historian

Toronto: 1 intellectual/institutional, 1 political/institutional historian

OSU: 1 intellectual/institutional historian

Brown: 1 intellectual, 1 social historian

Harvard: 1 economic/political, 1 social historian

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[Vr4douche]

So I would be careful asking, who cares about methodology? In all honesty, you won't pass a dissertation defense if you tell your committee that. Also, the new "narrow minded" approach to history is defined by including new methodologies into the fold of historical inquiry. So exactly how is that narrow? Again, few people believe that traditional histories have no place. I include traditional diplomatic history in my own work but it more helps influence my own research rather than define it. I read Kristin Hoganson's book Fighting for American Manhood and in the endnotes I found many citations for Brian Linn's traditional military histories of the Philippine-American War and the War of 1898. Historians taking non-traditional approaches incorporate traditional histories but often traditional historians fail to incorporate new methodologies in their research or teaching. In that case, "narrowly focused" historians are better hires because they will provide the department with a wide array of approaches whereas traditional historians will not. Lastly, many traditional historians, when they are on the job market, fail to connect their research or interests to those of the existing faculty members. If they are not able to sell their approaches, they will not be attractive candidates for job openings.That is not just true for traditional historians but anyone on the job market.

 

I was not suggesting that methodology is not important to the study of history. Obviously it is...its also a part of the way I played basketball, fix my car, brush my teeth etc.. My point is that methodologies should not define history and should not influence a graduate school application. Yes, applicants should demonstrate a knowledge of different approaches, especially at the PhD level, but it is wrong and limiting to require certain approaches. If I have the grades to qualify, a good proposal, and a willing professor I should be eligible. And I don't care what anyone here says, I have been warned time and again that my projects are not social enough.

 

[Vr4douche]

I think you better look again at the University of Toronto's list of faculty and ongoing dissertations. They are replete with words like race, ethnicity, gender, culture and all the other usual suspects.

[ashiepoo72]

I don't think the problem is your lack of social emphasis, so much as the whole lack of a good proposal. That you listed race, ethnicity, gender and culture as negatives really says it all. Bill O'Reilly probably needs an assistant, I'm sure he will pay you more than you'd ever make in academia. Besides, it's pretty apparent you don't even LIKE academia or all it entails, which means you're wasting your time here.

[Vr4douche]

I don't think the problem is your lack of social emphasis, so much as the whole lack of a good proposal. That you listed race, ethnicity, gender and culture as negatives really says it all. Bill O'Reilly probably needs an assistant, I'm sure he will pay you more than you'd ever make in academia. Besides, it's pretty apparent you don't even LIKE academia or all it entails, which means you're wasting your time here.

 

Everything you wrote there validates my view that the 'new historians' are really the entrenched conservatives resistant to change. How can you begin to comment on my proposals without having read them? Obviously you think my proposals are bad because I do not focus on social or cultural history. So you praise the inclusiveness of history yet you promote a very limited concept of it. Seems hypocritical.

 

And I will remind you that I never once questioned the value of racial, ethnic, gender etc. histories. I actually enjoy the good ones, especially the works of Natalie Zemon Davis. My complaint is that the influx of studies that could properly be done in other departments has not been met with increased funding, teaching jobs, or graduate spaces for those who want to study traditional aspects of history. But of course you don't have a problem with this...you're the beneficiary.

 

Why do you say I dislike academia? because I do not get my jollies from modern methodology? It seems that you have now narrowly defined academia in addition to history. So much for inclusiveness.

[ashiepoo72]

I said you questioned the value of race, ethnicity, gender and culture because you questioned the value of race, ethnicity, gender and culture in explicit terms in the post above my last one, as well as with your attitude throughout this entire thread.

I said your proposal isn't good because if it was, maybe you wouldn't be complaining about professors turning you away. They wouldn't do that if your proposal was compelling. Sounds like you got your feelings hurt and, instead of attempting to improve and adapt, decided to blame the bogeymen of social historians and non-traditional history.

Best of luck to you. I'm officially disengaging from this conversation. I've humored you much longer than I should, despite my better judgment.

[Vr4douche]

I said you questioned the value of race, ethnicity, gender and culture because you questioned the value of race, ethnicity, gender and culture in explicit terms in the post above my last one, as well as with your attitude throughout this entire thread.

I said your proposal isn't good because if it was, maybe you wouldn't be complaining about professors turning you away. They wouldn't do that if your proposal was compelling. Sounds like you got your feelings hurt and, instead of attempting to improve and adapt, decided to blame the bogeymen of social historians and non-traditional history.

Best of luck to you. I'm officially disengaging from this conversation. I've humored you much longer than I should, despite my better judgment.

 

That's simply not true...I did not question their value. In fact, that was a response to Telkanuru who thinks that UofT has only a couple social/culture historians on staff when in reality many of the profs. focus on those issues. Your constant attempt to convince me that I hate social and cultural history is interesting. Do you really believe that anyone who questions their prominence hates them and should not be a historian?

 

Again, you know nothing of my proposals. I did not formally propose them, I was told by relevant professors that topics like mine would not be welcomed by the admission committee. They suggested that I add some of the methodological catch phrases but I wouldn't. Your idea that I'm blaming the boogieman for failures is comical to me. I succeeded at the BA and MA level and I have been accepted to every graduate program to which I have applied (so far I am 1 for 1 of a possible 6 for Phd apps). I have also received considerable funding offers at both MA and PhD levels. I am not concerned with by personal circumstances but with the discipline on the whole. Moreover, I am concerned for those who might be shut out by the excessive rigidity of modern history.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Vr4douche

[SunshineLolipops]

That escalated quickly...

[IvanBezdomnii]

That escalated quickly...

I was pretty sure it was headed in this direction as soon as I read the topic title. This may be gradcafe, but it's still the internet.

[turnings]

methodologies should not define history

 

Longtime lurker. Just wanted to let this particular quote speak for itself.

[jpb]

Everything you wrote there validates my view that the 'new historians' are really the entrenched conservatives resistant to change. How can you begin to comment on my proposals without having read them? Obviously you think my proposals are bad because I do not focus on social or cultural history. So you praise the inclusiveness of history yet you promote a very limited concept of it. Seems hypocritical.

And I will remind you that I never once questioned the value of racial, ethnic, gender etc. histories. I actually enjoy the good ones, especially the works of Natalie Zemon Davis. My complaint is that the influx of studies that could properly be done in other departments has not been met with increased funding, teaching jobs, or graduate spaces for those who want to study traditional aspects of history. But of course you don't have a problem with this...you're the beneficiary.

Why do you say I dislike academia? because I do not get my jollies from modern methodology? It seems that you have now narrowly defined academia in addition to history. So much for inclusiveness.

I can also assume that you're one who laments the scholarship opportunities for white, straight, middle-class men and blame that on the massive increase in scholarships available for "new-fangled scholars" like women and minorities. Not that you dislike the latter, of course, but you just feel that every scholarship created to help a traditionally underfunded sector of the academic community should be met with a similar scholarship for traditional white guys.

[scirefaciat]

To me, it really seems like you were interested in programs that maybe weren't a good fit for you to begin with.  I think part of your problem may have been a small sample size, because the US is full of people who do military history or who work on late antiquity (i can think of several universities off the top of my head that might have been a good fit for you -- they don't seem to have been on your list).

 

I am a legal/church (medieval England) historian -- which to my mind, is about as "traditional" (as you seem to define it) as it gets.  I cannot incorporate race/ethnicity/gender or even class into my work.  Yet the responses I received from the professors I have contacted has been overwhelmingly positive.  I have written a MA thesis, and published an article on that topic (it has to do with Advowson and writs of quare impedit/quare non admisit).  So I knew exactly what I wanted my project to be, I knew the documents and archives I need to use, and I can read them easily.

 

When I started the cycle, I surveyed pretty much every major history program in the US (and some in England) (about 100 programs). I immediately threw out about 60% because they didn't have a medievalist of my era on staff.  I pretty much completely avoided the traditional "medieval" schools, because their version of Church history (they overwhelmingly focus on monastic life, or medieval women, or canon law) just didn't jive with what I was interested in.  By the time i had the list down to twenty, I started REALLY looking at the work that each professor was doing -- were they working in the 14th century? were they working on legal history? did they have a background in church history as well? I contacted them all, and the professors at about 10 universities responded really positively. I ended up scratching some of those of the list because there were still fit issues that I think would have kept me out, and I wasn't interested in wasting my money.  I also ultimately chose not to apply in England, because I frankly can't afford to attend without funding.  I now have an offer from a program I never would have dreamed I would get into a year ago, and I am ecstatic about the future

 

I say all this to tell you -- I didn't apply to Toronto, Notre Dame, Chicago, or Yale because the fit just wasn't there.  I don't expect to fit everywhere.  Fit is an issue that is especially problematic for medievalists, and you really aren't alone in having a hard time finding the right programs -- but that doesn't mean that someone like Caroline Bynum belongs exclusively in a gender studies department.  It just means that you need to find departments that fit your needs, and may need to broaden your horizons beyond traditional "medieval" schools, and the tippy top tiers of graduate programs. 

 

For you specifically -- if you would accept that, while ridiculous, the GRE is necessary to work in America -- I would have suggested that you look at Princeton, Boston College, and the University of Florida -- all of which have history programs that are exceptionally strong in late antiquity.  Keep in mind also that while you study military history, late antiquity -- Peter Brown notwithstanding -- is a relatively new field of study, and many people interested in late antiquity tend to incorporate archaeology and other disciplines because it doesn't really work otherwise.  You might do well to be looking into archaeology programs as well -- historical archaeology seems to be something up and coming that could be relevant to you.

 

History is wonderful specifically because it is a constantly ongoing, and subsequently ever-changing thing.  The study of history, likewise, changes along with global politics, and the advent of concepts like equality (gender, racial, etc) has colored the way that history is interpreted and changed the emphasis that we place on certain aspects of our studies.  This is not a bad thing, and is, I think, necessary. Do you have to hustle a little harder? Maybe.  As I said above, in some ways medievalists have a much harder time with fit than other fields. But its also no longer 1960, and England really isn't trying to find the roots of its empire in the same way it was post-WWII. 

 

To my mind, the field of history has not been diluted, but rather made richer by the inclusion of these disciplines.  Its unfair, both to you and to everyone else, to argue that because your particular discipline is no longer the most commonly studied, history has become less than it once was.  

 

Edited to add:  I wrote all of this with a strong England/Western bias -- I still have no idea what you want your topic to be, because the proposed topics you have discussed have been so disparate.

Edited February 22, 2015 by scirefaciat

[dr. t]

Telkanuru who thinks that UofT has only a couple social/culture historians on staff 

 

I never said anything of the sort, which reinforces the idea that you've created your own reality where you are justified and the world is unfair.

 

 

I think you better look again at the University of Toronto's list of faculty and ongoing dissertations. They are replete with words like race, ethnicity, gender, culture and all the other usual suspects.

 

You have once again conflated existence with exclusivity. 

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[Vr4douche]

I can also assume that you're one who laments the scholarship opportunities for white, straight, middle-class men and blame that on the massive increase in scholarships available for "new-fangled scholars" like women and minorities. Not that you dislike the latter, of course, but you just feel that every scholarship created to help a traditionally underfunded sector of the academic community should be met with a similar scholarship for traditional white guys.

 

Yes, you've got me. I'm a misogynist because I am concerned that about 25% of UofT's history professors have the word 'gender' in their field description; a racist because it concerns me that an equal number include the terms race or ethnicity while the terms military and war are all but absent. Yes, I concerned that white, straight, middle-class men have lost opportunity, and yes I blame it on the prominence of social and cultural history...but I lament that anyone, black or white, and gay, straight or Sheldon Cooperish is not allowed to follow his or her interests because of the rigidity of the system.

[dr. t]

I am concerned that about 25% of UofT's history professors have the word 'gender' in their field description

 

This may come as a surprise, but approximately 50% of historical persons were women. Also, please note that UoT is generally considered a conservative institution, particularly with respect to Church history.

 

 racist because it concerns me that an equal number include the terms race or ethnicity while the terms military and war are all but absent

 

This may come as a surprise, but the vast majority of historical persons were not white. Also, I understand the adjectival modifier "all but" to mean "they totally exist, but if I acknowledge this, I don't have anything to be outraged about."

 

and yes I blame it on the prominence of social and cultural history

 

Once again: since when is social history a new phenomenon? You are aware it has been a powerhouse since the 1920s, right?

 

is not allowed to follow his or her interests because of the rigidity of the system.

 

Since you've been accepted into a PhD program, this would be patently false.

Edited February 22, 2015 by telkanuru

[Vr4douche]

To me, it really seems like you were interested in programs that maybe weren't a good fit for you to begin with.  I think part of your problem may have been a small sample size, because the US is full of people who do military history or who work on late antiquity (i can think of several universities off the top of my head that might have been a good fit for you -- they don't seem to have been on your list).

 

I am a legal/church (medieval England) historian -- which to my mind, is about as "traditional" (as you seem to define it) as it gets.  I cannot incorporate race/ethnicity/gender or even class into my work.  Yet the responses I received from the professors I have contacted has been overwhelmingly positive.  I have written a MA thesis, and published an article on that topic (it has to do with Advowson and writs of quare impedit/quare non admisit).  So I knew exactly what I wanted my project to be, I knew the documents and archives I need to use, and I can read them easily.

 

When I started the cycle, I surveyed pretty much every major history program in the US (and some in England) (about 100 programs). I immediately threw out about 60% because they didn't have a medievalist of my era on staff.  I pretty much completely avoided the traditional "medieval" schools, because their version of Church history (they overwhelmingly focus on monastic life, or medieval women, or canon law) just didn't jive with what I was interested in.  By the time i had the list down to twenty, I started REALLY looking at the work that each professor was doing -- were they working in the 14th century? were they working on legal history? did they have a background in church history as well? I contacted them all, and the professors at about 10 universities responded really positively. I ended up scratching some of those of the list because there were still fit issues that I think would have kept me out, and I wasn't interested in wasting my money.  I also ultimately chose not to apply in England, because I frankly can't afford to attend without funding.  I now have an offer from a program I never would have dreamed I would get into a year ago, and I am ecstatic about the future

 

I say all this to tell you -- I didn't apply to Toronto, Notre Dame, Chicago, or Yale because the fit just wasn't there.  I don't expect to fit everywhere.  Fit is an issue that is especially problematic for medievalists, and you really aren't alone in having a hard time finding the right programs -- but that doesn't mean that someone like Caroline Bynum belongs exclusively in a gender studies department.  It just means that you need to find departments that fit your needs, and may need to broaden your horizons beyond traditional "medieval" schools, and the tippy top tiers of graduate programs. 

 

For you specifically -- if you would accept that, while ridiculous, the GRE is necessary to work in America -- I would have suggested that you look at Princeton, Boston College, and the University of Florida -- all of which have history programs that are exceptionally strong in late antiquity.  Keep in mind also that while you study military history, late antiquity -- Peter Brown notwithstanding -- is a relatively new field of study, and many people interested in late antiquity tend to incorporate archaeology and other disciplines because it doesn't really work otherwise.  You might do well to be looking into archaeology programs as well -- historical archaeology seems to be something up and coming that could be relevant to you.

 

History is wonderful specifically because it is a constantly ongoing, and subsequently ever-changing thing.  The study of history, likewise, changes along with global politics, and the advent of concepts like equality (gender, racial, etc) has colored the way that history is interpreted and changed the emphasis that we place on certain aspects of our studies.  This is not a bad thing, and is, I think, necessary. Do you have to hustle a little harder? Maybe.  As I said above, in some ways medievalists have a much harder time with fit than other fields. But its also no longer 1960, and England really isn't trying to find the roots of its empire in the same way it was post-WWII. 

 

To my mind, the field of history has not been diluted, but rather made richer by the inclusion of these disciplines.  Its unfair, both to you and to everyone else, to argue that because your particular discipline is no longer the most commonly studied, history has become less than it once was.  

 

Edited to add:  I wrote all of this with a strong England/Western bias -- I still have no idea what you want your topic to be, because the proposed topics you have discussed have been so disparate.

 

If you want to study medieval history in Canada there are but few options. UofT's CMS is really the only place. Other than that there are a few historians scattered among the different history programs. Even then, however, most study it from a very narrow perspective. Ultimately, however, I have not had a problem finding willing professors. I have had a hard time finding willing professors who work in departments receptive to my interests. I applied to a very limited number of schools precisely because I did not fit with most and only after speaking with a willing POI. At the advice of professors I have applied to divinity schools because they have a broader purview and because my topic relates to historical theology.

 

I do not think history has been diluted and I think that the new school has added considerably to the way everyone approaches history. There is an imbalance in the system and a rigidity that prevents many qualified students from pursuing their interests; that has pushed many into 'pop history' and that has alienated historians from the general public. Do you honestly think that most of the work produced in history departments is interesting to the wider public? Do we really do all of this just for each other...for a narrow audience of likeminded historians?

Edited February 22, 2015 by Vr4douche

[dr. t]

I do not think history has been diluted

 

...

 

Funny title for a thread, then.

[Vr4douche]

You don't start controversy by being vanilla;)

[dr. t]

You don't start controversy by being vanilla;)

 

There's no controversy, just a lot of people who don't think you know what you're on about.

[Vr4douche]

If you don't see that there is an imbalance in the system you are either blind or the beneficiary of the imbalance.