History and theory

[Mrazy]

Hey! I thought it would be interesting to open a space for people to discuss their perferred theortical approaches to history. You don't need to be specific - even the broad approaches would be awesome to read!

 

I really respect and admire Marc Bloch, both as a historian and a historical figure. I use many of his theoretical stances to approach my research. I'm primarily drawn to writing social histories, and try to incorporate more than just textual primary sources in my works to scratch the surface of individuals' mentalities. 

 

What about everyone else?

[kotov]

In a very broad sense, I'm a lower-case "m" marxist and specifically within Holocaust studies, I'd consider myself a moderate functionalist. The people who I would closely align with (to keep the list brief) are Timothy Mason (approaching the war from an economic/political perspective), Raul Hilberg (the "original" functionalist, and the creator of the perpetrator/victim/bystander model), Christopher Browning (who's written some fantastic case studies as well as a great two-part history of the Final Solution), and, within my subfield, Radu Ioanid and Vladimir Solonari (who have approached the Romanian case from a more functionalist than intentionalist perspective). 

[dr. t]

Kotov, I was worried you'd say Goldhagen rather than Browning   Good choice 

 

My favorite medieval author is Ernst Kantorowicz, and I tend to be interested in socio-intellectual history. However, I'm really interested in digital approaches to questions and can't really think of someone that I'm really methodologically similar to at the moment. I'm sure that will change in the next 10 years.

[kotov]

If anyone still takes Goldhagen seriously, I'm not aware of it.

[maelia8]

Since I'm a Germanist, I rely a lot on Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Jürgen Osterhammel, Sebastian Conrad, Geoff Eley, and David Blackbourn to understand the development of German studies analytical frameworks over the last thirty years. I also really like the more specific studies of Isabel V. Hull, Andrew Zimmerman, and Susanne Zantop.

[Cpt Jo]

I don't have a "favourite" historian, whom I follow the method in my field work, and the authors I like don't work like me anyway. I'm an 'empirical' historian; I work on stats from archives other primary materials (prosopography), then draw the bigger picture. I'm old school.

[BlackBear50]

I like to think of myself as a Thompsonian but inclusive of all peoples and with a dash of postmodernism (but just a dash, much of it frustrates me).

 

Marxist. Though not a classical, teleological or progressive.

[Riotbeard]

Foucault and Hayden White have been really influential on me.  I am also using Karen and Barbara Field's racecraft a lot in my work.  Beyond that, I love Marx, but I can't say I am Marxist.

[dr. t]

Foucault and Hayden White have been really influential on me.

 

One of the professors here likes to refer to Foucault as "Fuckhead".

[kotov]

Since I'm a Germanist, I rely a lot on Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Jürgen Osterhammel, Sebastian Conrad, Geoff Eley, and David Blackbourn to understand the development of German studies analytical frameworks over the last thirty years. I also really like the more specific studies of Isabel V. Hull, Andrew Zimmerman, and Susanne Zantop.

 

Oh man, that first part of your list reads about like the syllabus for our Modern German readings course second year of grad school, haha. The Peculiarities of German History is also one of my favorite books, although I'm not a Germanist per se. I suppose everyone who works in Holocaust studies has to be to some extent, but my actual dissertation work doesn't actually deal with like, the national history of Germany very much.

 

What area/period of German history are you working on, if I may ask?

Edited March 2, 2015 by kotov

[maelia8]

@kotov I specialize in the Imperial Period, more specifically the overseas and external European empire controlled by the Kaiserreich prior to World War I. I'm riding the wave of Empire studies and Global/Transnational history, so let's hope the hype doesn't die out any time soon.

[Chiqui74]

I feel my undergraduate institution did not prepare me to participate in this discussion. FML

[dr. t]

I mean, history often has a sort of a love-hate relationship with theory, and some people do prefer to assign Butterfield and then pretend everything else does not exist. I have some sympathy for this approach, but I think it often works to the detriment of students understanding where the frameworks they're using actually come from. That is, I think it's somewhat bad history to say "I am going to approach this subject from a Foucaultian perspective," but it's important to know that when you're discussing power dynamics, a lot of the people you've read were aware of and inspired by Foucault.

Edited March 2, 2015 by telkanuru

[Heimat Historian]

@kotov I specialize in the Imperial Period, more specifically the overseas and external European empire controlled by the Kaiserreich prior to World War I. I'm riding the wave of Empire studies and Global/Transnational history, so let's hope the hype doesn't die out any time soon.

This!  I'm hoping for the same thing. 

[Fianna]

I'm glad someone asked this. I was thinking about posting something similar after the diluted discussion. My area of focus (imperial racial discourse, focusing on the law as a lens for examining the codification of racial boundaries)

 

For the bits on legal theory and race, so I rely on a lot of critical interpretation and legal theory. I lean pretty heavily on Bell, López, Goluboff, etc. Not in the same vein, but I also reference Poesner a lot to balance the viewpoint between critical and pragmatic legal theories. For my thesis, I'm really borrowing a lot from Siegel's preservation through transformation theory.

 

I also look at applications and critiques of the scholarship and discourses of colonialism. Cooper, Woolf and Vizzini influenced me a lot here.

 

Looking specifically at discourses on colonialism and indigeneity,  Axtell, DuVal, Merill, Witgen and Jacobs are scholars I'm engaging with in this discourse.

 

Theoretically, I work with critical race theory and the Lat/Crit frameworks on intersectionality, subalteriality, privilege and the idea of whiteness as property (in the legal sense of property). I borrow a lot from new institutionalism and I also lean pretty heavily on conflict, queer and gender theories of interpretation. I also use a lot of the framework developed in ethnohistory.

[Riotbeard]

One of the professors here likes to refer to Foucault as "Fuckhead".

 

Haha.  He can take you to some dead ends.  I try not be dogmatic about any theorist, and I don't write in a theory heavy style, but Foucault has made me think about things in a lot of different ways.  If you ever find that your work perfect matches any theory, you are probably delusional though, because history is far messier (and should be) than theory. 

[disposableheroes]

Oh man, that first part of your list reads about like the syllabus for our Modern German readings course second year of grad school, haha. The Peculiarities of German History is also one of my favorite books, although I'm not a Germanist per se. I suppose everyone who works in Holocaust studies has to be to some extent, but my actual dissertation work doesn't actually deal with like, the national history of Germany very much.

 

What area/period of German history are you working on, if I may ask?

 

I am not a Germanist either, but The Peculiarities of German History is one of the most thought-provoking books I have ever read. I read it my first year of grad school. As a Latin Americanist trying to move away from Eurocentrism, this book makes a good argument against those that constantly use the democracy in Britain and France as yardsticks and compare it to EVERYTHING else. 

[danwaterfield]

I am not a Germanist either, but The Peculiarities of German History is one of the most thought-provoking books I have ever read. I read it my first year of grad school. As a Latin Americanist trying to move away from Eurocentrism, this book makes a good argument against those that constantly use the democracy in Britain and France as yardsticks and compare it to EVERYTHING else. 

God, that looks great. Shame that my University library's copy is five years overdue... 

[Heimat Historian]

These lists are great and give me lots of things to add to my reading list.