Grad Program with Historiography/Historical Theory/Theory of History Specialties?

[confusedgradapplicant130]

I'm very much interested in studying Historical Theory/Historiography (a la Hayden White, F. R. Ankersmit, Dominick LaCapra, etc.). I'm finding it difficult to locate programs that specialize in these topics. Am I going about it wrong? I understand intellectual history may be the through-line here. Is this so? Can anyone recommend a program with a strength in the theory side? (That isn't NSSR). 

I am not opposed to a traditional history program, per se. But I am far less interested in doing history as I am doing work on the theory of history and historiography. 

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. And good luck!

[firstsummerinthesierras]

I study (primarily American) folk culture, storytelling, and historiography. I applied to American Studies and English/Cultural Theory programs, and the more I think about it, the American Studies programs just seem like better fits for my research than others. The sort of historiography you study will dictate the kinds of programs that might work best for you. I would look at the people you are reading (who are still alive and well in academia), find out where they teach, and then look into those programs. UC Santa Cruz has a program in History of Consciousness, Rhetoric at UC Berkeley (of course), a variety of Anthropology and Cultural Studies programs—really any kind of Humanities discipline that ends in "Studies" will have an interdisciplinary theoretical focus.

Edit: I got my MA in an interdisciplinary Art History/Visual Theory program. My advisors came from all sorts of backgrounds—British literature, Architectural History, American Studies, Studio/visual arts. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by firstsummerinthesierras

[turnings]

This is an extremely rare area of interest and has little (/next to no) institutional foothold within the American academy. U Chicago's Committee on Social Thought might be a place to look, or more philosophy-oriented intellectual historians like Peter Gordon at Harvard. Interdisciplinary programs, as you've noted, are very often more engaged with theoretical questions, and may generally be a better bet.

[mvlchicago]

Basically the issue is that most historians don't take theory specialists seriously unless they've published/worked in more practical elements of the discipline for some time. As an older advisor once told me, "your theory book is your second or third book." This isn't /that/ different from what I understand to be the case in most of the social sciences; unlike, for example, physics where you could be a theorist from the getgo. And I have a feeling that even if you study with the most theoretical leaning historians, they will tell you much the same deal.

My advice to you would be either figure out a historical field you could do happily (for 5-7 years), or perhaps apply to philosophy or critical theory programs. 

[Riotbeard]

I know Duke has a strong theoretical bent in their history program, but they (and pretty much no history departments) view themselves as training theorists.  The history of consciousness program is a decent recommendation, but I have heard they have lost some their theoretical diversity since their peak with Hayden White.

You might want to look more toward Literature departments with strong new historicist faculty.  I would imagine these programs would be more sympathetic to a more theory heavy approach to history. A lot of new historicists work primarily with documents that would traditionally be of the purview of historians, but ask very different types of questions.  Also, area studies depending on the department could be a great fit.

[meo03]

I'd concur with the poster recommending Rhetoric. In addition to Berkeley, both Penn State and South Carolina have very strong Rhetoric program--and I know for certain that USC has several faculty with interests in Historiography. 

But I also agree with this: 

1 hour ago, mvlchicago said:

My advice to you would be either figure out a historical field you could do happily (for 5-7 years), or perhaps apply to philosophy or critical theory programs. 

 

For better or for worse (but probably for better) theory of history/historiography work is done by practicing historians. After all, we are bound to empirical methods that Rhetoric, Philosophy, etc, are not (at least as much), so it follows that we can bring that practical experience to the theoretical table only after honing those skills and perspectives in the archive. 

[turnings]

2 hours ago, mvlchicago said:

Basically the issue is that most historians don't take theory seriously

More accurate.

Edited February 18, 2016 by turnings

[gsc]

Every so often there are people who come through these boards wanting to do theory, but the problem is that theory is just a set of tools -- you can't just study the tools, you have to use the tools to study something. There are some theory-oriented professors in my department, but they have pretty discrete thematic and geographical interests; theory is how they explore those interests, not the thing they study in itself. If you don't want to study a particular historical period, then a history department isn't going to be for you.

[TMP]

I agree that it would be difficult to find a program that will let you "major" in historiography as the writing of history.  Intellectual history may be the way but even intellectual historians find their footing in a particular time period or geography or within a particular theme (i.e. gender).  You will indeed be able to create a section in your comprehensive exam that focuses on historiography/theory.

What are the questions are you looking to explore in a PhD program?

[confusedgradapplicant130]

Thanks for all the advice, everyone. My background is in philosophy which is probably why I'm looking at this question a bit differently (or perhaps wrongly). Fwiw, philosophy programs aren't interested in the philosophy of history either, generally speaking. 

I suppose this interest will have to remain in the background of whatever discipline I end up focusing on, unless I choose to do a more interdisciplinary program like some of you have suggested. 

It's an interesting thing, these works on historical theory/historiography as done by working historians; they can seem to necessarily outlive the actual history done. For instance, (and I'm sure these answers change from discipline to discipline) which is more widely read: Carr's What is History? or his The Twenty Years' Crisis?

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by confusedgradapplicant130
grammur

[mvlchicago]

As someone who is also very interested in theorizing history more than is commonly accepted, I sympathize with your concerns. On some level, the reason why so much of the work on historiography is dated, I think, is because theorizing has always been perceived as lesser in historical fields. That is to say, I think why we still read Carr, Collingwood, Butterfield, or Novick is because books of those quality about historiography are far and few between. What's more, because they often reflect the speciality of the author, it is nigh-impossible to find a historiographical treatment of the field from your area of interest.

If you want to go into historiography, you've just got to be crafty about how you're doing it. In planning out my dissertation project, I want to force my readers to shift their understanding of periodization because what's commonly taught won't work if you want to understand the problem I'm approaching. That makes them theorize a little bit (ie: what counts as "Medieval"?) I also think this is a less risky way of dealing with theoretical problems because a story about your colleagues (which, inevitably all historiography ends up being) can hurt you regardless of how brilliant the work is.  

[anthrostudentcyn]

 @confusedgradapplicant130   I think I have a good idea, perhaps unconventional and circular: A History/Philosophy of Science program. I've seen people do stuff on epistemology and history of the social sciences, and this would fit right in. Also, anthropology is heavy on theory sometimes, and looks at things like "historical memory", so there could be something there. 

[intellectucat]

I was in a very similar position a year ago! I just got into Princeton and Yale PhD for modern European history (intellectual history), and to UChicago Divinity PhD for Religion & Literature. I'm currently leaning toward the history programs, for several reasons, but mainly job prospects.

My BA was in Great Books and Jewish studies (majors) and philosophy (minor), and I did a one-year MA in philosophy in Europe. I think of my primary field as Holocaust studies—though that spans history, literature, religion, philosophy, social theory... So I was reading across these disciplines for most of my BA, without having to decide on one in particular because of my interdisciplinary majors.

It's possible that the best field for you is intellectual history. I work a lot on the Frankfurt School (critical theory), so I was always familiar with the work of Martin Jay at Berkeley, who is one of the fathers of the field in the US. When I contacted him to ask if he was accepting students, he told me he wasn't after last year, but he told me where most of his students are now professors, i.e. where his legacy continues.

Yale is probably the most impressive place for European intellectual/cultural history right now: Carolyn Dean (also studied with LaCapra), David Sorkin, Jennifer Allen (recommended Ankersmit to me), and Sophia Rosenfeld all studied with Jay, and there's also Marci Shore and Tim Snyder.

Other places I considered, and where there are people working in German and French historical theory are Berkeley (Stefan Hoffman, worked with Koselleck), NYU (Stephanos Geroulanos), Johns Hopkins Humanities Center (Hent de Vries; also the only PhD program I know of in Intellectual History), Harvard (Peter Gordon and Sam Moyn, both Jay students), Princeton (Anson Rabinbach), and Chicago (Moishe Postone).

My PhD project is about notions of "catastrophe" in 20th-century thought, so I'll be reading a lot of figures like White, LaCapra, and Koselleck and working in theories of historical time/events in addition to philosophical work on my period from Arendt, Adorno, Foucault, et al. I'll do theoretical work wherever I go, but I also know that I'll have to do perhaps more exam preparation than most students, having come from another discipline.

The thing to know about this field going in is that you just won't get in without an area strength, and an advisor/POI in that area; I studied Jewish languages and become proficient in German and French before I applied. Wouldn't have gotten in without this. Also I did a training program in archival work at a major US history museum just before I applied, as if to show that I'm serious about becoming a historian, even if most of my work is on theory and the history of philosophy. The upside of going with history is that you'll have MUCH better job prospects than going to a program like Hopkins Humanities Center, or Berkeley Rhetoric, or even Social Thought at UChicago; while these are all great programs and have great faculty, the reality is that universities have disciplines, and I've seen many students in these programs regret their choice when they get no job offers.

[intellectucat]

Also, if you're looking for an MA where you can do history of philosophy, check out KU Leuven, in Belgium. I'm studying there this year and thus far have taken classes on WWI and philosophy, Hegel's historical writings, and there's so much here on the history of phenomenology (Husserl's archives are part of the department). Also, the MA is just one year, and tuition is €900!

[Little Richard]

On 2/21/2016 at 10:55 AM, intellectucat said:

Also, if you're looking for an MA where you can do history of philosophy, check out KU Leuven, in Belgium. I'm studying there this year and thus far have taken classes on WWI and philosophy, Hegel's historical writings, and there's so much here on the history of phenomenology (Husserl's archives are part of the department). Also, the MA is just one year, and tuition is €900!

Are you from Belgium? How are the living expenses? Are you employed? It sounds great, except how do you make ends meet?

[intellectucat]

I'm from the US. I did my BA at UChicago. I applied for a Fulbright for this year and was a finalist, but didn't get it. (Alas, I had no "concrete research project" but was doing a general taught/research masters with a research thesis component.) Apparently it's possible to get what's called a Flemish Community Grant (sponsored by the region Leuven is in), but I didn't. Everything is cheap enough here (a nice small city) that I've been able to get by on money I had saved for grad school from the previous year. I would say pretty definitively that *you get what you pay for*—meaning don't expect small seminars and top-rate facilities like at some American schools. Classes tend to be 30-50 students (even "seminars), and there's not much individual attention or a feeling of community in your program cohort. But there are SO many faculty here (at least 50 or 60 professors, and at least 100 if you include postdocs) all in continental thought that it's a strong program, in my opinion. And the culture of the broader university and city (small, but beautiful and has everything you need, including entertainment) make for a great experience!

[ziggysunshine]

On 2/20/2016 at 7:55 AM, intellectucat said:

Also, if you're looking for an MA where you can do history of philosophy, check out KU Leuven, in Belgium. I'm studying there this year and thus far have taken classes on WWI and philosophy, Hegel's historical writings, and there's so much here on the history of phenomenology (Husserl's archives are part of the department). Also, the MA is just one year, and tuition is €900!

Sorry for hijacking this post, but I'm heading to Leuven this fall! Would you mind if I sent you a pm with some questions about housing/living, and about the programme you're doing? Thank you!