Black Power on Campus: Looking for an Intellectual History

(This brief review of an older book is pertinent to USIH readers because the relative weaknesses of the book are directly related to the author’s lack of attention to intellectual history.)

The black power movement had a strong presence on campuses across the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, true at historically black colleges, such as Howard University, and at mostly white institutions, such as the University of Illinois. Black power on campuses was a movement of young people who were reacting to two forces: institutional barriers that transcended the de jure barriers of Jim Crow; and to the apparent failures of the earlier civil rights movement focus on assimilation and integration. It took the form of invented tradition: black power advocates, in response to the stereotypes about black culture and history that pervaded mainstream, white society, sought to accentuate and celebrate blackness, or a version of blackness. The celebration of blackness, of course, often constricted other forms of activism, and on campuses, often served to alienate some black students.

Joy Ann Williamson tells this history in Black Power on Campus: The University of Illinois, 1965-75 (2003), a useful and interesting case study, since the University of Illinois was over 98% white in the mid-1960s, and Champaign-Urbana was known to be overtly racist as a community. It is also a good case study because the majority of the black students on campus were from Chicago, 100 miles north of Champaign-Urbana, where black power and other forms of black nationalism had long flowered. Thus, it should have surprised nobody when tensions erupted on campus, as 250 black students were arrested for a sit-in at the student center on September 10, 1968. Somewhat ironically, just as the university took steps to admit more black students—in response to the emerging consensus that federal law required some form of affirmative action at public institutions—black students became far more militant in their demands. This irony was interpreted as unruliness by local whites, and by state legislators, who quickly enacted Draconian polices against student gatherings (that also targeted mostly white anti-war student protestors).

As Williamson tells it, black power was in part successful, as two institutional legacies of it remain on campus: a black studies program; and a black cultural center shared by students and the local black community. Williamson’s institutional history of these developments is thorough and instructive. She is especially good at dealing with the relationship between the Black Student Association (BSA), the organized manifestation of black student power, and the university, which ceded to some BSA demands so as to not be outpaced by inevitable changes taking place on campuses nationwide. For instance, the chancellor recognized that it would be a good move to create a black studies program well before the BSA demanded it, since hundreds of universities were following in the footsteps of San Francisco State College, the first to implement black studies—there, as a response to the student Third World Strike that shut down the campus and aroused political conservatives, including Governor Reagan. Williamson is great in detailing this history.

However, where Williamson is strong in institutional history, she is weaker in intellectual history. Despite her many claims about how conceptions of “blackness” changed to suit the movement, the reader never gets a sense of what this means. Few of the primary intellectuals sources of black power are cited or interpreted. This makes the text duller than need be. Where the author does include such sources, the text flies off the page. I’ll conclude by way of an example. The BSA defined blackness in terms of militancy. A poem from their newspaper Black Rap gives us a sense of this:

Black enough to belong to the BSA
but too white to come to meetings
Black enough to have lived in the ghetto
but too white to return
Black enough to understand our lingo
but too white to speak it
Black enough to wear an Afro
but too white to appreciate it
Black enough for your Honkey friends
but too white for me.

Black Power on Campus: Looking for an Intellectual History

(This brief review of an older book is pertinent to USIH readers because the relative weaknesses of the book are directly related to the author’s lack of attention to intellectual history.)

The black power movement had a strong presence on campuses across the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s, true at historically black colleges, such as Howard University, and at mostly white institutions, such as the University of Illinois. Black power on campuses was a movement of young people who were reacting to two forces: institutional barriers that transcended the de jure barriers of Jim Crow; and to the apparent failures of the earlier civil rights movement focus on assimilation and integration. It took the form of invented tradition: black power advocates, in response to the stereotypes about black culture and history that pervaded mainstream, white society, sought to accentuate and celebrate blackness, or a version of blackness. The celebration of blackness, of course, often constricted other forms of activism, and on campuses, often served to alienate some black students.

Joy Ann Williamson tells this history in Black Power on Campus: The University of Illinois, 1965-75 (2003), a useful and interesting case study, since the University of Illinois was over 98% white in the mid-1960s, and Champaign-Urbana was known to be overtly racist as a community. It is also a good case study because the majority of the black students on campus were from Chicago, 100 miles north of Champaign-Urbana, where black power and other forms of black nationalism had long flowered. Thus, it should have surprised nobody when tensions erupted on campus, as 250 black students were arrested for a sit-in at the student center on September 10, 1968. Somewhat ironically, just as the university took steps to admit more black students—in response to the emerging consensus that federal law required some form of affirmative action at public institutions—black students became far more militant in their demands. This irony was interpreted as unruliness by local whites, and by state legislators, who quickly enacted Draconian polices against student gatherings (that also targeted mostly white anti-war student protestors).

As Williamson tells it, black power was in part successful, as two institutional legacies of it remain on campus: a black studies program; and a black cultural center shared by students and the local black community. Williamson’s institutional history of these developments is thorough and instructive. She is especially good at dealing with the relationship between the Black Student Association (BSA), the organized manifestation of black student power, and the university, which ceded to some BSA demands so as to not be outpaced by inevitable changes taking place on campuses nationwide. For instance, the chancellor recognized that it would be a good move to create a black studies program well before the BSA demanded it, since hundreds of universities were following in the footsteps of San Francisco State College, the first to implement black studies—there, as a response to the student Third World Strike that shut down the campus and aroused political conservatives, including Governor Reagan. Williamson is great in detailing this history.

However, where Williamson is strong in institutional history, she is weaker in intellectual history. Despite her many claims about how conceptions of “blackness” changed to suit the movement, the reader never gets a sense of what this means. Few of the primary intellectuals sources of black power are cited or interpreted. This makes the text duller than need be. Where the author does include such sources, the text flies off the page. I’ll conclude by way of an example. The BSA defined blackness in terms of militancy. A poem from their newspaper Black Rap gives us a sense of this:

Black enough to belong to the BSA
but too white to come to meetings
Black enough to have lived in the ghetto
but too white to return
Black enough to understand our lingo
but too white to speak it
Black enough to wear an Afro
but too white to appreciate it
Black enough for your Honkey friends
but too white for me.

Hughes on Mizruchi's The Rise of Multicultural America

Review of Susan L. Mizruchi's The Rise of Multicultural America: Economy and Print Culture, 1865-1915 (University of North Carolina Press, 2008). ISBN: 978-0-8078-3250-9, $65 (cloth); ISBN: 978-0-8078-5912-4, $ 24.95 (paper). 368 pp., 61/8 x 91/4, 21 illus., notes, index.

Guest Review by Richard L. Hughes
Illinois State University

Historians often argue that the fifty years between 1865 and 1915 contained the most dramatic period of change in American history. By the First World War, individuals born in antebellum America found themselves living in a modern nation that often bore little resemblance to the nation they grew up in. The rise of industrialization, corporate economic growth, and urbanization, coupled with dramatic changes in race and ethnicity due to emancipation and unprecedented immigration, forged what Susan L. Mizruchi identifies as "the first multicultural modern capitalist society." Not surprisingly, such developments also revolutionized the American publishing industry and The Rise of Multicultural America explores the relationship between economic changes and an increasingly pluralistic print culture that ranged from classic American literature to the burgeoning field of modern advertising. The result is a "literary-cultural study" that suggests that American capitalism promoted both a multicultural society and resistance to such changes in such a way as to create a broader yet continually contested modern American identity.

A professor of English with an interest in American literature, Mizruchi examines published materials associated with the aftermath of the Civil War, race and Reconstruction, Native Americans, immigrants, marketing and corporate America, labor, and utopian visions of American society. ...Continue reading the review here.

Hughes on Mizruchi's The Rise of Multicultural America

Review of Susan L. Mizruchi's The Rise of Multicultural America: Economy and Print Culture, 1865-1915 (University of North Carolina Press, 2008). ISBN: 978-0-8078-3250-9, $65 (cloth); ISBN: 978-0-8078-5912-4, $ 24.95 (paper). 368 pp., 61/8 x 91/4, 21 illus., notes, index.

Guest Review by Richard L. Hughes
Illinois State University

Historians often argue that the fifty years between 1865 and 1915 contained the most dramatic period of change in American history. By the First World War, individuals born in antebellum America found themselves living in a modern nation that often bore little resemblance to the nation they grew up in. The rise of industrialization, corporate economic growth, and urbanization, coupled with dramatic changes in race and ethnicity due to emancipation and unprecedented immigration, forged what Susan L. Mizruchi identifies as "the first multicultural modern capitalist society." Not surprisingly, such developments also revolutionized the American publishing industry and The Rise of Multicultural America explores the relationship between economic changes and an increasingly pluralistic print culture that ranged from classic American literature to the burgeoning field of modern advertising. The result is a "literary-cultural study" that suggests that American capitalism promoted both a multicultural society and resistance to such changes in such a way as to create a broader yet continually contested modern American identity.

A professor of English with an interest in American literature, Mizruchi examines published materials associated with the aftermath of the Civil War, race and Reconstruction, Native Americans, immigrants, marketing and corporate America, labor, and utopian visions of American society. ...Continue reading the review here.

Tim's Light Reading (7/30/09)

1. This might qualify as a bit dated, but I'm not sure anyone here noted the new autobiographical collection of essays, titled Becoming Historians and published by the University of Chicago Press. Here is an e-mail interview between InsideHigherEd's Scott Jaschik and the book's editors, James M. Banner Jr. and John R. Gillis. The collection includes essays from Rhys Isaac, Joan Wallach Scott, Dwight T. Pitcaithley, Linda Gordon, David A. Hollinger, Maureen Murphy Nutting, Franklin W. Knight, Temma Kaplan, Paul Robinson, and the editors.

2. A few weeks ago I learned of a new print publication, The POINT Magazine. It is a new Chicago-based journal seeking to survey the contemporary scene from an intellectual angle. They might be interested in your idea for an article connecting your scholarly interest to today's news? Here's the TOC for their Spring 09 issue.

3. This NYT article by Carter Dougherty narrates a renewed Catholic interest, particularly in Germany, in a third economic way between capitalism and socialism. Of course the instigation was the early July release of Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical, "Charity in Truth." But the article's title, "Catholicism as Antidote to Turbo-Capitalism," reveals that the third way is really just a more ethical market-based structure.

4. Brill's ongoing "Studies in Intellectual History" book series contains some titles that may be of interest to USIH readers. Perhaps they would be receptive to your book proposal?

5. Elizabethtown College prof David Brown comments at HNN on his new book about Midwestern voices in the history profession. I haven't yet read his intriguing intellectual biography on Hofstadter, so I better get going before I'm another book behind.

6. InsideHigherEd's Scott Jaschik e-mail interviews Reinhard Siegmund-Schultze, professor of the history of mathematics at the University of Agder, in Norway, on his new book, Mathematicians Fleeing from Nazi Germany: Individual Fates and Global Impact (Princeton Press). Being known as a land of opportunity and tolerance, relatively speaking during the 1930s, increased the net mathematics brain power of the United States during tumultuous times.

7. I want to wish Sterling Fluharty well as he begins an exploration of life outside the history profession. His weblog, PhDinHistory, has quantitatively explored the profession for the last few years and forced some qualitative changes in my opinion about the state of the field.

Tim's Light Reading (7/30/09)

1. This might qualify as a bit dated, but I'm not sure anyone here noted the new autobiographical collection of essays, titled Becoming Historians and published by the University of Chicago Press. Here is an e-mail interview between InsideHigherEd's Scott Jaschik and the book's editors, James M. Banner Jr. and John R. Gillis. The collection includes essays from Rhys Isaac, Joan Wallach Scott, Dwight T. Pitcaithley, Linda Gordon, David A. Hollinger, Maureen Murphy Nutting, Franklin W. Knight, Temma Kaplan, Paul Robinson, and the editors.

2. A few weeks ago I learned of a new print publication, The POINT Magazine. It is a new Chicago-based journal seeking to survey the contemporary scene from an intellectual angle. They might be interested in your idea for an article connecting your scholarly interest to today's news? Here's the TOC for their Spring 09 issue.

3. This NYT article by Carter Dougherty narrates a renewed Catholic interest, particularly in Germany, in a third economic way between capitalism and socialism. Of course the instigation was the early July release of Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical, "Charity in Truth." But the article's title, "Catholicism as Antidote to Turbo-Capitalism," reveals that the third way is really just a more ethical market-based structure.

4. Brill's ongoing "Studies in Intellectual History" book series contains some titles that may be of interest to USIH readers. Perhaps they would be receptive to your book proposal?

5. Elizabethtown College prof David Brown comments at HNN on his new book about Midwestern voices in the history profession. I haven't yet read his intriguing intellectual biography on Hofstadter, so I better get going before I'm another book behind.

6. InsideHigherEd's Scott Jaschik e-mail interviews Reinhard Siegmund-Schultze, professor of the history of mathematics at the University of Agder, in Norway, on his new book, Mathematicians Fleeing from Nazi Germany: Individual Fates and Global Impact (Princeton Press). Being known as a land of opportunity and tolerance, relatively speaking during the 1930s, increased the net mathematics brain power of the United States during tumultuous times.

7. I want to wish Sterling Fluharty well as he begins an exploration of life outside the history profession. His weblog, PhDinHistory, has quantitatively explored the profession for the last few years and forced some qualitative changes in my opinion about the state of the field.

Second Annual USIH Conference: Program

________________________________________

Program for the Second Annual USIH Conference
Center for the Humanities
The Graduate Center
CUNY
November 12-13, 2009

[Updated: 11/9/2009 9:20 AM CST]
________________________________________

Program Notes:

1. All functions will take place in one of seven places: Martin E. Segal Theatre and Rooms C201-205, C197.
2. Conference headquarters, beverage service, and publisher tables will be in C197. This room will open at 3 pm on Thursday, Nov. 12.
3. No money will change hands at the conference. All registration fees should be paid prior to, or after, attendance. The cost is $35 and checks should be sent to: The Center for the Humanities, c/o Michael Washburn, Assistant Director, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 5103, New York, NY 10016.
________________________________________


Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009


1-3 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Plenary Address

"Seeing, Hearing, and Writing the End of Modernity: From Reading Pragmatism to Watching Movies"
James Livingston, Rutgers University


3:30-5:30 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Panel 1

Creating and Contesting Intellectual Traditions in 20th-Century American Thought

Black and Chicano Power in the Academy: The Intellectual Origins of Identity Politics
Andrew Hartman, Illinois State University

Antifoundationalism on Native Grounds
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Black Progressives: The Politics of Knowledge in the Age of Washington
James Anders Levy, Hofstra University

Commentator: Martin Woessner, City University of New York

C201, Panel 2

Reconsidering Pragmatism and the Cold War Era

‘Postmodern, Bourgeois, Cold War Liberalism’: Rethinking Rorty and Late Twentieth Century Pragmatism
Anthony Hutchison, University of Nottingham

Pragmatism and the Civil Rights Movement: A (Re)consideration
Peter Kuryla, Belmont University

Pragmatism and American Thought at Mid-Century
Jeffrey Coker, Belmont University

Commentator: Ray Haberski, Marian College

C202, Panel 3

Intellectual Legacy of the 1960s

Confronting a “crisis in historical perspective”: Gabriel Kolko, Walter LaFeber and the History of American Empire during the Late Cold War
Nick Witham, University of Nottingham

David Horowitz, Todd Gitlin, and the Debate Over the Legacy of the 1960s
Jason D. Roberts, Northern Virginia Community College

Slaughterhouse at Forty: Kurt Vonnegut's Dresden Novel, Revisited
Gregory Sumner, University of Detroit Mercy

Commentator: David Engerman, Brandeis University

C203, Panel 4

Abstracting Technology and Science

Mimeographed Community: The mimeographed report and the rise of intellectual communities in early 20th century U.S.
Sylwester Ratowt, American Philosophical Society

Social Constructions of Nature and the Creation of the American City
Michael J. Rawson, Brooklyn College

Ambiguous Intellectual Boundary-Work of U.S. Demographers in Facing Postwar World Population Growth
Yu-Ling Huang, SUNY-Binghamton

Commentator: Neil B. Miller, Independent Scholar/H-Ideas Advisory Board

C204, Panel 5

Bridging the Class Divide in Progressive America

Wealth Taxation and Redistribution – Then and Now
Alexandra Wagner, Brandeis University

Corn-Pone Opinions: Liberalism and Political Economy in “The Age of Discussion”
Mark Schmeller, Northeastern Illinois University

Beyond Uplift: Democratizing Conversation in Progressive-era Chicago
Amy Kittelstrom, Sonoma State University/Princeton University

Commentator: John Recchiuti, Mount Union College

C205, Panel 6

“Brownie, You're Doing a Heck of a Job”: Conservative Ideology and the American State During the Age of Reagan

Conservative Ideology & Policymaking in the Age of Reagan
Timothy Kneeland, Nazareth College

Ronald Reagan’s Pragmatic Conservatism
Jon Peterson, Ohio University

Hurricane Andrew and Reagan’s American State
Natalie Schuster, University of Houston

Commentator: Jeffrey Bloodworth, Gannon University


6:30-8:30 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, John Patrick Diggins Retrospective

Neil Jumonville, Florida State University
Martin J. Burke, CUNY Graduate Center/Lehman College
James Oakes, CUNY Graduate Center
James Livingston, Rutgers University
Andrew Robertson, CUNY Lehman College
Matthew J. Cotter, Chair, CUNY Graduate Center


Friday, Nov. 13, 2009


9-11 am

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Panel 7

African Across the Atlantic: Ideas, Identity, and Ideologies

‘Quite High Minded’: African-American Appropriations of Antebellum Concepts of Benevolence and Intellectual Development
Jeffrey Mullins, St. Cloud State University

Matthew J. Hudock, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Delaware: “Africa vs. ‘Africa’: Redefining African Identity in the 19th Century”
Matthew Hudock, University of Delaware

The African American Press and the Parisian Presse Noire: A Transnational Comparison of Racial Ideologies and Protests, 1885-1935
Jennifer Moses, University of Delaware

Commentator: Wilson J. Moses, Pennsylvania State University

C201, Panel 8

Mysticism & the Religion of Democracy in Social Movements

Jane Addams, Horizontal Mysticism & the “Subjective Necessity” to Oppose War
John Pettegrew, Lehigh University

The New Thought Movement and the Emergence of the Feminist Self
Lilian Barger, University of Texas-Dallas

Title---TBD
David Bailey, Michigan State University

Commentator: Matthew Hedstrom, University of Virginia

C202, Panel 9

The Intellectual and Policy Roots of Our Economic Crises

Thorstein Veblen: a Genuine Historical Economist: On the conceptual link between History and Economy in Veblen's early work
Noam Yuran, Ben Gurion University

The Intellectual Roots of the Financial Crisis
James R. Hackney, Northeastern University

“The Follies of Individualism” Credit Men and the Social Gospel, 1893-1925
David Sellers Smith, Northwestern University

Commentator: Daniel J. Walkowitz, New York University

** Canceled ** -- C203, Panel 10 -- ** Canceled **

Intellectuals, Culture and Economic Crisis

Politics without Hope: or, History, Post-History, and Alternatives
John Michael, University of Rochester

The Recurrence of Crisis, the Crisis of Recurrence
Paul Smith, George Mason University

On the Road Again: Cinematic Populisms, Then and Now
Sharon Willis, University of Rochester

Commentator: Casey N. Blake, Columbia University

C204, Panel 11

Culture, Thought, and Politics During The Cold War

"Who Is Afraid of Martha Graham?” A new perspective on Martha Graham’s tour to Great Britain in 1954 and its importance for the cultural diplomacy of the Cold War
Camelia Lenart, University at Albany

"The Trade Journal of the Cold War": The New Leader and the Problem of Liberal Anticommunism
Peter Aigner, CUNY Graduate Center

Archibald MacLeish, Robert Oppenheimer, and “The Conquest of America”
Gary Grieve-Carlson, Lebanon Valley College
Michael Day, Lebanon Valley College

Commentator: David Steigerwald, The Ohio State University

C205, Panel 12

Catholics Looking Inside Out: Catholic Intellectual Contributions to Framing the Cold War

Ought Catholics Be Liberal? John Courtney Murray and John Cogley Face the Cold War
Ray Haberski, Marian College

Aquinas and the World State: Catholic Intellectual Undercurrents of the Early Cold War Movement for World Federalism
Tim Lacy, University of Illinois at Chicago

Edmund A. Walsh, S.J., “Ph.D.,” and the Irony of Intellectual Politics in the Early Cold War, 1945-1952
Patrick McNamara, Diocese of Brooklyn

Commentator: James McCartin, Seton Hall University


1-3 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Panel 13

The Varieties of Conservatism

“A Position That Is Neither Liberal Nor Conservative”: The Goldwin Readers and the Spread of Straussian Political Thought in 1960s America
Benjamin Alpers, University of Oklahoma

Cultural Criticism on the Eve of the Linguistic Turn and Thick Description: Richard Hofstadter’s Analysis of the American Rightwing Extremism for the Fund for the Republic, 1958-1959
Robert Faber, Bradley University

Commentator: Casey N. Blake, Columbia University

C201, Panel 14

The New Left and its Legacies

Student Radicalism and Academic Freedom in the 1960s
Julian Nemeth, Brandeis University

Pornography and the 'Marketplace of Ideas': From Feminist Activism to Feminist Legal Theory in the Anti-Pornography Movement
Clara Altman, Brandeis University

Scaring the Shit Out of Honky America: the Weather Underground, the Transnational Global Left and 'Enlightenment' Cosmopolitanism
Jeffrey Bloodworth, Gannon University

Commentator: Alice Echols, University of Southern California

C202, Panel 15

Reconciling Religion With Modern Life

John Dewey on Religion and Religious Experience
Marina Ozernov, University of Texas-Dallas

Two Faiths, Christianity and Culture: Religious Response to the Promotion of Culture in the Late-Nineteenth Century United States
Ryan T.A. Swihart, Baruch College /Manhattan College/CUNY

“A Hierarchy of Rights”: Internationalizing the First Amendment in the American Century
Fred Beuttler, Historian’s Office, U.S. House of Representatives

Commentator: David Sehat, Georgia State University

C203, Panel 16

Culture and History

Fashion Theory in U.S. Intellectual Historical Context
Damayanthie Eluwawalage, SUNY-Oneonta

Interpreting a “Hieroglyphic” Civilization: Warren Susman, the 1920s, and the Modernist Tradition
Paul Murphy, Grand Valley State University

The Historical Man: Henry Chapman Mercer and the Transcendent Aesthetics of History
Kathleen Brennan, CUNY Graduate Center

Commentator: Joan Shelley Rubin, University of Rochester

C204, Panel 17

Science, Salvation, and Rationalism: Innovations in Nineteenth-Century American Thought

“Uninteresting truth and interesting falsehood”: Thoreau, Indians, and Nineteenth-Century Religious Liberalism
Daniel Dillard, Florida State University

The ‘Good Minister’: Emerson, Hedge, and Transcendental Religion
Ryan Tobler, University of Chicago

“I Object to the Names Deism and Infidelity”: Theodore Parker and the Boundaries of Christianity in Antebellum America
Benjamin Park, University of Edinburgh

Commentator: Charles Capper, Boston University

C205, Panel 18

Race and Identity Formulations

The Byrd Affair: Black and White Conflict in the Early Days of the New Deal
Lauren Kientz, Michigan State University

“A Process of Culture”: The White Supremacy Campaign and the Christian Educators of Trinity College, 1894-1903
Jennifer Eckel, University of Texas-Austin

The Psychological Turn in the History of American Justice: Segregation and Empathy from Plessy to Brown
Paul A. Dambowic, Pratt Institute

Commentator: K.J. Greene, Thomas Jefferson School of Law


3:30-5:30 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Panel 19

The Psychology of 20th Century America

Moving the Body: Experimenting with Psychological Aesthetics
Susan Lanzoni, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

On Whose Shoulders Does Democracy Rest? Harold Lasswell and the Crisis in the American Social Sciences
Robert Genter, Nassau Community College

The shared liberal orientation of B.F. Skinner and Carl Rogers
Theodore Wisniewski, Simon Fraser University

Commentator: Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, Syracuse University

C201, Panel 20

Objectivity, Cultural Criticism and the History of Ideas in the American Academy

Revising the Myth of the Myth of Objectivity in American Historiography
Eileen Cheng, Sarah Lawrence College

Back to the Future: The History of Ideas after the Linguistic and Culture Turns
Daniel Wickberg, University of Texas, Dallas

Masks of Perfect Clarity: A Semiological Analysis of the Cold War Cultural Criticism of Jacques Barzun
W. Colin Church, University of Colorado

Commentator: James Kloppenberg, Harvard University

C202, Panel 21

Linguistic Theory, Philosophy, and Literature

Derrida and US Historiography: Then and now
Andrew Dunstall, Macquarie University

The Presence of the Past: A New Answer to the Riddle of Paul de Man
Gregory Jones-Katz, Husson University

Commentator: Paul Anderson, University of Michigan

C203, Panel 22

To Market, To Market: American Thinkers Confront Twentieth-Century Capitalism

‘Progressive Capitalism’ or ‘Creeping Socialism’?: Henry Wallace, Full Employment and Sixty Million Jobs
Mike O'Connor, Georgia State University

Frederick W. Taylor: The Optimistic Science of Scientific Management
Caitlin Rosenthal, Harvard University

From Entrepreneurship to the Corporation: Samuel Gompers Adjusts
Claire Goldstene, University of Maryland

Commentator: Jennifer Burns, University of Virginia

C204, Panel 23

Forgetting Social Science: Reviving Lost Histories of Social Scientific Thought in America

“Now I am an Imperialist” and Then I was Gone: Fredrick Starr, American Social Science the Tensions of Liberal Internationalism
Brian Foster, Carleton University

Demography’s Darling, Sociology’s Suppressed Memory and the Guise of Culture in Population Science
Karen Foster, Carleton University

"Men are less prone to learn from their victims": the sociological education of Emily Greene Balch's cosmopolitanism
Andrew Johnston, Carleton University

Commentator: Daniel Geary, Trinity College (Dublin)


6:30-8:30 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre

Assessing the Legacy of the 1977 Wingspread Conference

David Hollinger, University of California-Berkeley
Thomas Bender, New York University
Dorothy Ross, Johns Hopkins University
David Hall, Harvard University

Commentator: Charles Capper, Boston University

Second Annual USIH Conference: Program

________________________________________

Program for the Second Annual USIH Conference
Center for the Humanities
The Graduate Center
CUNY
November 12-13, 2009

[Updated: 11/9/2009 9:20 AM CST]
________________________________________

Program Notes:

1. All functions will take place in one of seven places: Martin E. Segal Theatre and Rooms C201-205, C197.
2. Conference headquarters, beverage service, and publisher tables will be in C197. This room will open at 3 pm on Thursday, Nov. 12.
3. No money will change hands at the conference. All registration fees should be paid prior to, or after, attendance. The cost is $35 and checks should be sent to: The Center for the Humanities, c/o Michael Washburn, Assistant Director, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, 365 Fifth Avenue, Room 5103, New York, NY 10016.
________________________________________


Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009


1-3 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Plenary Address

"Seeing, Hearing, and Writing the End of Modernity: From Reading Pragmatism to Watching Movies"
James Livingston, Rutgers University


3:30-5:30 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Panel 1

Creating and Contesting Intellectual Traditions in 20th-Century American Thought

Black and Chicano Power in the Academy: The Intellectual Origins of Identity Politics
Andrew Hartman, Illinois State University

Antifoundationalism on Native Grounds
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Black Progressives: The Politics of Knowledge in the Age of Washington
James Anders Levy, Hofstra University

Commentator: Martin Woessner, City University of New York

C201, Panel 2

Reconsidering Pragmatism and the Cold War Era

‘Postmodern, Bourgeois, Cold War Liberalism’: Rethinking Rorty and Late Twentieth Century Pragmatism
Anthony Hutchison, University of Nottingham

Pragmatism and the Civil Rights Movement: A (Re)consideration
Peter Kuryla, Belmont University

Pragmatism and American Thought at Mid-Century
Jeffrey Coker, Belmont University

Commentator: Ray Haberski, Marian College

C202, Panel 3

Intellectual Legacy of the 1960s

Confronting a “crisis in historical perspective”: Gabriel Kolko, Walter LaFeber and the History of American Empire during the Late Cold War
Nick Witham, University of Nottingham

David Horowitz, Todd Gitlin, and the Debate Over the Legacy of the 1960s
Jason D. Roberts, Northern Virginia Community College

Slaughterhouse at Forty: Kurt Vonnegut's Dresden Novel, Revisited
Gregory Sumner, University of Detroit Mercy

Commentator: David Engerman, Brandeis University

C203, Panel 4

Abstracting Technology and Science

Mimeographed Community: The mimeographed report and the rise of intellectual communities in early 20th century U.S.
Sylwester Ratowt, American Philosophical Society

Social Constructions of Nature and the Creation of the American City
Michael J. Rawson, Brooklyn College

Ambiguous Intellectual Boundary-Work of U.S. Demographers in Facing Postwar World Population Growth
Yu-Ling Huang, SUNY-Binghamton

Commentator: Neil B. Miller, Independent Scholar/H-Ideas Advisory Board

C204, Panel 5

Bridging the Class Divide in Progressive America

Wealth Taxation and Redistribution – Then and Now
Alexandra Wagner, Brandeis University

Corn-Pone Opinions: Liberalism and Political Economy in “The Age of Discussion”
Mark Schmeller, Northeastern Illinois University

Beyond Uplift: Democratizing Conversation in Progressive-era Chicago
Amy Kittelstrom, Sonoma State University/Princeton University

Commentator: John Recchiuti, Mount Union College

C205, Panel 6

“Brownie, You're Doing a Heck of a Job”: Conservative Ideology and the American State During the Age of Reagan

Conservative Ideology & Policymaking in the Age of Reagan
Timothy Kneeland, Nazareth College

Ronald Reagan’s Pragmatic Conservatism
Jon Peterson, Ohio University

Hurricane Andrew and Reagan’s American State
Natalie Schuster, University of Houston

Commentator: Jeffrey Bloodworth, Gannon University


6:30-8:30 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, John Patrick Diggins Retrospective

Neil Jumonville, Florida State University
Martin J. Burke, CUNY Graduate Center/Lehman College
James Oakes, CUNY Graduate Center
James Livingston, Rutgers University
Andrew Robertson, CUNY Lehman College
Matthew J. Cotter, Chair, CUNY Graduate Center


Friday, Nov. 13, 2009


9-11 am

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Panel 7

African Across the Atlantic: Ideas, Identity, and Ideologies

‘Quite High Minded’: African-American Appropriations of Antebellum Concepts of Benevolence and Intellectual Development
Jeffrey Mullins, St. Cloud State University

Matthew J. Hudock, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Delaware: “Africa vs. ‘Africa’: Redefining African Identity in the 19th Century”
Matthew Hudock, University of Delaware

The African American Press and the Parisian Presse Noire: A Transnational Comparison of Racial Ideologies and Protests, 1885-1935
Jennifer Moses, University of Delaware

Commentator: Wilson J. Moses, Pennsylvania State University

C201, Panel 8

Mysticism & the Religion of Democracy in Social Movements

Jane Addams, Horizontal Mysticism & the “Subjective Necessity” to Oppose War
John Pettegrew, Lehigh University

The New Thought Movement and the Emergence of the Feminist Self
Lilian Barger, University of Texas-Dallas

Title---TBD
David Bailey, Michigan State University

Commentator: Matthew Hedstrom, University of Virginia

C202, Panel 9

The Intellectual and Policy Roots of Our Economic Crises

Thorstein Veblen: a Genuine Historical Economist: On the conceptual link between History and Economy in Veblen's early work
Noam Yuran, Ben Gurion University

The Intellectual Roots of the Financial Crisis
James R. Hackney, Northeastern University

“The Follies of Individualism” Credit Men and the Social Gospel, 1893-1925
David Sellers Smith, Northwestern University

Commentator: Daniel J. Walkowitz, New York University

** Canceled ** -- C203, Panel 10 -- ** Canceled **

Intellectuals, Culture and Economic Crisis

Politics without Hope: or, History, Post-History, and Alternatives
John Michael, University of Rochester

The Recurrence of Crisis, the Crisis of Recurrence
Paul Smith, George Mason University

On the Road Again: Cinematic Populisms, Then and Now
Sharon Willis, University of Rochester

Commentator: Casey N. Blake, Columbia University

C204, Panel 11

Culture, Thought, and Politics During The Cold War

"Who Is Afraid of Martha Graham?” A new perspective on Martha Graham’s tour to Great Britain in 1954 and its importance for the cultural diplomacy of the Cold War
Camelia Lenart, University at Albany

"The Trade Journal of the Cold War": The New Leader and the Problem of Liberal Anticommunism
Peter Aigner, CUNY Graduate Center

Archibald MacLeish, Robert Oppenheimer, and “The Conquest of America”
Gary Grieve-Carlson, Lebanon Valley College
Michael Day, Lebanon Valley College

Commentator: David Steigerwald, The Ohio State University

C205, Panel 12

Catholics Looking Inside Out: Catholic Intellectual Contributions to Framing the Cold War

Ought Catholics Be Liberal? John Courtney Murray and John Cogley Face the Cold War
Ray Haberski, Marian College

Aquinas and the World State: Catholic Intellectual Undercurrents of the Early Cold War Movement for World Federalism
Tim Lacy, University of Illinois at Chicago

Edmund A. Walsh, S.J., “Ph.D.,” and the Irony of Intellectual Politics in the Early Cold War, 1945-1952
Patrick McNamara, Diocese of Brooklyn

Commentator: James McCartin, Seton Hall University


1-3 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Panel 13

The Varieties of Conservatism

“A Position That Is Neither Liberal Nor Conservative”: The Goldwin Readers and the Spread of Straussian Political Thought in 1960s America
Benjamin Alpers, University of Oklahoma

Cultural Criticism on the Eve of the Linguistic Turn and Thick Description: Richard Hofstadter’s Analysis of the American Rightwing Extremism for the Fund for the Republic, 1958-1959
Robert Faber, Bradley University

Commentator: Casey N. Blake, Columbia University

C201, Panel 14

The New Left and its Legacies

Student Radicalism and Academic Freedom in the 1960s
Julian Nemeth, Brandeis University

Pornography and the 'Marketplace of Ideas': From Feminist Activism to Feminist Legal Theory in the Anti-Pornography Movement
Clara Altman, Brandeis University

Scaring the Shit Out of Honky America: the Weather Underground, the Transnational Global Left and 'Enlightenment' Cosmopolitanism
Jeffrey Bloodworth, Gannon University

Commentator: Alice Echols, University of Southern California

C202, Panel 15

Reconciling Religion With Modern Life

John Dewey on Religion and Religious Experience
Marina Ozernov, University of Texas-Dallas

Two Faiths, Christianity and Culture: Religious Response to the Promotion of Culture in the Late-Nineteenth Century United States
Ryan T.A. Swihart, Baruch College /Manhattan College/CUNY

“A Hierarchy of Rights”: Internationalizing the First Amendment in the American Century
Fred Beuttler, Historian’s Office, U.S. House of Representatives

Commentator: David Sehat, Georgia State University

C203, Panel 16

Culture and History

Fashion Theory in U.S. Intellectual Historical Context
Damayanthie Eluwawalage, SUNY-Oneonta

Interpreting a “Hieroglyphic” Civilization: Warren Susman, the 1920s, and the Modernist Tradition
Paul Murphy, Grand Valley State University

The Historical Man: Henry Chapman Mercer and the Transcendent Aesthetics of History
Kathleen Brennan, CUNY Graduate Center

Commentator: Joan Shelley Rubin, University of Rochester

C204, Panel 17

Science, Salvation, and Rationalism: Innovations in Nineteenth-Century American Thought

“Uninteresting truth and interesting falsehood”: Thoreau, Indians, and Nineteenth-Century Religious Liberalism
Daniel Dillard, Florida State University

The ‘Good Minister’: Emerson, Hedge, and Transcendental Religion
Ryan Tobler, University of Chicago

“I Object to the Names Deism and Infidelity”: Theodore Parker and the Boundaries of Christianity in Antebellum America
Benjamin Park, University of Edinburgh

Commentator: Charles Capper, Boston University

C205, Panel 18

Race and Identity Formulations

The Byrd Affair: Black and White Conflict in the Early Days of the New Deal
Lauren Kientz, Michigan State University

“A Process of Culture”: The White Supremacy Campaign and the Christian Educators of Trinity College, 1894-1903
Jennifer Eckel, University of Texas-Austin

The Psychological Turn in the History of American Justice: Segregation and Empathy from Plessy to Brown
Paul A. Dambowic, Pratt Institute

Commentator: K.J. Greene, Thomas Jefferson School of Law


3:30-5:30 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre, Panel 19

The Psychology of 20th Century America

Moving the Body: Experimenting with Psychological Aesthetics
Susan Lanzoni, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

On Whose Shoulders Does Democracy Rest? Harold Lasswell and the Crisis in the American Social Sciences
Robert Genter, Nassau Community College

The shared liberal orientation of B.F. Skinner and Carl Rogers
Theodore Wisniewski, Simon Fraser University

Commentator: Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, Syracuse University

C201, Panel 20

Objectivity, Cultural Criticism and the History of Ideas in the American Academy

Revising the Myth of the Myth of Objectivity in American Historiography
Eileen Cheng, Sarah Lawrence College

Back to the Future: The History of Ideas after the Linguistic and Culture Turns
Daniel Wickberg, University of Texas, Dallas

Masks of Perfect Clarity: A Semiological Analysis of the Cold War Cultural Criticism of Jacques Barzun
W. Colin Church, University of Colorado

Commentator: James Kloppenberg, Harvard University

C202, Panel 21

Linguistic Theory, Philosophy, and Literature

Derrida and US Historiography: Then and now
Andrew Dunstall, Macquarie University

The Presence of the Past: A New Answer to the Riddle of Paul de Man
Gregory Jones-Katz, Husson University

Commentator: Paul Anderson, University of Michigan

C203, Panel 22

To Market, To Market: American Thinkers Confront Twentieth-Century Capitalism

‘Progressive Capitalism’ or ‘Creeping Socialism’?: Henry Wallace, Full Employment and Sixty Million Jobs
Mike O'Connor, Georgia State University

Frederick W. Taylor: The Optimistic Science of Scientific Management
Caitlin Rosenthal, Harvard University

From Entrepreneurship to the Corporation: Samuel Gompers Adjusts
Claire Goldstene, University of Maryland

Commentator: Jennifer Burns, University of Virginia

C204, Panel 23

Forgetting Social Science: Reviving Lost Histories of Social Scientific Thought in America

“Now I am an Imperialist” and Then I was Gone: Fredrick Starr, American Social Science the Tensions of Liberal Internationalism
Brian Foster, Carleton University

Demography’s Darling, Sociology’s Suppressed Memory and the Guise of Culture in Population Science
Karen Foster, Carleton University

"Men are less prone to learn from their victims": the sociological education of Emily Greene Balch's cosmopolitanism
Andrew Johnston, Carleton University

Commentator: Daniel Geary, Trinity College (Dublin)


6:30-8:30 pm

Martin E. Segal Theatre

Assessing the Legacy of the 1977 Wingspread Conference

David Hollinger, University of California-Berkeley
Thomas Bender, New York University
Dorothy Ross, Johns Hopkins University
David Hall, Harvard University

Commentator: Charles Capper, Boston University

Foray into the Unknown--graduate pedagogy

I'm putting together a grad class for my teaching portfolio. It's a bit of code switch to be a graduate student and then think about teaching graduate students (more so than the undergrad switch, I find). I'm wondering if you have suggestions about the thinking processes you
go through when putting together a syllabus? How do you balance comprehensiveness with depth? How do you balance particular setting with information that would help students with any research focus? For instance, I've thought about putting together an African American Intellectual History seminar or a seminar on Networks--physical, imaginary, and textual.

I'd really like to include primary sources, but most of my grad classes focused on secondary. Do grad classes normally avoid primary sources? I had thought I would assign a primary source with a connected secondary source each week.

Also, what are your thoughts about student led discussions? From the position of student, I didn't find them as helpful as when the prof led the discussion, but it seems like most profs use them as a way to structure graduate classes.

Foray into the Unknown--graduate pedagogy

I'm putting together a grad class for my teaching portfolio. It's a bit of code switch to be a graduate student and then think about teaching graduate students (more so than the undergrad switch, I find). I'm wondering if you have suggestions about the thinking processes you
go through when putting together a syllabus? How do you balance comprehensiveness with depth? How do you balance particular setting with information that would help students with any research focus? For instance, I've thought about putting together an African American Intellectual History seminar or a seminar on Networks--physical, imaginary, and textual.

I'd really like to include primary sources, but most of my grad classes focused on secondary. Do grad classes normally avoid primary sources? I had thought I would assign a primary source with a connected secondary source each week.

Also, what are your thoughts about student led discussions? From the position of student, I didn't find them as helpful as when the prof led the discussion, but it seems like most profs use them as a way to structure graduate classes.

On Detachment; Or, Should Intellectual Historians Be Attached to Our Subjects?

With this post, I do not entirely wish to return to the question of objectivity that perennially consumes historians. Peter Novick has written most of what needs to be written on “that noble dream.” Plus, the matter seems entirely too “Historical Methods 101.” That said, my recent reading of Mark Gerson’s intellectual history of neoconservatism, The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars, has compelled me to revisit the question: To what degree should we strive to be detached from our subjects, even when we mostly agree with them?

The reason for my return to the problems of objectivity and detachment is that I think Gerson is too in love with those he writes about, neoconservative intellectuals such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. Although his book is often insightful about the origins, meaning, and influence of neoconservatism, it suffers from, at best, hagiographic tendencies, at worst, acute sycophancy.

First, praise for the book: Gerson is correct in pointing out that neoconservatism is mostly a movement of intellectuals. Neoconservatism does not lend itself to easy identification with specific political positions, because it’s more a mode of thought that combines elements of both liberalism and conservatism. Gerson writes: “Whereas neoconservatism rejects the liberal notion that a society of atomized individuals pursuing their interests and following their desires will somehow lead to a common good, neoconservatism insists on the liberal idea that involuntary characteristics such as race, rank, and station should never restrain an individual. Likewise, while neoconservatism rejects the traditional conservative emphasis on the authority of tradition and glorification of the past, it shares conservative concerns with order, continuity, and community” (9). Gerson correctly points out that “it has been a primary neoconservative project to inject American democratic discourse with a different language, one that accounts for responsibilities as well as rights, obligations as well as payments due” (276).
.
Gerson thoroughly explores these competing, sometimes contradictory aspects of neoconservatism, beginning in the 1950s with liberal anticommunism, and ending in the 1990s with a discussion of culture war issues such as the role of religion in the public square, and the debates over multiculturalism and political correctness. He masters the essence of the neoconservatives: their disdain for the sixties counterculture; their growing belief that government programs tended to create more problems than they solved; their defense of Israel and Jews in general, which often fed into their critique of black politics after 1967; their animosity towards the so-called “academic left,” etc… All of this guides us to a fuller understanding of neoconservatism, its roots, and how it has come to influence policy.

But, Gerson’s love affair with the neocons—or, more precisely, his neoconservative ideology—leads to a failure in scholarship. Gerson does not subject neoconservative ideas to any sort of critical lens. He rarely questions or scrutinizes neoconservative premises. He assumes as given that which needs to be proven.

For example, Gerson writes: “The rise in black anti-Semitism in the 1970s accompanied the rise of anti-Semitism among radicals of all races” (158). His two major examples of black and left anti-Semitism: criticism of Israel, and siding with black parents instead of Jewish teachers during the 1967 Ocean Hill/Brownsville teachers strike. With regards to the former, there have long been debates about whether it is appropriate to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism; an honest scholar would have nodded to this debate at the very least. With regards to the latter, the history of that teacher’s strike is far too complex to boil down to an ethnic scrum between Jews and blacks. Yes, some blacks displayed anti-Semitism, just as some of teachers demonstrated anti-black racism during the heat of the strike. But the political divide was between those who supported community control of schools, black activists and some of their liberal allies, such as Mayor John Lindsay, and those who supported the United Federation of Teachers, which rightly feared community control would encroach upon professional autonomy. And in truth, blacks and leftists could be found on either side of this power struggle; anti-Semitism was peripheral.

Examples such as this abound in Gerson’s book. It is one thing to agree with the neocons on these matters. As someone who has been accused of ideological heavy-handedness, I am not interested in lecturing Gerson or anyone else about objectivity, which I have never thought desirable much less possible. But it is quite another thing to write a book about neoconservative intellectuals and never undertake a serious analysis of those who disagreed, other than to offer up a few straw men to dissemble. This is flat out annoying.

Now, to bring up some broader methodological and theoretical problems: surely my hyper-awareness of Gerson’s hagiography must be rooted in my political disagreements with him. No doubt I forgive likeminded scholars for similar transgressions. I ask myself: do I unknowingly fail to subject those intellectuals I like to the type of scrutiny I proscribe for Gerson? If so, does Slavoj Zizek’s dictum—that the “ideological is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence”—hold true? How do intellectual historians remain detached from those subjects they agree with and even admire? Is such detachment possible or desirable? I welcome feedback.

On Detachment; Or, Should Intellectual Historians Be Attached to Our Subjects?

With this post, I do not entirely wish to return to the question of objectivity that perennially consumes historians. Peter Novick has written most of what needs to be written on “that noble dream.” Plus, the matter seems entirely too “Historical Methods 101.” That said, my recent reading of Mark Gerson’s intellectual history of neoconservatism, The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars, has compelled me to revisit the question: To what degree should we strive to be detached from our subjects, even when we mostly agree with them?

The reason for my return to the problems of objectivity and detachment is that I think Gerson is too in love with those he writes about, neoconservative intellectuals such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. Although his book is often insightful about the origins, meaning, and influence of neoconservatism, it suffers from, at best, hagiographic tendencies, at worst, acute sycophancy.

First, praise for the book: Gerson is correct in pointing out that neoconservatism is mostly a movement of intellectuals. Neoconservatism does not lend itself to easy identification with specific political positions, because it’s more a mode of thought that combines elements of both liberalism and conservatism. Gerson writes: “Whereas neoconservatism rejects the liberal notion that a society of atomized individuals pursuing their interests and following their desires will somehow lead to a common good, neoconservatism insists on the liberal idea that involuntary characteristics such as race, rank, and station should never restrain an individual. Likewise, while neoconservatism rejects the traditional conservative emphasis on the authority of tradition and glorification of the past, it shares conservative concerns with order, continuity, and community” (9). Gerson correctly points out that “it has been a primary neoconservative project to inject American democratic discourse with a different language, one that accounts for responsibilities as well as rights, obligations as well as payments due” (276).
.
Gerson thoroughly explores these competing, sometimes contradictory aspects of neoconservatism, beginning in the 1950s with liberal anticommunism, and ending in the 1990s with a discussion of culture war issues such as the role of religion in the public square, and the debates over multiculturalism and political correctness. He masters the essence of the neoconservatives: their disdain for the sixties counterculture; their growing belief that government programs tended to create more problems than they solved; their defense of Israel and Jews in general, which often fed into their critique of black politics after 1967; their animosity towards the so-called “academic left,” etc… All of this guides us to a fuller understanding of neoconservatism, its roots, and how it has come to influence policy.

But, Gerson’s love affair with the neocons—or, more precisely, his neoconservative ideology—leads to a failure in scholarship. Gerson does not subject neoconservative ideas to any sort of critical lens. He rarely questions or scrutinizes neoconservative premises. He assumes as given that which needs to be proven.

For example, Gerson writes: “The rise in black anti-Semitism in the 1970s accompanied the rise of anti-Semitism among radicals of all races” (158). His two major examples of black and left anti-Semitism: criticism of Israel, and siding with black parents instead of Jewish teachers during the 1967 Ocean Hill/Brownsville teachers strike. With regards to the former, there have long been debates about whether it is appropriate to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism; an honest scholar would have nodded to this debate at the very least. With regards to the latter, the history of that teacher’s strike is far too complex to boil down to an ethnic scrum between Jews and blacks. Yes, some blacks displayed anti-Semitism, just as some of teachers demonstrated anti-black racism during the heat of the strike. But the political divide was between those who supported community control of schools, black activists and some of their liberal allies, such as Mayor John Lindsay, and those who supported the United Federation of Teachers, which rightly feared community control would encroach upon professional autonomy. And in truth, blacks and leftists could be found on either side of this power struggle; anti-Semitism was peripheral.

Examples such as this abound in Gerson’s book. It is one thing to agree with the neocons on these matters. As someone who has been accused of ideological heavy-handedness, I am not interested in lecturing Gerson or anyone else about objectivity, which I have never thought desirable much less possible. But it is quite another thing to write a book about neoconservative intellectuals and never undertake a serious analysis of those who disagreed, other than to offer up a few straw men to dissemble. This is flat out annoying.

Now, to bring up some broader methodological and theoretical problems: surely my hyper-awareness of Gerson’s hagiography must be rooted in my political disagreements with him. No doubt I forgive likeminded scholars for similar transgressions. I ask myself: do I unknowingly fail to subject those intellectuals I like to the type of scrutiny I proscribe for Gerson? If so, does Slavoj Zizek’s dictum—that the “ideological is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence”—hold true? How do intellectual historians remain detached from those subjects they agree with and even admire? Is such detachment possible or desirable? I welcome feedback.

Whither The White House Intellectual? Part II---A Disappointing Answer?

In January Ben Alpers provided a run down of past White House Intellectuals-in-Residence. In that post he openly wondered whether the Obama administration would appoint a particular person---in the tradition of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.---to fill the position.

Since Schlesinger was a historian, and one who loved intellectual history, I too naturally wondered whether historians would play some part in the intellectual climate of the current administration. I received an answer, at least in part, when I saw this U.S. News & World Report story by Kenneth T. Walsh. (Tip: Don't read the comments on the article; they're depressing.)

Here are some excerpts from the piece (bolds mine):

------------------------------
President Obama has found another way to break out of the White House "bubble"—holding private discussions with eminent historians who have studied the successes and failures of his predecessors. His goal is to better understand what has worked and what has failed in the past as he makes policy today.

Obama held a dinner at the White House residence with nine such scholars on June 30, and it turned out to be what one participant described as a "history book club, with the president as the inquisitor." Among those attending were Michael Beschloss, H. W. Brands, Douglas Brinkley, Robert Dallek, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Obama asked the guests to discuss the presidencies that they were most familiar with and to give him insights into what remains relevant to the problems of today.

At one point, the discussion turned to whether Obama was trying to do too much too fast and whether he might overload the political circuits of Congress. ...At least one historian said it's wise to push for such a bold agenda because the country is eager for change.

Participants were impressed with Obama's intellectual curiosity and his willingness to listen. And he told aides afterward that he wants to hold more such dinners to broaden his perspective.

Other presidents have held discussions with outside experts, but such outreach seems particularly important to Obama.

------------------------------

Of course I'm pleased that President Obama chose to consult with historians for advice. I'm not sure, however, that he has to limit his inquiry to historians of the presidency. Why not go with specialist historians on the issues? For instance, why not consult with historians of medicine on health care, historians of the New Deal on public programs, historians of science or the environment on energy issues, and historians of business on the effectiveness of regulatory schemes?

I guess, as an historian, I'm sick and tired of the same old names being trotted out as "the experts" on whether a president can succeed relative to his/her predecessors---namely historians of politics and the presidency. It's almost a joke. In my opinion historians of the presidency are closer to being excellent biographers than they are they are specialists on the issues that confront a president. Consulting with presidential historians on the issues is not much better than reading a solid history survey text.

As a supporter of the current administration, and someone who is generally pleased with its overall intellectual acumen, this is disappointing. Specialties exist for a reason: namely, because the issues are complex and require a deep look at the context and details to understand why policies might fail or succeed. Yes, the politics of getting policies implemented matter. But so does the starting point. If politics is about the practical, isn't it wise to have a smart practical plan in place before you turn to thinking about how to get the policy passed? You have to be able to show how something can be the solution to a problem before you think about how to maneuver it between legislators. It would seem, then, than consulting with historians of the presidency, about their politics at least, is a case of putting the cart before the practical policy horse. - TL

------------------------------
P.S.---This Chronicle Brainstorm blog post by Stan Katz highlights some of the dangers of using and abusing history in terms of policy formulation.

Whither The White House Intellectual? Part II---A Disappointing Answer?

In January Ben Alpers provided a run down of past White House Intellectuals-in-Residence. In that post he openly wondered whether the Obama administration would appoint a particular person---in the tradition of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.---to fill the position.

Since Schlesinger was a historian, and one who loved intellectual history, I too naturally wondered whether historians would play some part in the intellectual climate of the current administration. I received an answer, at least in part, when I saw this U.S. News & World Report story by Kenneth T. Walsh. (Tip: Don't read the comments on the article; they're depressing.)

Here are some excerpts from the piece (bolds mine):

------------------------------
President Obama has found another way to break out of the White House "bubble"—holding private discussions with eminent historians who have studied the successes and failures of his predecessors. His goal is to better understand what has worked and what has failed in the past as he makes policy today.

Obama held a dinner at the White House residence with nine such scholars on June 30, and it turned out to be what one participant described as a "history book club, with the president as the inquisitor." Among those attending were Michael Beschloss, H. W. Brands, Douglas Brinkley, Robert Dallek, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Obama asked the guests to discuss the presidencies that they were most familiar with and to give him insights into what remains relevant to the problems of today.

At one point, the discussion turned to whether Obama was trying to do too much too fast and whether he might overload the political circuits of Congress. ...At least one historian said it's wise to push for such a bold agenda because the country is eager for change.

Participants were impressed with Obama's intellectual curiosity and his willingness to listen. And he told aides afterward that he wants to hold more such dinners to broaden his perspective.

Other presidents have held discussions with outside experts, but such outreach seems particularly important to Obama.

------------------------------

Of course I'm pleased that President Obama chose to consult with historians for advice. I'm not sure, however, that he has to limit his inquiry to historians of the presidency. Why not go with specialist historians on the issues? For instance, why not consult with historians of medicine on health care, historians of the New Deal on public programs, historians of science or the environment on energy issues, and historians of business on the effectiveness of regulatory schemes?

I guess, as an historian, I'm sick and tired of the same old names being trotted out as "the experts" on whether a president can succeed relative to his/her predecessors---namely historians of politics and the presidency. It's almost a joke. In my opinion historians of the presidency are closer to being excellent biographers than they are they are specialists on the issues that confront a president. Consulting with presidential historians on the issues is not much better than reading a solid history survey text.

As a supporter of the current administration, and someone who is generally pleased with its overall intellectual acumen, this is disappointing. Specialties exist for a reason: namely, because the issues are complex and require a deep look at the context and details to understand why policies might fail or succeed. Yes, the politics of getting policies implemented matter. But so does the starting point. If politics is about the practical, isn't it wise to have a smart practical plan in place before you turn to thinking about how to get the policy passed? You have to be able to show how something can be the solution to a problem before you think about how to maneuver it between legislators. It would seem, then, than consulting with historians of the presidency, about their politics at least, is a case of putting the cart before the practical policy horse. - TL

------------------------------
P.S.---This Chronicle Brainstorm blog post by Stan Katz highlights some of the dangers of using and abusing history in terms of policy formulation.

Faith In Taxes

I am happy to be a part of this blog and therefore need to apologize for the lack of posts over the last few months. With my family, I have been living abroad for the past 10 months in Copenhagen as part of a Fulbright. I taught and wrote at the Center for the Study of the Americas at the Copenhagen Business School and lived in the very delightful commune or district of Frederiksberg. And like many other Americans who get a taste of Scandinavian life, I was impressed by the quality of life most people in Denmark enjoy. The universal health care, public transportation, excellent pre-school care, and incredibly well-maintained bicycle lanes were simply made available to us for free. Of course, those services come with a price for the Danes in a tax rate that hovers between 50-60%. Well-nigh outrageous by American standards, or so friends and family exclaimed. And yet, I think I could learn to like taxes.

I had the rather strange experience of participating in a film made by a well-known Danish director for the national tax agency. It seemed that the agency was going through a period of re-organization and the morale of employees was a bit low as many had to shift positions and take on new tasks. The Danish government thought a film about the great good the tax agency does might boost spirits by showing the rather significant role taxes play in giving meaning to being Danish.

We might chuckle at this, ah-ha that was what Soren Kierkegaard had in mind! Man's search for meaning is found in his tax bill.

Well, in a way, the Danes do seem to embrace a somewhat existential approach to taxes: paying them is a leap of faith but this faith is not blind; like Americans, Danes complain about their taxes as well. But they do so in a way Kierkegaard might have appreciated. Their faith in the taxes does not translate into an absolute faith in the government--they don't leave the world up to their elected (and non-elected) officials. Danes constantly critique the results of the tax system but don't doubt that it needs to exist more or less at the present level of taxation. In this way, they profess a faith in taxes that provides the kind of civil religious unity that Americans get from their faith in abstraction notions of freedom and liberty. Maybe they are Hamiltonian in this way--creating a nation through the burden of taxation.

I went to Copenhagen to work on a book about civil religion and war in post-1945 America. I gave quite a few talks about the general role religion plays in American life and politics, especially in regard to framing and understanding the nation's role international affairs. What I came back with, though, was a new appreciation for faith in things that seem decidedly mundane. While my colleagues, students, and audiences rarely professed faith in an organized religion or an otherworldly God or even in great national myths (Danes joke that they are a country made by great military defeats), they often spoke profoundly about the stuff that binds generations of Danish folk together.

Danes have faith in taxes because their taxes support the welfare state--an entity that has a dual nature similar to the role served by the U.S. Constitution and the creed it embodies. While the Danish welfare system has not existed as long or with the kind of abstract power of the American Constitution, it has provided a surprisingly vibrant way for Danes to understand, debate and assess the dimensions of the common good. Quite unfortunately, the welfare state has also become something to guard, especially against what the Danish Right call the 'new immigrants.'

Nevertheless, as I get deeper into the field of public theology and civil religion, I am intrigued by what might be gained by comparing two types of existential faiths that on the suface appear to be very different. To that end, I recommend a group of Danish scholars who have begun a transatlantic project on beliefs and offer some preliminary notes and questions about this matter: Peter Andersen, Peter Gundelach, and Peter Luchau, "Religion in Europe and the United States: Assumptions, survey evidence, and some suggestions," Nordic Journal of Religion and Society (2008) 21 (1): 61-74.

As Americans enter into what will surely be a hot debate over universal health care, it might be of some benefit to consider how Danes (and others) have developed a faith in something as mundane as a tax system without losing their soul to the state it created.

Faith In Taxes

I am happy to be a part of this blog and therefore need to apologize for the lack of posts over the last few months. With my family, I have been living abroad for the past 10 months in Copenhagen as part of a Fulbright. I taught and wrote at the Center for the Study of the Americas at the Copenhagen Business School and lived in the very delightful commune or district of Frederiksberg. And like many other Americans who get a taste of Scandinavian life, I was impressed by the quality of life most people in Denmark enjoy. The universal health care, public transportation, excellent pre-school care, and incredibly well-maintained bicycle lanes were simply made available to us for free. Of course, those services come with a price for the Danes in a tax rate that hovers between 50-60%. Well-nigh outrageous by American standards, or so friends and family exclaimed. And yet, I think I could learn to like taxes.

I had the rather strange experience of participating in a film made by a well-known Danish director for the national tax agency. It seemed that the agency was going through a period of re-organization and the morale of employees was a bit low as many had to shift positions and take on new tasks. The Danish government thought a film about the great good the tax agency does might boost spirits by showing the rather significant role taxes play in giving meaning to being Danish.

We might chuckle at this, ah-ha that was what Soren Kierkegaard had in mind! Man's search for meaning is found in his tax bill.

Well, in a way, the Danes do seem to embrace a somewhat existential approach to taxes: paying them is a leap of faith but this faith is not blind; like Americans, Danes complain about their taxes as well. But they do so in a way Kierkegaard might have appreciated. Their faith in the taxes does not translate into an absolute faith in the government--they don't leave the world up to their elected (and non-elected) officials. Danes constantly critique the results of the tax system but don't doubt that it needs to exist more or less at the present level of taxation. In this way, they profess a faith in taxes that provides the kind of civil religious unity that Americans get from their faith in abstraction notions of freedom and liberty. Maybe they are Hamiltonian in this way--creating a nation through the burden of taxation.

I went to Copenhagen to work on a book about civil religion and war in post-1945 America. I gave quite a few talks about the general role religion plays in American life and politics, especially in regard to framing and understanding the nation's role international affairs. What I came back with, though, was a new appreciation for faith in things that seem decidedly mundane. While my colleagues, students, and audiences rarely professed faith in an organized religion or an otherworldly God or even in great national myths (Danes joke that they are a country made by great military defeats), they often spoke profoundly about the stuff that binds generations of Danish folk together.

Danes have faith in taxes because their taxes support the welfare state--an entity that has a dual nature similar to the role served by the U.S. Constitution and the creed it embodies. While the Danish welfare system has not existed as long or with the kind of abstract power of the American Constitution, it has provided a surprisingly vibrant way for Danes to understand, debate and assess the dimensions of the common good. Quite unfortunately, the welfare state has also become something to guard, especially against what the Danish Right call the 'new immigrants.'

Nevertheless, as I get deeper into the field of public theology and civil religion, I am intrigued by what might be gained by comparing two types of existential faiths that on the suface appear to be very different. To that end, I recommend a group of Danish scholars who have begun a transatlantic project on beliefs and offer some preliminary notes and questions about this matter: Peter Andersen, Peter Gundelach, and Peter Luchau, "Religion in Europe and the United States: Assumptions, survey evidence, and some suggestions," Nordic Journal of Religion and Society (2008) 21 (1): 61-74.

As Americans enter into what will surely be a hot debate over universal health care, it might be of some benefit to consider how Danes (and others) have developed a faith in something as mundane as a tax system without losing their soul to the state it created.

Ne Me Quitte Pas

Sad news from Obsidian Wings: hilzoy, one of the most insightful bloggers on the internets is retiring from blogging. I'll honor hilzoy's pseudonymity, but it's been compromised frequently and often enough that her identity is readily discoverable. She's interesting to this blog in part because, like a number of other important bloggers, she's an academic. More specifically, she's a moral philosopher and bioethicist (she's entirely open about this fact). Although her blogging has been more in the way of political than academic blogging (she's also blogged at Washington Monthly), her academic interests and training clearly affect the way she views politics and the world around her and add to the richness of her perspective. Although hilzoy is brilliant, what perhaps makes her blogging most unusual has been its measured tone. Blogging tends toward the shrill and the snarky (not that there's anything wrong with that in general). Political blogs, in particular, have a not entirely undeserved reputation as places where people go to read what they already think. ObiWi, on the other hand, has been one of the few places in the political blogosphere where both left and right wing bloggers posted. Though the blog has, over the years, moved more definitively to the left, its commentariat continues to include serious participants on the right. hilzoy has been a crucial part of maintaining a tone and attitude that has made that possible. She'll be deeply missed.

Her retirement from blogging, however, raises interesting questions about this still-young medium. There is still a kind of expectation that blogs will just go on and on and on. And there's no standard way for bloggers to hang up their spurs. Plenty of bloggers have retired, but retirement is always somewhat awkward. Although blogging actually takes a lot of time and effort, it's in the nature of the medium that it often feels like a kind of effortless transcription of a person's thoughts. Surely the retiring blogger will keep thinking? Why not continue to share the thoughts? As a result, retirements often seem to need some special occasion (in hilzoy's case, she's about to go on vacation in Rwanda) or dramatic stagemanaging (as in Michael Bérubé's--temporary it turned out--retirement). I wonder if, over time, a kind of average lifespan for blogs will emerge....and if it does, how long it will be.

And I wonder, too, how U.S. intellectual historians of the future will deal with this medium. So much public intellectual life is now taking place in blogs. And they are, by and large, automatically archived for the future. They'll be an incredibly rich primary source for us...assuming that there's any sensible way to sift through the incredible mountain of information they represent! If we ever figure out how to do this, I have no doubt that hilzoy's work will be studied and discussed.

Ne Me Quitte Pas

Sad news from Obsidian Wings: hilzoy, one of the most insightful bloggers on the internets is retiring from blogging. I'll honor hilzoy's pseudonymity, but it's been compromised frequently and often enough that her identity is readily discoverable. She's interesting to this blog in part because, like a number of other important bloggers, she's an academic. More specifically, she's a moral philosopher and bioethicist (she's entirely open about this fact). Although her blogging has been more in the way of political than academic blogging (she's also blogged at Washington Monthly), her academic interests and training clearly affect the way she views politics and the world around her and add to the richness of her perspective. Although hilzoy is brilliant, what perhaps makes her blogging most unusual has been its measured tone. Blogging tends toward the shrill and the snarky (not that there's anything wrong with that in general). Political blogs, in particular, have a not entirely undeserved reputation as places where people go to read what they already think. ObiWi, on the other hand, has been one of the few places in the political blogosphere where both left and right wing bloggers posted. Though the blog has, over the years, moved more definitively to the left, its commentariat continues to include serious participants on the right. hilzoy has been a crucial part of maintaining a tone and attitude that has made that possible. She'll be deeply missed.

Her retirement from blogging, however, raises interesting questions about this still-young medium. There is still a kind of expectation that blogs will just go on and on and on. And there's no standard way for bloggers to hang up their spurs. Plenty of bloggers have retired, but retirement is always somewhat awkward. Although blogging actually takes a lot of time and effort, it's in the nature of the medium that it often feels like a kind of effortless transcription of a person's thoughts. Surely the retiring blogger will keep thinking? Why not continue to share the thoughts? As a result, retirements often seem to need some special occasion (in hilzoy's case, she's about to go on vacation in Rwanda) or dramatic stagemanaging (as in Michael Bérubé's--temporary it turned out--retirement). I wonder if, over time, a kind of average lifespan for blogs will emerge....and if it does, how long it will be.

And I wonder, too, how U.S. intellectual historians of the future will deal with this medium. So much public intellectual life is now taking place in blogs. And they are, by and large, automatically archived for the future. They'll be an incredibly rich primary source for us...assuming that there's any sensible way to sift through the incredible mountain of information they represent! If we ever figure out how to do this, I have no doubt that hilzoy's work will be studied and discussed.

Robert Strange McNamara: RIP

[Updated: 1 pm, 7/8/09]

I just learned that the former U.S. Secretary of Defense and past president of the Ford Motor Company, Robert McNamara, died this morning. May he rest in peace---though I may be one of only a few, historians or otherwise, who wills his soul any good fortune.

I gained some acquaintance with McNamara's biography and place in history not through the press or any personal memories of Vietnam, but through the tough documentary Fog of War. The film's subtitle---"Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara"---goes some way toward explaining my less-than-disgusted view of McNamara's place in U.S. history.

I began to abstractly understand Baby Boomer animus toward McNamara through the film. That generation faulted McNamara as the common link between the failed Vietnam policies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Errol Morris knew this, of course, and did not shy away from related probing questions. But I gained a concrete understanding, however, of that animosity when I defended Fog of War (extreme bottom of link) from a critical review in the Journal of American History (Vol. 92, no. 3, Dec. 2005). [Warning: You must be a History Cooperative/JAH subscriber to view these links in full.]

One of the problems with the review, in my opinion, was its criticism of Morris for supposedly glossing over McNamara's faults. The reviewer's intense response to my criticism of the review can be seen at the bottom of the link with my work. Despite the "dialogue," I contend still that the review forwarded a decidedly wrong interpretation of the film in relation both McNamara's actions and his person.

But I recall this not to relive old scholarly arguments. I bring my reflections to USIH because I see Fog of War as a first draft, visual biography of McNamara's intellectual development. Morris' work is an intellectual biography masquerading as film.

How? Any film that uses history and biography to put forth lessons covering empathy, ethics, rationality, metaphysical questions, perception versus reality, self-criticism, and human nature surely falls within the realm of intellectual history. In a classroom setting these lessons provide the history instructor with the opportunity to raise a number of philosophical questions in the context of a concrete chronological period in U.S. history (i.e. the Cold War). The possibilities for student engagement are extraordinary. Indeed, were I some kind of dictator of history teaching, or a czar of U.S. history instruction, I would require Fog of War for every post-Civil War U.S. survey course offered in higher education.

While these lessons provided a vehicle for intellectualizing McNamara, Vietnam, World War II, and the Cold War, Morris also does a fantastic job of humanizing McNamara. The documentary reveals a McNamara in tears, choked up with regret over losses and his failings. Those regrets cover his personal life, political dealings, and missed opportunities in a life that included participation, remote and direct, in the fog of various wars.

I think the reason for the historical dissonance on McNamara has to do with the young and old versions of the man. As a younger and middle-aged man, McNamara was prideful, overly confident, and intellectually capable. As an old man he began to turn his critical faculty on himself. Morris' film conveys both halves of McNamara's life, and the older man elicits your sympathy.

Some parts of the NYT obituary convey this tension. Here are two brief excerpts from that extraordinarily long and thorough retrospective:

- In 1995, [McNamara] took a stand against his own conduct of the war, confessing in a memoir [In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam] that it was “wrong, terribly wrong.” In return, he faced a firestorm of scorn. ...
- By then he wore the expression of a haunted man. He could be seen in the streets of Washington — stooped, his shirttail flapping in the wind — walking to and from his office a few blocks from the White House, wearing frayed running shoes and a thousand-yard stare.

"Haunted." This is an apt descriptor in relation to McNamara. I certainly found the Morris documentary haunting. It is my hope that McNamara's legacy as a civil servant haunts us as a nation. Perhaps his lessons will find the ears of those decision-makers who matter. A look at his biography should, I hope, instill caution. And insofar as caution is part and parcel with conservatism, then I hope all political leaders obtain to some of old man McNamara's conservatism and hard-earned humility. - TL

Additional links with annotations:

1. Here is Errol Morris confirming my observations above. John Prados and David Ignatius confirm Morris' assessment.
2. But Morris' account of McNamara's role in the Cuban Missile Crisis might be defective. In an extended HNN piece, Sheldon M. Stern blasts McNamara's remembrance of his role as hawkish adviser to JFK during the events of 1963.