In honor of our USIH 3.0 conference program release, I offer this related essay by Thomas Bender on the role of historians as public intellectuals. Titled "Historians in Public," Bender uses the article to think about the audiences of historians in relation to both historians' particular kinds of expertise and their means of communication. I found this reminder from Bender, appearing early in the essay, to be most worthy (underlining mine):
As Émile Zola declaimed, the intellectual is by definition a public actor; moreover, all professions, including the academic ones, claim a public aspect by definition to justify their privileges of incorporation and self-regulation.
If we follow Zola's prompt, the distinction between an 'intellectual' and a 'scholar' is the starting point for thinking about audiences for intellectuals (their 'publics') in the twentieth century. Words to ponder as we begin thinking through our manuscripts for the fall program.
And here's another passage---with no small implications for USIH as a subfield and its conference (this fall and beyond, underlining mine):
At the time the AHA was founded the overriding cultural and political project was restoring the union. The price of reconciliation was accepting a regime of white terror imposed on black Americans in the former Confederate states. One of the great accomplishments of recent scholarship has been to make this clear.[13] In fact the scholarship of the past two or three decades has focused on a variety of exclusions—many people who were previously excluded from the American narrative—and by implication—the American public. Now race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation have been written into history and public life. This was obviously a good thing, and it had a large impact in schools, the media, and the law, among other dimensions of our lives.
Yet something was lost—the nation and the state. The recovered persons were incorporated into society, not into a narrative of the nation or the state, into identity politics, not citizenship. In the 1980s and 1990s instead of talk about and inquiry into “the public,” there was talk of publics, alternative publics, counter-publics, a black public sphere, and more. The list got pretty long, but the public dissolved in this otherwise invaluable historiography of the 1980s and 1990s. There was no United States. History was all parts, no whole.
Wow. But Bender's essay contains much more. Indeed, we could mine this piece for days. I won't reproduce the rest here, but would be happy to converse about his other points---large and small---in the comments below. - TL
Tampilkan postingan dengan label specialization. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label specialization. Tampilkan semua postingan
Senin, 19 Juli 2010
"There was no United States": Bender On Historians And Their Publics
In honor of our USIH 3.0 conference program release, I offer this related essay by Thomas Bender on the role of historians as public intellectuals. Titled "Historians in Public," Bender uses the article to think about the audiences of historians in relation to both historians' particular kinds of expertise and their means of communication. I found this reminder from Bender, appearing early in the essay, to be most worthy (underlining mine):
As Émile Zola declaimed, the intellectual is by definition a public actor; moreover, all professions, including the academic ones, claim a public aspect by definition to justify their privileges of incorporation and self-regulation.
If we follow Zola's prompt, the distinction between an 'intellectual' and a 'scholar' is the starting point for thinking about audiences for intellectuals (their 'publics') in the twentieth century. Words to ponder as we begin thinking through our manuscripts for the fall program.
And here's another passage---with no small implications for USIH as a subfield and its conference (this fall and beyond, underlining mine):
At the time the AHA was founded the overriding cultural and political project was restoring the union. The price of reconciliation was accepting a regime of white terror imposed on black Americans in the former Confederate states. One of the great accomplishments of recent scholarship has been to make this clear.[13] In fact the scholarship of the past two or three decades has focused on a variety of exclusions—many people who were previously excluded from the American narrative—and by implication—the American public. Now race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation have been written into history and public life. This was obviously a good thing, and it had a large impact in schools, the media, and the law, among other dimensions of our lives.
Yet something was lost—the nation and the state. The recovered persons were incorporated into society, not into a narrative of the nation or the state, into identity politics, not citizenship. In the 1980s and 1990s instead of talk about and inquiry into “the public,” there was talk of publics, alternative publics, counter-publics, a black public sphere, and more. The list got pretty long, but the public dissolved in this otherwise invaluable historiography of the 1980s and 1990s. There was no United States. History was all parts, no whole.
Wow. But Bender's essay contains much more. Indeed, we could mine this piece for days. I won't reproduce the rest here, but would be happy to converse about his other points---large and small---in the comments below. - TL
As Émile Zola declaimed, the intellectual is by definition a public actor; moreover, all professions, including the academic ones, claim a public aspect by definition to justify their privileges of incorporation and self-regulation.
If we follow Zola's prompt, the distinction between an 'intellectual' and a 'scholar' is the starting point for thinking about audiences for intellectuals (their 'publics') in the twentieth century. Words to ponder as we begin thinking through our manuscripts for the fall program.
And here's another passage---with no small implications for USIH as a subfield and its conference (this fall and beyond, underlining mine):
At the time the AHA was founded the overriding cultural and political project was restoring the union. The price of reconciliation was accepting a regime of white terror imposed on black Americans in the former Confederate states. One of the great accomplishments of recent scholarship has been to make this clear.[13] In fact the scholarship of the past two or three decades has focused on a variety of exclusions—many people who were previously excluded from the American narrative—and by implication—the American public. Now race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation have been written into history and public life. This was obviously a good thing, and it had a large impact in schools, the media, and the law, among other dimensions of our lives.
Yet something was lost—the nation and the state. The recovered persons were incorporated into society, not into a narrative of the nation or the state, into identity politics, not citizenship. In the 1980s and 1990s instead of talk about and inquiry into “the public,” there was talk of publics, alternative publics, counter-publics, a black public sphere, and more. The list got pretty long, but the public dissolved in this otherwise invaluable historiography of the 1980s and 1990s. There was no United States. History was all parts, no whole.
Wow. But Bender's essay contains much more. Indeed, we could mine this piece for days. I won't reproduce the rest here, but would be happy to converse about his other points---large and small---in the comments below. - TL
Senin, 20 Juli 2009
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.
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.
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.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)