Hobsbawm on the Challenges for Future Historians

The current edition of the New Left Review, serving as the journal's 50-year anniversary issue, presents over 200 pages of fascinating historical, political, and theoretical analysis, from some of its more famous regular contributors, including: Mike Davis, Perry Anderson, Stuart Hall, Robin Blackburn, Tariq Ali, and Susan Watkins. Of interest to readers of this blog is a retrospective critique of Reinhold Neibuhr's The Irony of American History, by Gopal Balakrishnan--a review that certainly merits a post of its own.

But for now I would like to briefly call attention to an interview with the unparalleled historian Eric Hobsbawm. The interview includes his thoughts on historiographic trajectories, past, present, and future.

The concluding question is as follows: “If you were to pick still unexplored topics or fields presenting major challenges for future historians, what would they be?”

Hobsbawm's answer is worthy of sustained thought: “The big problem is a very general one. By palaeontological standards the human species has transformed its existence at astonishing speed, but the rate of change has varied enormously. Sometimes it has moved very slowly, sometimes very fast, sometimes controlled, sometimes not. Clearly this implies a growing control over nature, but we should not claim to know whither this is leading us. Marxists have rightly focused on changes in the mode of production and their social relations as the generators of historical change. However, if we think in terms of how ‘men make their own history’, the great question is this: historically, communities and social systems have aimed at stabilization and reproduction, creating mechanisms to keep at bay disturbing leaps into the unknown. Resistance to the imposition of change from outside is still a major factor in world politics today. How is it, then, that humans and societies structured to resist dynamic development come to terms with a mode of production whose essence is endless and unpredictable dynamic development? Marxist historians might profitably investigate the operations of this basic contradiction between the mechanisms bringing about change and those geared to resist it.”

I post this passage in full more to pose questions than answers. Is this especially relevant to U.S. historians, in the sense that all of U.S. History is the history of how people have accommodated to rapid changes brought on by the mechanisms of capitalism? Are intellectual historians particularly geared to seek answers to Hobsbawm's challenge, in that U.S. intellectual history is broadly about how people thought about change, whether in terms of adjustment, resistance, or advancement?

In a different vein entirely, earlier in the interview Hobsbawm discussed changing class consciousness as a consequence of postindustrialism, and said the following that I find applicable to my studies of the culture wars in the U.S. His observation is not all that original, but it's nicely phrased all the same. He writes of the"the growing divide produced by a new class criterion—namely, passing examinations in schools and universities as an entry ticket into jobs. This is, if you like, meritocracy; but it is measured, institutionalized and mediated by educational systems. What this has done is to divert class consciousness from opposition to employers to opposition to toffs of one kind or another—intellectuals, liberal elites, people who are putting it over on us. America is a standard example of this…”

Do you think of yourselves as "toffs"?

Hobsbawm on the Challenges for Future Historians

The current edition of the New Left Review, serving as the journal's 50-year anniversary issue, presents over 200 pages of fascinating historical, political, and theoretical analysis, from some of its more famous regular contributors, including: Mike Davis, Perry Anderson, Stuart Hall, Robin Blackburn, Tariq Ali, and Susan Watkins. Of interest to readers of this blog is a retrospective critique of Reinhold Neibuhr's The Irony of American History, by Gopal Balakrishnan--a review that certainly merits a post of its own.

But for now I would like to briefly call attention to an interview with the unparalleled historian Eric Hobsbawm. The interview includes his thoughts on historiographic trajectories, past, present, and future.

The concluding question is as follows: “If you were to pick still unexplored topics or fields presenting major challenges for future historians, what would they be?”

Hobsbawm's answer is worthy of sustained thought: “The big problem is a very general one. By palaeontological standards the human species has transformed its existence at astonishing speed, but the rate of change has varied enormously. Sometimes it has moved very slowly, sometimes very fast, sometimes controlled, sometimes not. Clearly this implies a growing control over nature, but we should not claim to know whither this is leading us. Marxists have rightly focused on changes in the mode of production and their social relations as the generators of historical change. However, if we think in terms of how ‘men make their own history’, the great question is this: historically, communities and social systems have aimed at stabilization and reproduction, creating mechanisms to keep at bay disturbing leaps into the unknown. Resistance to the imposition of change from outside is still a major factor in world politics today. How is it, then, that humans and societies structured to resist dynamic development come to terms with a mode of production whose essence is endless and unpredictable dynamic development? Marxist historians might profitably investigate the operations of this basic contradiction between the mechanisms bringing about change and those geared to resist it.”

I post this passage in full more to pose questions than answers. Is this especially relevant to U.S. historians, in the sense that all of U.S. History is the history of how people have accommodated to rapid changes brought on by the mechanisms of capitalism? Are intellectual historians particularly geared to seek answers to Hobsbawm's challenge, in that U.S. intellectual history is broadly about how people thought about change, whether in terms of adjustment, resistance, or advancement?

In a different vein entirely, earlier in the interview Hobsbawm discussed changing class consciousness as a consequence of postindustrialism, and said the following that I find applicable to my studies of the culture wars in the U.S. His observation is not all that original, but it's nicely phrased all the same. He writes of the"the growing divide produced by a new class criterion—namely, passing examinations in schools and universities as an entry ticket into jobs. This is, if you like, meritocracy; but it is measured, institutionalized and mediated by educational systems. What this has done is to divert class consciousness from opposition to employers to opposition to toffs of one kind or another—intellectuals, liberal elites, people who are putting it over on us. America is a standard example of this…”

Do you think of yourselves as "toffs"?

Political Anti-Intellectualism And The Liberal Arts: Historical Considerations

Since anti-intellectualism has often been most effective in politics (e.g. with victims such as Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s, Eugene McCarthy in the 60s, and even Bill Clinton in the 90s), I'm not surprised to see a present-day application via the "professor" label.

With regard to the article, I'm not sure I agree---initially at least---with Charles Ogletree's assertion that today's manifestation in relation to President Barack Obama is a "thinly veiled" kind of racism (article's phrase, Jack Stripling is the author). The problem I have with that line of thinking is that it's nowhere in the recent history of anti-intellectualism---as a broad social phenomenon at least. All of the late twentieth-century political figures that were objects of anti-intellectualism were white. Indeed, if there's any historical racism associated with political anti-intellectualism it's in the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was never derided precisely for his mental prowess. To carry Ogletree's argument a bit further, it seems to me that if any "uppity" association occurs to racists in relation to Obama, it will be because of his newfound aggressiveness (i.e. bully pulpit), not his mental ability. The "professor" appellation is likely just straightforward anti-intellectualism on the part of some opposition that may be racists.

Returning to Stripling's article, I do appreciate the thinking in this passage related to David S. Brown: It’s no surprise that the anti-intellectualism that Hofstadter wrote about has resonance among some Americans today, says Brown, a historian at Elizabethtown College. Higher education programs are increasingly moving toward the pre-professional variety, and students and parents are inclined to press colleges about how their programs will lead to jobs -- not to intellectual growth, Brown says. In that context, the stereotypical liberal arts professor is ever more marginalized.

When I first read the InsideHigherEd article I thought that, with more people than ever in college and even more than ever in graduate school, this line of political strategy can't be effective, long term, beyond a limited cohort of our citizenry. But I hadn't directly linked today's anti-intellectualism, as Brown did, to the ongoing vocationalism (read: devaluing of the liberal arts) that's occurred in higher education---beginning after World War II but increasingly evident in the last 10-15 years. - TL

Political Anti-Intellectualism And The Liberal Arts: Historical Considerations

Since anti-intellectualism has often been most effective in politics (e.g. with victims such as Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s, Eugene McCarthy in the 60s, and even Bill Clinton in the 90s), I'm not surprised to see a present-day application via the "professor" label.

With regard to the article, I'm not sure I agree---initially at least---with Charles Ogletree's assertion that today's manifestation in relation to President Barack Obama is a "thinly veiled" kind of racism (article's phrase, Jack Stripling is the author). The problem I have with that line of thinking is that it's nowhere in the recent history of anti-intellectualism---as a broad social phenomenon at least. All of the late twentieth-century political figures that were objects of anti-intellectualism were white. Indeed, if there's any historical racism associated with political anti-intellectualism it's in the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was never derided precisely for his mental prowess. To carry Ogletree's argument a bit further, it seems to me that if any "uppity" association occurs to racists in relation to Obama, it will be because of his newfound aggressiveness (i.e. bully pulpit), not his mental ability. The "professor" appellation is likely just straightforward anti-intellectualism on the part of some opposition that may be racists.

Returning to Stripling's article, I do appreciate the thinking in this passage related to David S. Brown: It’s no surprise that the anti-intellectualism that Hofstadter wrote about has resonance among some Americans today, says Brown, a historian at Elizabethtown College. Higher education programs are increasingly moving toward the pre-professional variety, and students and parents are inclined to press colleges about how their programs will lead to jobs -- not to intellectual growth, Brown says. In that context, the stereotypical liberal arts professor is ever more marginalized.

When I first read the InsideHigherEd article I thought that, with more people than ever in college and even more than ever in graduate school, this line of political strategy can't be effective, long term, beyond a limited cohort of our citizenry. But I hadn't directly linked today's anti-intellectualism, as Brown did, to the ongoing vocationalism (read: devaluing of the liberal arts) that's occurred in higher education---beginning after World War II but increasingly evident in the last 10-15 years. - TL

Per our recent discussions on Public History and Public Intellectuals

I just noticed that The Hemmingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon Reed is this month's selection for the New Yorker's Book Club (See my previous post here). David Remnick, the editor explains why. I consider this book as interesting as Menand's The Metaphysical Club. It also uses a small group of individuals to pick apart complicated themes in American history, in a way so remarkably written that it is attracting the attention of the wider body of American thinkers/professionals that follow periodicals like the New Yorker or the New York Times. They both, too, won the Pulitzer. Has anyone else read it? What do those of you who commented on the Menand post by Andrew think of Reed's book? Is there anything to be learned by the fact that both authors were trained outside the historical profession, one in law and one in literature?

Also interesting is the New Yorker's portfolio of images and videos of Civil Rights Leaders. I was listening to the New Yorker Outloud podcast yesterday and was astounded to hear Remnick discuss the Civil Rights Movement with a clear understanding of recent (last 10-20 years) literature that emphasizes the local aspects of the movement and de-emphasizes the idea that it was just King's movement. This is beyond a common perspective among African Americanists, but had not yet seemed to filter into the wider literate society (perhaps because Martin Luther King Jr. day brings us back to him and his "I Have a Dream" speech every year). Nikhil Pal Singh discussed this in Black is a Country. I know every year around this time, African Americans emphasize other aspects of the movement. Perhaps what surprised me was to hear the white editor of the New Yorker have fully synthesized current historiography.

This makes me wonder, too, if you all are aware of Ta-Nahisi Coates, who writes and blogs for the Atlantic? I find his blog one of the most interesting commentaries on the web with regards to race and many other topics. He opens the floor to his commenters every day at noon. They tend to be literate, honest, and surprisingly civil. Talk about a future project for an intellectual historian!

Per our recent discussions on Public History and Public Intellectuals

I just noticed that The Hemmingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon Reed is this month's selection for the New Yorker's Book Club (See my previous post here). David Remnick, the editor explains why. I consider this book as interesting as Menand's The Metaphysical Club. It also uses a small group of individuals to pick apart complicated themes in American history, in a way so remarkably written that it is attracting the attention of the wider body of American thinkers/professionals that follow periodicals like the New Yorker or the New York Times. They both, too, won the Pulitzer. Has anyone else read it? What do those of you who commented on the Menand post by Andrew think of Reed's book? Is there anything to be learned by the fact that both authors were trained outside the historical profession, one in law and one in literature?

Also interesting is the New Yorker's portfolio of images and videos of Civil Rights Leaders. I was listening to the New Yorker Outloud podcast yesterday and was astounded to hear Remnick discuss the Civil Rights Movement with a clear understanding of recent (last 10-20 years) literature that emphasizes the local aspects of the movement and de-emphasizes the idea that it was just King's movement. This is beyond a common perspective among African Americanists, but had not yet seemed to filter into the wider literate society (perhaps because Martin Luther King Jr. day brings us back to him and his "I Have a Dream" speech every year). Nikhil Pal Singh discussed this in Black is a Country. I know every year around this time, African Americans emphasize other aspects of the movement. Perhaps what surprised me was to hear the white editor of the New Yorker have fully synthesized current historiography.

This makes me wonder, too, if you all are aware of Ta-Nahisi Coates, who writes and blogs for the Atlantic? I find his blog one of the most interesting commentaries on the web with regards to race and many other topics. He opens the floor to his commenters every day at noon. They tend to be literate, honest, and surprisingly civil. Talk about a future project for an intellectual historian!

Niebuhr And Obama: Part Cinq

We've discussed Obama's connections to Reinhold Niebuhr here (Paul Murphy post), here (Andrew Hartman post), here (Hartman again), and here (David Sehat). Since we've left the discussion alone for almost two years, I thought I'd pick it up again at the instigation of this long CNN feature, titled: "How Obama's favorite theologian shaped his first year in office" and authored by John Blake. Questions:

1. Do we agree with the points of the feature?
2. Is Niebuhr Obama's favorite philosopher, theologian, or both? The article's title uses the term "theologian," but the text cites a "widely cited New York Times column" where "President Obama called Niebuhr his 'favorite philosopher.' " We've talked about a Dionne citation/column here (via TNR, although I couldn't find the exact Dionne piece in TNR?). But CNN is apparently referring to an earlier piece by David Brooks who they cite later in the column (though he's not explicitly attached to the prior NYT reference). Anyway, I wonder which of the specialties of knowledge precisely fits Obama's view of Niebuhr.

As a former Missourian, I can't resist noting the last section of the CNN piece in relation to Missouri's former three-term senator, John Danforth. Here's the excerpt:

"Niebuhr would have loved that [Oslo] speech," says John Danforth, an Episcopal priest and a former Republican senator who also admires Niebuhr.

"I was very impressed with that speech," Danforth says. "He said you need to deal with terrorists in a very hard-nosed, pragmatic way but hold to American standards."

Yet Danforth says there are critical differences between Obama and Niebuhr.

"I see in Obama's approach to politics, which is surprisingly partisan and ideological, a hubris that is not Niebuhrian," says Danforth, who is also a partner at the Bryan Cave law firm in St. Louis, Missouri.

But how true, or non-ideological, is that last statement? When Danforth makes those claims, which hat is he wearing: Episcopal priest? Former Republican? Bryan Cave law firm partner (a firm that specializes in corporate transactions)? Global Leadership Foundation member? Or just that of a regular concerned citizen?

BTW: Avoid the 120-plus CNN comments if you can. They're depressing in their obtuseness. - TL