U.S. Intellectual History: A Call To Action
I sent this today to the H-Ideas listserv:
---------------------------------------
Dear H-Ideas List Members:
My name is Tim Lacy, and I've been a list member for several years. Currently I'm somewhat of an independent historian: I finished my doctorate last year and presently work in an administrative position at Loyola University Chicago.
I'm writing today with a call to action. I'm deeply concerned for the state of U.S. intellectual history, particularly here in the U.S. After many years of watching H-Ideas postings and activity, I've noticed that few to no events explicitly related to U.S. intellectual history take place - in the U.S. or abroad. For awhile I thought it was a case of bias by H-Ideas editors, such as Dr. Costica Bradatan, but now I'm convinced that's not at all the case.
As much as can be had, with the field at perhaps its all-time low as an independent entity, I have a reasonably solid understanding of U.S. intellectual history - it's historiography, intellectual tensions, general concerns, and challenges. In my view, aside from a few notables such as Thomas Bender, David Hollinger, and Bruce Kuklick, the discipline has basically been floundering since the 1977 Wingspread Conference in Wisconsin. The field has a newsletter/journal, Modern Intellectual History (MIH, formerly the Intellectual History Newsletter (IHN)), but it is not devoted to U.S. phenomena. Many U.S. intellectual historians are senior scholars, and little is out there to nourish new entrants. I understand that the discipline has largely been subsumed under cultural history, and that development is not entirely without its cooperative benefits - interdisciplinary work, job availability, etc. (as discussed in the 1996 IHN). Still, as a functioning, independent area of study, the field is either at its lowest point since its Columbia founding (I'm thinking of James Harvey Robinson), or seems to be in its death throes.
Should U.S. intellectual history be saved, be resurrected as an independent discipline? While I'm merely a junior scholar - with a finished dissertation and a few publications, but without an academic position - I want to advocate in the affirmative.
For one, the discipline provides an outlet for pondering philosophy, difficult thinking, small groups of people, niche institutions (such as the think-tank phenomenon), and difficult writings. A lively field - with a few focused journals and conferences - provides a forum for like-minded folks to exchange papers and ideas. Working with cultural historians has its advantages, but gathering with those focused on intellectual history would help with technical, historiographical, and philosophical issues peculiar to its discipline. Perhaps it might result in an increase of history departments acknowledging the need to hire someone from the field? Some symbiosis could come of the effort.
How can new life be injected into the discipline? With money, consistency, hard work, and a platform of university and faculty support. As mentioned above, we could start a conference and dedicate ourselves to a few journals, perhaps even some new ones (i.e. one for junior scholar development?). Senior scholars could host an annual conference on U.S. soil dedicated to U.S. intellectual phenomena. I'm willing to help, and I doubt I'm alone. I felt like the notoriety surrounding Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club would start something, but the newness of that solid work has worn off; momentum that might have been sustained is now lost.
Who's with me - or who can I help?!
All the best,
Tim
--------------------------------------
I hope something comes of this, because I desperately want the field to survive and develop. - TL
---------------------------------------
Dear H-Ideas List Members:
My name is Tim Lacy, and I've been a list member for several years. Currently I'm somewhat of an independent historian: I finished my doctorate last year and presently work in an administrative position at Loyola University Chicago.
I'm writing today with a call to action. I'm deeply concerned for the state of U.S. intellectual history, particularly here in the U.S. After many years of watching H-Ideas postings and activity, I've noticed that few to no events explicitly related to U.S. intellectual history take place - in the U.S. or abroad. For awhile I thought it was a case of bias by H-Ideas editors, such as Dr. Costica Bradatan, but now I'm convinced that's not at all the case.
As much as can be had, with the field at perhaps its all-time low as an independent entity, I have a reasonably solid understanding of U.S. intellectual history - it's historiography, intellectual tensions, general concerns, and challenges. In my view, aside from a few notables such as Thomas Bender, David Hollinger, and Bruce Kuklick, the discipline has basically been floundering since the 1977 Wingspread Conference in Wisconsin. The field has a newsletter/journal, Modern Intellectual History (MIH, formerly the Intellectual History Newsletter (IHN)), but it is not devoted to U.S. phenomena. Many U.S. intellectual historians are senior scholars, and little is out there to nourish new entrants. I understand that the discipline has largely been subsumed under cultural history, and that development is not entirely without its cooperative benefits - interdisciplinary work, job availability, etc. (as discussed in the 1996 IHN). Still, as a functioning, independent area of study, the field is either at its lowest point since its Columbia founding (I'm thinking of James Harvey Robinson), or seems to be in its death throes.
Should U.S. intellectual history be saved, be resurrected as an independent discipline? While I'm merely a junior scholar - with a finished dissertation and a few publications, but without an academic position - I want to advocate in the affirmative.
For one, the discipline provides an outlet for pondering philosophy, difficult thinking, small groups of people, niche institutions (such as the think-tank phenomenon), and difficult writings. A lively field - with a few focused journals and conferences - provides a forum for like-minded folks to exchange papers and ideas. Working with cultural historians has its advantages, but gathering with those focused on intellectual history would help with technical, historiographical, and philosophical issues peculiar to its discipline. Perhaps it might result in an increase of history departments acknowledging the need to hire someone from the field? Some symbiosis could come of the effort.
How can new life be injected into the discipline? With money, consistency, hard work, and a platform of university and faculty support. As mentioned above, we could start a conference and dedicate ourselves to a few journals, perhaps even some new ones (i.e. one for junior scholar development?). Senior scholars could host an annual conference on U.S. soil dedicated to U.S. intellectual phenomena. I'm willing to help, and I doubt I'm alone. I felt like the notoriety surrounding Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club would start something, but the newness of that solid work has worn off; momentum that might have been sustained is now lost.
Who's with me - or who can I help?!
All the best,
Tim
--------------------------------------
I hope something comes of this, because I desperately want the field to survive and develop. - TL
Labels: intellectual history
posted by Tim Lacy at
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
4 Comments:
Dear Dr. Lacy,
Tony Grafton, my colleague and co-editor, has forwarded your H-Ideas posting on the state of American intellectual history. As a mid-career Americanist, I agree with a good bit of your analysis. Yet on behalf of two bodies with which I'm affiliated, I'd like to suggest that there are at least some venues available, and amenable to, younger practitioners.
The first is the JHI. A new editorial team assumed responsibility with Vol. 68 no. 1 (January 2006), and since then we have published a number of articles in American intellectual history, with more on the way. Along with Modern Intellectual History, there are now two journals open to American topics. In April, we'll be joined by a third journal, the Intellectual History Review, to be published by Routledge (Taylor and Francis). The IHR is successor to Intellectual News, and is the official journal of the International Society for Intellectual History.
The second in the ISIH (www.isih.org). We've held two of our conferences in the U.S.--one at Rutgers, the other at Davis--and welcome participation by Americanists. Those of us in the ISIH based in the U.S. are well aware of the impediments to getting intellectual history panels accepted at AHA and OAH conferences, and will be taking steps to deal with these problems. In particular, we plan on holding North American meetings of the ISIH during the AHA conference, and to co-sponsor panels with the JHI. This should allow younger scholars who need be at the AHA for a range of professional reasons to present their work during the course of a major convention. We are still working on the details, but hope to have an affiliated session, or sessions, at the 2008. When ready, we'll post the information on H-Ideas.
Sincerely,
Martin J. Burke
Journal of the History of Ideas
St. Leonard's Court, Suite 330
3819-33 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104-3106
By
Anonymous, at 1/18/2007 4:40 PM
Dear Tim,
Part of the problem with "intellectual history" is not morbidity, but that the field has divided on whether it does or does not accept sme pretty inellectual shifts since 1977. For example, I would have mentioned Linda Kerber and Joan Scott among the senior scholars, and among yonger scholars, Mia Bay and Demetrius Eudell, who have been making claims on the field from the perspective of African-American history.
I also think there is a tendency among historians nowadays to blur the lines of field more generally, so that an intellectual historian is often situating his/her work in relation to other subfields. Mostly, I would argue, that is a good thing. So I don't think an emergency need be declared, unless we say that intellectual history, as it was done before history itself underwent significant and generative, is finished. That's probably true.
I like your blog -- there are few of us historians out there right now!
best,
the Tenured Radical
By
Tenured Radical, at 1/22/2007 11:51 AM
Dear Tim,
boy am I jet-lagged. I meant "accept some pretty big intellectual shifts" in that first confusing sentence. And at the end "significant and generative changes"
TR
By
Tenured Radical, at 1/22/2007 11:53 AM
Dear Tenured Radical: No problem on the jet lag. We're relaxed here at H&E. Thanks a million for your post, and I'm glad you like the web log.
Of course you're absolutely right in saying that I could've included Joan Scott, Linda Kerber, and perhaps even Joan Shelley Rubin in my list of examples. Their omission stems more from my lack of confidence in engaging those specialty areas than any prejudice. A lot of one's views about their works depends on the angles at which they were presented to you. Certainly those who write on the philosophy of history, such as Scott, could be thought of as intellectual historians.
As I noted in the piece, this blurring of the lines has advantages and disadvantages. I'm admittedly focusing on the latter to call attention to my supposition that those interested in U.S. intellectual history, especially younger historians, want more outlets for their work and professional growth. I'm not sure that cultural history, ethnic history, women's history are presently doing that. This "want" has been confirmed by the number of e-mails I have received on the side, as well as by unsolicited links to the piece at HNN's Cliopatria blog and Insidehighered. I accidentally touched a nerve. It seems that significant number do not want the field to die. - TL s
By
Tim Lacy, at 1/23/2007 7:43 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home