Jo Guldi and David Armitage's recent book The History Manifesto is one of the most interesting methodological investigations I've read in a while. It's open-access so anyone can download the PDF and I highly recommend reading through it as well as seeing the response via #historymanifesto on twitter. There are some pretty condemnatory responses!

Some of my favourite lines:

Modern history had been forged to tell the revolutionary nation-states of nineteenth century Europe where they were heading; in the twentieth century, modern history was being reforged to tell the world what would come after the nation disappeared. p 18-19

The purpose of history is always an interesting topic to me. That history could be currently trying to explain the post-nationalism world of globalization caught my eye. One of the reasons I liked the book is because it clearly understood history as something with utility - not simply existing in the academy in an ephemeral sense. Some responses do take issue with this seemingly anti-establishment tone, but I found it refreshing.

Today, we desperately need an arbiter for these mythological histories, capable of casting out prejudice, reestablishing consensus about the actual boundaries of the possible, and in so doing opening up a wider future and destiny for modern civilisations. History as a discipline can be that referee. p 87

These sorts of comments on how history, which has lately been consigned as too esoteric or intellectual to be useful like the "nationalist narratives" of the past, can be useful as a way to deconstruct assumptions are present throughout the book. If we assume that all of these structures and systems are fundamentally human made, historians have a unique place to help other understand them. There is a utility to history present throughout the book that includes the last 30-40 years of methodological trends. I've never seen it quite put that way before.

History has an important role to play in developing standards, techniques, and theories suited to the analysis of mutually incompatible datasets where a temporal element is crucial to making sense of causation and correlation. Experts trying to explain the history and prospects of various insurance, real-estate, manufacturing, ecological, or political programmes to potential shareholders all need experts in asking questions that scale over time. All of these potential audiences also raise concerns, for many historians, of the moral implications of forms of history that evolve to answer real-world and practical problems. p 104

In the same vein, lots of good comments about how historians can engage with the public in ways not solely limited to lectures, books, academia. I love hearing about feasible ways historians can use their education for other jobs or purposes than what we are largely told in graduate school. "History being used to address real-world and practical problems" is as good a mantra as any.

In an era when intelligence services, the finance sector, and activists might all hope to interpret the long and short events that make up our world, historians have much to offer. If History departments train designers of tools and analysts of big data, they stand to manufacture students on the cutting edge of knowledge-making within and beyond the academy. p 107

Same comment as above. It would be a disservice to call historians suped-up information analysts, but only because we have many hats to wear, not because that's not one of them. I have seen online that "information is currency" in the digital world of social media. I think if that's the case, historians aren't doing too badly.

Responding to the call for a public future demands some rethinking the way we look at the past. We have already talked about the power of big data to illuminate the shadows of history, to test received wisdom and to interrogate reigning theories about the past. But answering the call for a public future also means writing and talking about the past and the future in public, in such a way that ideas can be easily shared. We believe that this dedication to the public heralds three new trends in the writing of history: first, a need for new narratives capable of being read, understood, and engaged by non-experts; second, an emphasis on visualisation and digital tools; and third, a fusion between the big and the small, the ‘micro’ and the ‘macro’, that harnesses the best of archival work on the one hand and bigpicture work about issues of common concern on the other. p 117 -118

This describes perfectly the future direction of historians. A useful direction, I think, one which highlights the necessity of old skills and new ones.

From the responses I've read so far, the book has ruffled some feathers. Luckily, most seem to agree that ruffling feathers is a good thing when the roost is getting a bit stale. So even if they disagree with Guldi and Armitage's proposed direction, most replies agree that this sort of self-reflection is good for the profession. I don't think anyone can deny that things are changing. Again - I highly recommend anyone interested in academic history to give the book a read. It's relatively short, easy to read, and free to download.

Any one can recommend books on Indian historiography?