This week, ending in March 12 2015:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Some historians believe that their job is to be an impartial and objective narrator of the past, minimizing the impact of their personal biases- the 'modernist' position.
Some believe that such objectivity is undesirable or impossible, and are deeply skeptical of any attempt to strive for it- the 'postmodernist' position.
(I understand that the above is a rather drastic simplification.)
What's your personal opinion on the manner? What's the overall tendency of your historical subfield/other historians you know?
It's incredible just how much classes vary. I never expected it, but the Western Civ Part I survey that I'm teaching at a community college happens to have an incredible group of engaged, bright, and fun students. Every day has been great, and I can try anything with them and they'll give it a go. It's an absolute pleasure to teach such students. And, at the same time, the global environmental history class at the same school is a pretty dead group. So, even though I'm far more comfortable with the environmental history material, it's nowhere near as enjoyable as the Western Civ. You just never can tell what you're going to get.
Still a big question in philosophy of history seems to be the question of teleology, that is, if historical processes are explained in view of a purpose. For me, as someone who is interested in the history of science and technology, almost all teleological explanations seem simplistic and not very convincing when it comes to the details. Teleological history seems to serve big narratives rather than the small case studies I'm usually working on, that almost never fit a narrative of a greater purpose.
I'm not sure this is the right place but i'll try: I'm trying to remember the name of an article i heard referenced at a recent talk. It was iirc an article bin the last half decade or so which argued against a model of punctuated equilibrium for government growth in the US by looking at the combination of all government spending and control instead of just federal or state level stuff. I think the author's name was novak and it appeared in the journal of American history