This week, ending in October 15 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.
Another question, regarding post-modernism within historiography, what are some more recent critiques? I was discussing this topic with a classmate, and we talked about within capitalism, post-modernism has been a contributing factor to the commercialization and exploitation of minorities. I get the sense post-modernism has been under the magnifying glass for some time, but I can't pinpoint why.
I've struggled recently with the differences in modernization and modernity. I know it is not an easy topic as words (specifically the -isms and -izations) do retain subjectivity. However, does anyone have any thoughts regarding the difference, especially when considering rationalization?
Some questions I've been mulling over (some inspired by a twitter conversation I had).
Is it easier for historians today to do research than it was in the past? It's certainly easier for amateur and armchair historians to do research thanks to digitization, but is that the same thing as serious historians doing serious academic work?
Should we even distinguish between amateur historians and academic historians? The best study on the British soldier in the American Revolution was written by someone who's an engineer by trade. Technically he's an amateur historian. What about history written by journalists (e.g. Nathaniel Philbrick who's written several excellent histories).
I'm inclined to say no, the work should be judged on it's own merit, whether or not it's an "academic" historian or "amateur" historian.
Were historians in 50s and 60s treated with more respect? Did they have more influence than modern historians?
I'm inclined to say no to both questions, unless we're talking about an idealized version of a historian that probably never existed.
Inspired by the question about post-modernism below: Epistemology debate!
What constitutes historical reality and is it really within our grasp? Do we write fiction literature like Haydn White suggested or is there more to it? What do you think? What tradition of historiography were you educated in?