Based on the result of our submissions topic, /u/Miles_Sine_Castrum's submission received the most votes. I will repost the information below. We have one week to read the article and next Wednesday we will come together to discuss what we read. Some things to keep in mind as you read:
What did you like? What did you dislike?
What did you not understand? What was explained really well?
Did you notice any problems or issues in the premise/methodology/sources/etc?
What would you like to know more about?
Obviously you do not have to answer any or some of these questions, but consider them as you read.
I would also like to thank everyone who submitted articles, but did not receive the most votes. All of the submissions were varied, interesting, and sounded worth reading. I hope that you will consider resubmitting them in a week and a half when we choose our next article/chapter.
If there are any issues, comments, questions, etc. please let me know in the comments below. Feedback is more than welcome and highly encouraged. Again, thank you all and have fun reading.
Brown, Elizabeth A.R., 'The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe', The American Historical Review, vol. 79, no. 4 (Oct. 1974), pp. 1063-88.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf
Peggy Brown's attack on the idea of feudalism is, as I said, a classic of medieval history, and remains important and controversial to this day. In this article, she tries to pull apart what historians mean by the world feudalism and how the concept has influenced how they interpret their sources. The end result is that she argues that feudalism is ultimately not a useful concept, that it confuses and obscures much more than it clarifies. Beyond the specific issue of feudalism, it raises lots of interesting issues about the uses of abstract concepts and models for the work of historians. Brown's work has been discussed before on AH, but I think this gives a unique chance for reader to engage with these kinds of big historiographical ideas and arguments first-hand.
Hi, is this article up for discussion only because of its historical significance? The article is 40 years old after all and we're left without context of how knowledge has advanced since then
I for one look forward to this, ï need to flesh out the concept of "Feudalism" as it often pops up as a phrase in my readings, but I'm seperated by time from the actual historical period of which it references.
I was hoping this one would win, I was just thinking that I should learn more about why the "feudalism" that I was taught in High School was wrong.
I too am looking forward to this.
Sounds interesting! My higher education has been in institutions with a Marxist bent, so it will definitely be different to read an article by someone trying to knock down the very concept of Feudalism.
Woo, I can't believe my submission won! I'm glad it's a topic of such interest that's already producing interesting discussion. I'm also sure that despite it's age, it'll be able to generate lots of interesting comments and discussion not only about the middle ages but about approaches to history in general.
I know in the first Book Club thread, there was some talk of providing 'discussion questions' or some kind of checklist of points to keep in mind while reading. As the guy who put this forward, is this something people would like me to do? Or will I just start up the discussion thread when it opens?