Hello all.
I am currently writing my thesis for my graduate degree in history from a private university here on the East Coast USA. My question has to deal with terms and their relationship to historiography.
My entire undergrad and graduate historical education I have came to understand that in terms of historiography, history goes through phases; you have and "original" interpretation, and "revisionist" interpretation and sometimes a "post revisionist" that attempts to connect the two. For example I think of the whig interpretation of the American Revolution as being very nationalistic and idealist vs Charles Beard more economic/progressive approach. I would call Charles Beard "revisionist." He is revising our understanding of the revolution from a different perspective than the "originalitst" whigs. He is putting the historical facts into a different narrative. Now obviously the longer time has passed, the more " revisions" a time period can have.
My question is am I on the right track? Obviously this is a quick summary, but am I using these terms correctly? My thesis advisor is a great civil war historian, but she gets really upset when I say the word "revisionist" and thinks I mean it in a political way to describe any historian with "anti American" views. I do not at all. I just mean it in a way to describe phases of historiography on a subject.
I would appreciate what this community has to say on the matter. Thanks!
Not to chill further answers, but I think the real person you need to be having this conversation with is your thesis advisor.
It doesn’t matter what strangers on the internet (no matter how eminently qualified!!) might say on the topic. The important thing is that your advisor will be the one giving you feedback, helping shape the project, and ultimately accepting/rejecting drafts…
I have known fellow students who had their whole projects fall apart because they were presented with a list of changes and were not only unwilling to make them, they were unwilling to have a conversation with their professor about the “why” behind the changes.
Your relationship with your advisor is one of the most important for you professionally. They are the most intimately familiar with your work and are your strongest reference.
That doesn’t mean you need to bow to their every whim, but it does mean you want the writing process to be a rapport
The term revisionist is a nebulous concept and inherently difficult to define. Historiographically speaking, it can mean any school of thought, or combined body of work, that challenges the accepted historical narrative. Revisionism comes after an orthodox viewpoint, and post-revisionism, or ‘new revisionism’ in turn comes after revisionism, but the terms are interchangeable and topic specific.
I have to preface this by saying I’m a British historian of the c.19th, not an American. As far as I understand it, the word ‘revisionist’ in Civil War terms first came to mean a group of scholars that emerged after World War 1 - influenced by the horrors and bloodshed of the ‘Great War’, as it was called then - who started to question whether or not the War was in any way necessary to achieve what eventually became of it, more specifically unity and the abolition of slavery. Maybe your supervisor is applying this definition to it?
On a personal note, you need to speak to your tutor. Speaking as a former teacher and postgrad student, academic supervisors should not make assumptions about their students’ political beliefs based on what they write, and vice versa. This sounds like something that may get out of hand rather quickly unless it’s nipped in the bud.
Ask for a meeting and ask them to explain their interpretation of some terminology, and explain how you take it to mean. That will likely clear the air!