Genovese group

James Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu
Sun May 31 08:15:01 PDT 1998


concerning the Genovese group that received attention on lbo-talk:

THE NATION, HISTORY

Restoring Dignity to Thucydides' Profession

By EUGENE D. GENOVESE

ATLANTA--Public interest in history is flourishing. An

enthusiastic general audience buys and reads books about

history, follows the offerings of the History Channel and

applauds historical films. All the while, established academic history is

becoming increasingly specialized, careerist, bureaucratized and

politically conformist. The ironies abound and merit savoring.

Academic history has largely effected its work in the name of

democracy. History, it claims, must embody the experience and

feelings of ordinary people, especially those who have been

oppressed, exploited and barred from the corridors of power. Peoples

and their victimization have displaced nations and their traditions.

Wars, rulers and political contests have given way to sexualities and

personal identities. Great religious and intellectual movements have

evaporated under the hot sun of "performance" and the vagaries of

what is known as cultural studies.

Few would dispute the rich contributions of much of what was once

called the "new" social history. Fewer still would deny the value of the

historical sensibility that evokes the variegated legacy of different

cultures. The call for a renewal of historical study has nothing to do

with the politics of left, right or center, much less with the suppression

of diversity and multiculturalism. Yet, contemporary academic history

is being systematically gutted of all of the breadth, the drama and,

most dangerously, the tragedy that have accounted for its abiding hold

over the public imagination. What remains is a series of vignettes of

everyday life that bear an eerie resemblance to the contemporary

sensibilities of identity politics.

Since Thucydides, historians of every century and civilization have

focused upon the rise and fall of empires, states and republics, and

the subjects continue to fascinate the public. But today's academic

historians contemptuously dismiss this legacy as elitist--dead, white,

male history. Sure, at least in Northern Europe and the United States,

the main players in this arena primarily have been white and male--and

are now dead. But to condemn them for those attributes amounts to a

public confession of intellectual poverty. For better or worse--and

usually a measure of both--they shaped the world that we have

inherited.

History further demonstrates that, given the opportunity, Asians,

Africans Middle Easterners--and more than an occasional

woman--have done the same, sometimes with more admirable results,

sometimes with less. They exercised their power and authority through

the wars, diplomacy and political struggles in which they engaged, as

well as through their efforts to write laws, build institutions, establish

cultural and intellectual hegemony, and otherwise implement their

vision of life. In most instances, their efforts demonstrably embodied

some measure of self-interest. But the alleged selfishness of

individuals or ruling classes does not justify our denying their claims

upon our attention.

In recent years, academic historical associations increasingly have

tended to invoke precisely that feeble rationalization. Since diplomatic,

intellectual, political and economic history, among other subjects,

prove resistant to the ideologically loaded, formulaic claims of "race,

class and gender," they are barely tolerated when not treated with

open contempt. No matter that, for example, diplomacy may result in

a transfer of territory that reshapes the lives of ordinary people,

perhaps easing or exacerbating class or ethnic conflict, perhaps

inducing a new attitude toward gender roles. It is preposterous to deny

the significance of high diplomacy, politics and intellectual life for the

lives of ordinary people, which they influence--and are even influenced

by--in countless direct and indirect ways. But historians' interest in

them does not require that justification. Their real claims upon our

attention lie in their intrinsic interest, and our attention to them, in turn,

testifies to our openness to the social life of diverse peoples in its

genuine complexity.

These irrationalities are occurring in an atmosphere that

uncomfortably resembles the McCarthyism of the 1950s. They have

been imposed by presiding cliques that have made ideological

conformity the primary criterion for holding office. Some eminent

historians are now lecturing us to "work from within" establishment

organizations rather than form a new historical society. But have the

establishment organizations not imposed the extremism of "political

correctness," for example, by condoning the proscription of those who

hold differing views, say, those who oppose abortion on religious

principle? Am I being unreasonable when I ask why eminent

colleagues have never uttered a word of protest, much less demanded

that those responsible be called to account? For ourselves, we do not

deny the right of the prevailing academic establishment to do its thing

on its own turf, but we believe that we can build an organization that

practices academic freedom in open debate over the large themes that

lie at the heart of any history worthy of attention.

The Historical Society has been founded to foster the intellectual

and ideological openness that alone nurture rich and challenging

historical work of every variety--from social history to economic and

diplomatic history. Our charter members include people whose politics

range from the Marxist left to the traditionalist right, including every

position between them. All we ask of our members is that they lay

down plausible premises; reason logically; appeal to evidence, and

respect the integrity of all those who do the same.

Historians with diverse views are coming together to establish a

dynamic dialogue in which history will once more attract the attention

of all those who see it as more than fad or fancy. We intend to create

a new community in which civilized exchange will be the pattern of

intellectual discourse. For the rest, John H. Roper of Emory and Henry

College, a man known for his political moderation and tolerant spirit,

said it all: "We simply must restore the dignity of our profession."

- - -

Eugene D. Genovese, a Prominent Marxist Historian and Civil War

Scholar, Is President of the Historical Society, a Professional

Organization of Historians

copyright L.A. Times (published May 31, 1998)

Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list