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