It seems my article of a few weeks ago has found an audience - the government. You seem incredulous of my ability to dictate policy...well have a look at these:
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article2186513.ece
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23382957-details/All%20pupils%20must%20study%20modern%20British%20history/article.do
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=259434
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2567073,00.html
So the government is to introduce more 'Britishness' into history and what has the voice of the discerning British public got to say? Well, the papers have divided along party lines. Whilst the Left leaners produced fairly non-descript articles (a tacit nod almost) The Telegraph responded with a tongue-in-cheek quiz 'How British are you?', with questions about history, geography and the like, 0 points meaning you are French and 100 meaning you are the Queen (minus the German bits?). Plus the standard piece about how standards are falling, noone knows the basics about history etc etc.
In my opinion both sides of this debate come out rather badly, the government becoming rather dictatorial (I mean, do we need 'citizenship' lessons?) and those who object sounding at best snobbish and at worst almost xenophobic. Of course one needs to decide what is to be taught in schools but noone considers those who are being taught. My solution - a bit of 'Kings and Battles', a bit of 'Social', but also let the teachers pick the ones they are best at (within reason of course). At that stage in children's lives it is more the quality and enthusiasm of the teachers that has a lasting effect than some ideological mandate from on high. Well, that's something for the government to bear in mind next time they get their agenda from this website...
Sunday 28 January 2007
The Decline of Western Civilization!
British Library to start charging
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2192972.ece
Published: 28 January 2007
Its archives hold the Magna Carta, Beatles manuscripts and the notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. Visitors to its fabled reading room in the British Museum included Karl Marx, Virginia Woolf, Charles Dickens and George Bernard Shaw. But the future of the British Library as a world-class, free resource is under threat fromplansto cut up to 7 per cent of its £100m budget in this year's Treasury spending round.
To survive, the library proposes to slash opening hours by more than a third and to charge researchers for admission to the reading rooms for the first time.
All public exhibitions would close, along with schools learning programmes. The permanent collection, which includes a copy of every book published in the UK, would be permanently reduced by 15 per cent. And the national newspaper archive, used by 30,000 people a year, including many researching their family trees, would close.
Scholars, writers and politicians have responded angrily. Award-winning author Margaret Drabble, who is currently using the library for research, said: "It would be a very great mistake and tragic to make cuts. It is a great national institution and it is used by scholars from all over the world."
Ex-Monty Python star Michael Palin, who is a patron of the library, said it was a "precious and thrilling resource" that needs to be looked after.
Since 2001, the library, now based in St Pancras and sites around London, has made savings of £40m and reduced its workforce by 15 per cent.
However, the Department for Culture says the expected cuts will mean that more savings need to be made. A spokesman said: "The cultural sector has had huge real-terms increases in funding since 1997. Clearly, this cannot go on indefinitely."
The plans have also caused consternation in the House of Lords. The broadcaster Lord Bragg said the library was of "massive importance in a society... that depends more and more on information, creativity and brains. It needs to be nourished, not hobbled".
Lord Avebury has written to Gordon Brown, who will preside over the Treasury spending plans, saying: "It is difficult to fathom the mind of a Government that sets out to wreck a world-class public institution, as you would if the British Library is forced to make these cuts."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2192972.ece
Published: 28 January 2007
Its archives hold the Magna Carta, Beatles manuscripts and the notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci. Visitors to its fabled reading room in the British Museum included Karl Marx, Virginia Woolf, Charles Dickens and George Bernard Shaw. But the future of the British Library as a world-class, free resource is under threat fromplansto cut up to 7 per cent of its £100m budget in this year's Treasury spending round.
To survive, the library proposes to slash opening hours by more than a third and to charge researchers for admission to the reading rooms for the first time.
All public exhibitions would close, along with schools learning programmes. The permanent collection, which includes a copy of every book published in the UK, would be permanently reduced by 15 per cent. And the national newspaper archive, used by 30,000 people a year, including many researching their family trees, would close.
Scholars, writers and politicians have responded angrily. Award-winning author Margaret Drabble, who is currently using the library for research, said: "It would be a very great mistake and tragic to make cuts. It is a great national institution and it is used by scholars from all over the world."
Ex-Monty Python star Michael Palin, who is a patron of the library, said it was a "precious and thrilling resource" that needs to be looked after.
Since 2001, the library, now based in St Pancras and sites around London, has made savings of £40m and reduced its workforce by 15 per cent.
However, the Department for Culture says the expected cuts will mean that more savings need to be made. A spokesman said: "The cultural sector has had huge real-terms increases in funding since 1997. Clearly, this cannot go on indefinitely."
The plans have also caused consternation in the House of Lords. The broadcaster Lord Bragg said the library was of "massive importance in a society... that depends more and more on information, creativity and brains. It needs to be nourished, not hobbled".
Lord Avebury has written to Gordon Brown, who will preside over the Treasury spending plans, saying: "It is difficult to fathom the mind of a Government that sets out to wreck a world-class public institution, as you would if the British Library is forced to make these cuts."
Tuesday 23 January 2007
My Political Affiliation (Apparently)
www.politicalcompass.org
According to this I am of the libertarian left:
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
My nearest political equivalents are Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Not bad, eh?
According to this I am of the libertarian left:
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
My nearest political equivalents are Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Not bad, eh?
Sunday 21 January 2007
What History REALLY Is, or Why I am not an Essentialist
History today is a lot like a 40 year accountant who has just bought a motorbike - Comfortable in terms of money and position but ultimately not quite sure what he wants to do with his life. I mean, History is popular in terms of student numbers, books written, even TV programmes. However, if you ask most what is the point of history, what it actually does, a few might say there is something to be learnt, some grand historical law or invaluable lesson. The majority would reel out the usual line of 'history for its own sake'. A good number would not, I suspect, have given it a great deal of thought - the past is just 'there', another aspect of time and space to be looked at by someone so inclined.
In theory I am a big fan of doing things 'for their own sake'. I take a cue from Camus in his belief that on some level all life is just acting like that, that we must be delude ourselves that are tasks are in some way meaningful even though our transience and mortality deny them that status. However, for Camus this delusion is born from our freedom and choice. The capacity to wilfully deny the circumstances of our being. Yet, History is a grand, imposing beast of a thing that comes at us through school, through the State, through social interaction like a grey, discursive miasma. We, as historians, must actively seek to preserve our freedom, which is eroded every time the curiosity for discovery departs and our activities seem like burdensome chores.
At present I would argue that it is the aims that aren't quite up to scratch. For one thing the Past has become too commodified. A student goes to university, increasingly almost as an obligation, where he or she receives their fill of 'historical knowledge', then, suitably examined, they scuttle off to the world of work, the focus of three years of their life mostly forgotten save for the occasional pub quiz answer. So what do I propose instead?
Firstly, I think we should accept less and question more. I do not mean the sources or secondary texts but the very nature of the history we practise: Why this topic? Why this way? Why this period? Thus, History will be less passive absoption and regurgitation, but, instead, questioning the questions put to us; the very boundaries of things. I mean, given the financial burdens that courses place on us, are we not entitled to do this anyway? Professors are no longer dispensers of Truth whom we have the good fortune to listen to - they are as dependent on us as we on them, perhaps more so given the commerical nature of universities.
So what, then, is History for? The cynic might say it grounds what we say with an air of smug authority (well actually it happened this way...). I get no kick from that sort of thing, though, I must admit. Instead, I would say that identity, for the greater part, is the sine qua non of our subject: Who we are as people, as communities, as nations. The choice and of what and how something is studied is therefore paramount. Knowledge is not simply the accumulation of facts to be dispensed in appropriate situations: How we understand is as important as what we understand. These models of understanding affect the way we see the present world, how we see ourselves collectively and individually.
Old-school empiricism may have served the Western democracies well against the fictitious ravages of totalitarian regimes, but now, without such cultural markers we have the opportunity for a new and perhaps fairer version of history. No great threat lurches over us that we should mobilize against. We should look a bit closer to home and use our history to make our lives more enjoyable and engaging. This to me seems a very appealing prospect.
In theory I am a big fan of doing things 'for their own sake'. I take a cue from Camus in his belief that on some level all life is just acting like that, that we must be delude ourselves that are tasks are in some way meaningful even though our transience and mortality deny them that status. However, for Camus this delusion is born from our freedom and choice. The capacity to wilfully deny the circumstances of our being. Yet, History is a grand, imposing beast of a thing that comes at us through school, through the State, through social interaction like a grey, discursive miasma. We, as historians, must actively seek to preserve our freedom, which is eroded every time the curiosity for discovery departs and our activities seem like burdensome chores.
At present I would argue that it is the aims that aren't quite up to scratch. For one thing the Past has become too commodified. A student goes to university, increasingly almost as an obligation, where he or she receives their fill of 'historical knowledge', then, suitably examined, they scuttle off to the world of work, the focus of three years of their life mostly forgotten save for the occasional pub quiz answer. So what do I propose instead?
Firstly, I think we should accept less and question more. I do not mean the sources or secondary texts but the very nature of the history we practise: Why this topic? Why this way? Why this period? Thus, History will be less passive absoption and regurgitation, but, instead, questioning the questions put to us; the very boundaries of things. I mean, given the financial burdens that courses place on us, are we not entitled to do this anyway? Professors are no longer dispensers of Truth whom we have the good fortune to listen to - they are as dependent on us as we on them, perhaps more so given the commerical nature of universities.
So what, then, is History for? The cynic might say it grounds what we say with an air of smug authority (well actually it happened this way...). I get no kick from that sort of thing, though, I must admit. Instead, I would say that identity, for the greater part, is the sine qua non of our subject: Who we are as people, as communities, as nations. The choice and of what and how something is studied is therefore paramount. Knowledge is not simply the accumulation of facts to be dispensed in appropriate situations: How we understand is as important as what we understand. These models of understanding affect the way we see the present world, how we see ourselves collectively and individually.
Old-school empiricism may have served the Western democracies well against the fictitious ravages of totalitarian regimes, but now, without such cultural markers we have the opportunity for a new and perhaps fairer version of history. No great threat lurches over us that we should mobilize against. We should look a bit closer to home and use our history to make our lives more enjoyable and engaging. This to me seems a very appealing prospect.
Friday 19 January 2007
Burk/Eldridge Correspondence IV-V
Burk to Eldridge IV
Thank you for your e-mail. I was quite stunned by some of your comments, and am yet again agog by how I and my work are perceived by others.
It seems that we are, in your terms, matching ideology against> ideology. The fact that you classify writers as left-wing or, I suppose, right-wing, which never occurs to me, means that you have preconceptions about what you expect a history course to produce. The idea that I have chosen the 20th century because I support the 'American Century' is just plain stupid. I did my D.Phil on the First World War, and in the natureof things a newly-fledged scholar expands out from the core of her knowledge and expertise. Given the nature of and time required for research, most historians do not leap around the centuries. Had I to do it all overagain, I would be an ancient historian, but I do not have world enough or time.> Besides: how long a period would you like to cover? And I juxtaposed> Britain and America because my main field of research and teaching is> Anglo-American relations: I find the history of just one country less> interesting than handling two histories, two cultures. By common consentit is more difficult than concentrating on one, but that is part of the> pleasure for me. I am also curious where you got the idea that the course> exemplifies 'almost a paean to American industrialism', and that I support> the idea that the mark of a civilization is its manufacturing output. It> sounds to me as though you yourself are stuck in your own ideological box> and are regretful that I do not recognize your fences.> I was struck by your reference to the 'theory' of American> ascendancy during the period. You may find it unpalatable, but in> diplomatic and military relations, it is undeniable. Even your left-wing> writers acknowledge it, or they would not bother to write bookscriticizingit. But I do not put purely polemical works on my reading list, whether> from the left or the right, because if you looks at the footnotes, on the> whole there tends to be a certain scarcity. I own quite a few of these> myself - sometime I'll show you my clutch of left-wing and communist> pamphlets attacking the Marshall Plan - and use them for other approaches,> but not for teaching below the level of research students. How can one> ascertain the quality of the argument if knowledge of the archives &c is> lacking? For better or worse, this is not a course on 'Images of Great> Britain and the US and of their relationship'.>
You say that it would help to have an acknowledgement of my aims at> the outset. Within this context, it sounds as though you perceive thatwhat I am doing is imposing an ideology, and am limiting what you are able to> work on or read orthink. My aims are to encourage my students to think> logically and to think for themselves. I have had students cite and then> criticize one or another article which I have written, and this gives me> great pleasure, because it is evidence that they are independent thinkers.> I am not at all clear what you mean by a focus on 'key texts' in> international history. What would you suggest? One would be Kennan's'Long> Telegram', but although I marked it vital in the syllabus, it was clearthat> not all had read it.> And of course there is a linear, chronological approach: as I said> before, history is change over time, not a timeless void. And of course> there is an emphasis on the nation-state: that is the actor in relations> between one state and another. This is NOT to imply that there are noother> actors or factors or elements: but when France takes a decision about> declaring war on Germany, it is not your man in the street or artist or> housewife or professor who finally decides, nor is it one of them who> conveys the decision. Yes, foreign policy has traditionally been decidedby> elites, and so what? There are elites in football and there are elites in> foreign policymaking.> I really haven't a clue what you mean by 'modern cultural> chauvinism', and therefore it is difficult for me to have acknowledged it.> If you mean that you don't like the impact of American culture, that is> hardly my affair. What is really strange for me here, and there is no way> you could have known it, is that if anything, I'm more anti-American and> pro-British, in my emotional reaction to some of the things I study. Butit> is necessary 1) to recognize this and 2) put it aside, or else I am> betraying all that I am trying to do, which is to try to establish some> semblance of truth. You do not need to bring on again the unknowabilityof> the 'truth' - anyone who has worked in primary sources is all too aware of> this - but what is important is judgement, and judgement based on a great> deal of work, not purely on gut feelings.> I am sorry that your realization that you are in the wrong course> has come too late for you to change. I can sympathise with your feelingsof> discomfort and probably even rage: I would certainly feel the same in a> course which emphasized subject-object dichotomies and ideologicalconcepts> over getting my hands dirty. Fortunately, all the marks for the courseare based on coursework, so you can get by quite happily by reading what you> want and writing on topics of your choice.
By the way, my own huge book on the relations of Britain and> America, which is out in the autumn, covers 1497-now, and has chapters on> identities, social reform movements, the literary relationship &c as wellas politics, diplomacy, and economics. And I am sick of the 20th century.
------------------------
Eldridge to Burk V
I am pleased my email provoked some thoughts from you. In truth, I did exageratemy points a fair bit, and some of it is a touch speculative, plus I wouldnotparticularly consider myself either left wing or postmodernist. However, youidentified yourself as an empiricist so I took it as a bit of a challenge totake an opposing view.The American Century thing was a guess on my part. However, I have read afewarticles saying how the arrangement of time is important in a history and isnot as straighforward as it seems. The fact that framing time in such a wayseems like a natural thing to do perhaps lends itself to theFoucault/Barthesidea of the 'death of the author', whereby it is discourse, workingunderneaththe surface that shapes it. It could be I am reading things into it. Icommented on the seemingly comparative nature of the course to a largeextentbecause of post-structuralist theory, which seems quite popular nowadays.Thistheory states how things get their identity only from comparison to otherthings (Self/Other), with one half of that couplet getting privelegedstatus.This, in combination with a bit Hayden White trope theory, meant Iinterpretedyour course structure as a narrative, whereby the means of measurement wasfinancial/industrial because you emphasize economics and in the firstseminarwe looked at a table of manufacturing outputs. This I linked to thepostmoderntheory that attempts to quantify, rank, categorize and rationalize thingsarestrategies of control and the exertion of power. This is what I meant bycultural chauvanism.
Another idea I used was Benedict Anderson's theory about how nations are formed,that they are not just naturally there but are a process of imagining peoplethat you will never see. Things such as maps and censuses produce the'imaginary lines' I mentioned; the creation of Self/Other dichotomies. Theseare subtley reinforced in the writing of national histories.According to postmodern theory, your course will always be ideological, whateveryou choose to teach, and the empiricist claim to be unideological is afallacious one. Similarly they claim that the autonomy of the subject is aninvented fiction. They would say there is nothing wrong with being polemical aslong as you acknowledge it, and, if possible, try to accommodate otherviewpoints. The empiricist would say they research the past for its ownsake,the postmodernist would say that even if it were possible, what would be thepoint? The idea of discerning historical laws and lessons from the past ispretty much discredited, why not use it for the present? If all history isideological anyway, why not use for uncovering relationships of powerinsteadof maintaining them? History for them is about identity (who we think we are asa person/society etc.), therefore why privilege elites in the national identityover anyone else?It is true I referred to American ascendency as a theory. In part this isbecause I know in history writing there are loads of theories that say somecivilization is at its zenith or is in decline, usually they are disproven. Theideas of Spengler, Toynbee, Whig historians, Gibbon have all pretty much fallenby the wayside. This of course is a tenuous argument. However, one could saythat the way ascendency is judged can differ. At the moment it is in termsofaggregate industrial output/GNP and military strength but one could alsojustas easily rank nations (as the UN does) in term their citizen's livingstandards (literacy, life expectancy, levels of those living in poverty).According to this scale the US ranks much lower in the world. From thisperspective foreign policy can be judged in terms of the ability to avoidadventuristic foreign policy, curb the power of the military-industrial complexand restrain the elites in power. This may or may not be convincing but I'm surethere's other ways of seeing it.
Finally, I can empathasize with wanting to study ancient history as I didthatas an undergraduate and enjoyed it immensely. Thucydides is one of myfavouraite books and one of the best courses I have been on at universitywasone concerning use and representations of the Classical World in the Modern,perhaps that is an idea?
Thank you for your e-mail. I was quite stunned by some of your comments, and am yet again agog by how I and my work are perceived by others.
It seems that we are, in your terms, matching ideology against> ideology. The fact that you classify writers as left-wing or, I suppose, right-wing, which never occurs to me, means that you have preconceptions about what you expect a history course to produce. The idea that I have chosen the 20th century because I support the 'American Century' is just plain stupid. I did my D.Phil on the First World War, and in the natureof things a newly-fledged scholar expands out from the core of her knowledge and expertise. Given the nature of and time required for research, most historians do not leap around the centuries. Had I to do it all overagain, I would be an ancient historian, but I do not have world enough or time.> Besides: how long a period would you like to cover? And I juxtaposed> Britain and America because my main field of research and teaching is> Anglo-American relations: I find the history of just one country less> interesting than handling two histories, two cultures. By common consentit is more difficult than concentrating on one, but that is part of the> pleasure for me. I am also curious where you got the idea that the course> exemplifies 'almost a paean to American industrialism', and that I support> the idea that the mark of a civilization is its manufacturing output. It> sounds to me as though you yourself are stuck in your own ideological box> and are regretful that I do not recognize your fences.> I was struck by your reference to the 'theory' of American> ascendancy during the period. You may find it unpalatable, but in> diplomatic and military relations, it is undeniable. Even your left-wing> writers acknowledge it, or they would not bother to write bookscriticizingit. But I do not put purely polemical works on my reading list, whether> from the left or the right, because if you looks at the footnotes, on the> whole there tends to be a certain scarcity. I own quite a few of these> myself - sometime I'll show you my clutch of left-wing and communist> pamphlets attacking the Marshall Plan - and use them for other approaches,> but not for teaching below the level of research students. How can one> ascertain the quality of the argument if knowledge of the archives &c is> lacking? For better or worse, this is not a course on 'Images of Great> Britain and the US and of their relationship'.>
You say that it would help to have an acknowledgement of my aims at> the outset. Within this context, it sounds as though you perceive thatwhat I am doing is imposing an ideology, and am limiting what you are able to> work on or read orthink. My aims are to encourage my students to think> logically and to think for themselves. I have had students cite and then> criticize one or another article which I have written, and this gives me> great pleasure, because it is evidence that they are independent thinkers.> I am not at all clear what you mean by a focus on 'key texts' in> international history. What would you suggest? One would be Kennan's'Long> Telegram', but although I marked it vital in the syllabus, it was clearthat> not all had read it.> And of course there is a linear, chronological approach: as I said> before, history is change over time, not a timeless void. And of course> there is an emphasis on the nation-state: that is the actor in relations> between one state and another. This is NOT to imply that there are noother> actors or factors or elements: but when France takes a decision about> declaring war on Germany, it is not your man in the street or artist or> housewife or professor who finally decides, nor is it one of them who> conveys the decision. Yes, foreign policy has traditionally been decidedby> elites, and so what? There are elites in football and there are elites in> foreign policymaking.> I really haven't a clue what you mean by 'modern cultural> chauvinism', and therefore it is difficult for me to have acknowledged it.> If you mean that you don't like the impact of American culture, that is> hardly my affair. What is really strange for me here, and there is no way> you could have known it, is that if anything, I'm more anti-American and> pro-British, in my emotional reaction to some of the things I study. Butit> is necessary 1) to recognize this and 2) put it aside, or else I am> betraying all that I am trying to do, which is to try to establish some> semblance of truth. You do not need to bring on again the unknowabilityof> the 'truth' - anyone who has worked in primary sources is all too aware of> this - but what is important is judgement, and judgement based on a great> deal of work, not purely on gut feelings.> I am sorry that your realization that you are in the wrong course> has come too late for you to change. I can sympathise with your feelingsof> discomfort and probably even rage: I would certainly feel the same in a> course which emphasized subject-object dichotomies and ideologicalconcepts> over getting my hands dirty. Fortunately, all the marks for the courseare based on coursework, so you can get by quite happily by reading what you> want and writing on topics of your choice.
By the way, my own huge book on the relations of Britain and> America, which is out in the autumn, covers 1497-now, and has chapters on> identities, social reform movements, the literary relationship &c as wellas politics, diplomacy, and economics. And I am sick of the 20th century.
------------------------
Eldridge to Burk V
I am pleased my email provoked some thoughts from you. In truth, I did exageratemy points a fair bit, and some of it is a touch speculative, plus I wouldnotparticularly consider myself either left wing or postmodernist. However, youidentified yourself as an empiricist so I took it as a bit of a challenge totake an opposing view.The American Century thing was a guess on my part. However, I have read afewarticles saying how the arrangement of time is important in a history and isnot as straighforward as it seems. The fact that framing time in such a wayseems like a natural thing to do perhaps lends itself to theFoucault/Barthesidea of the 'death of the author', whereby it is discourse, workingunderneaththe surface that shapes it. It could be I am reading things into it. Icommented on the seemingly comparative nature of the course to a largeextentbecause of post-structuralist theory, which seems quite popular nowadays.Thistheory states how things get their identity only from comparison to otherthings (Self/Other), with one half of that couplet getting privelegedstatus.This, in combination with a bit Hayden White trope theory, meant Iinterpretedyour course structure as a narrative, whereby the means of measurement wasfinancial/industrial because you emphasize economics and in the firstseminarwe looked at a table of manufacturing outputs. This I linked to thepostmoderntheory that attempts to quantify, rank, categorize and rationalize thingsarestrategies of control and the exertion of power. This is what I meant bycultural chauvanism.
Another idea I used was Benedict Anderson's theory about how nations are formed,that they are not just naturally there but are a process of imagining peoplethat you will never see. Things such as maps and censuses produce the'imaginary lines' I mentioned; the creation of Self/Other dichotomies. Theseare subtley reinforced in the writing of national histories.According to postmodern theory, your course will always be ideological, whateveryou choose to teach, and the empiricist claim to be unideological is afallacious one. Similarly they claim that the autonomy of the subject is aninvented fiction. They would say there is nothing wrong with being polemical aslong as you acknowledge it, and, if possible, try to accommodate otherviewpoints. The empiricist would say they research the past for its ownsake,the postmodernist would say that even if it were possible, what would be thepoint? The idea of discerning historical laws and lessons from the past ispretty much discredited, why not use it for the present? If all history isideological anyway, why not use for uncovering relationships of powerinsteadof maintaining them? History for them is about identity (who we think we are asa person/society etc.), therefore why privilege elites in the national identityover anyone else?It is true I referred to American ascendency as a theory. In part this isbecause I know in history writing there are loads of theories that say somecivilization is at its zenith or is in decline, usually they are disproven. Theideas of Spengler, Toynbee, Whig historians, Gibbon have all pretty much fallenby the wayside. This of course is a tenuous argument. However, one could saythat the way ascendency is judged can differ. At the moment it is in termsofaggregate industrial output/GNP and military strength but one could alsojustas easily rank nations (as the UN does) in term their citizen's livingstandards (literacy, life expectancy, levels of those living in poverty).According to this scale the US ranks much lower in the world. From thisperspective foreign policy can be judged in terms of the ability to avoidadventuristic foreign policy, curb the power of the military-industrial complexand restrain the elites in power. This may or may not be convincing but I'm surethere's other ways of seeing it.
Finally, I can empathasize with wanting to study ancient history as I didthatas an undergraduate and enjoyed it immensely. Thucydides is one of myfavouraite books and one of the best courses I have been on at universitywasone concerning use and representations of the Classical World in the Modern,perhaps that is an idea?
Thursday 18 January 2007
Burk/Eldridge Edited Correspondence Emails I-III
Eldridge to Burk I
Although in class you sometimes ask for an 'argument' I have struggled
with how to frame such an argument in the context of the aims of your course. In my history writing I try to avoid simple causal explanations of topics 'What caused event x? etc.' or GCSE-style regurgitation of all available facts about a period but this is what seminars mostly consist of, it seems to me. For instance, should we be considering what the various schools of diplomatic> history represent (revisionist/realist etc.)? Should we consider the influence of postmodernism on the study of diplomatic history (for most other modules this seems a popular question)? What weight should we give internalfactors and issues? Should we be considering whether the nation-state is still a valid more of historical analysis (this has been done a few times in other classes)? Should the ultimate aim of diplomatic history be to decide who is 'winning' and has the most political power at any given time? - I am exagerating but that does seem to be the goal of the course sometimes.
In short, I am not really from a diplomatic history background and don't really know what it means so would appreciate a bit of guidance from you. Overall I acknowledge I have been a touch reticent in seminars but I do not feel there is a lack of effort on my part for I spend more time researchingyour seminars than my other two modules and with my job I have very little time> to> spare. Sometimes I read lots of books on your list but don't know what I'm looking for, at other times I research things that I do not bring up because they do not seem relevant to the discussion that develops. I am not suggesting you dictate with exact precision every aspect of study, I don't think either of us would want that, but I would appreciate suggestions on the nature of debate, what sort of questions would be appropriate to ask, what conceptual apparatus I could or should be using.
--------------------------
Burk to Eldridge II
I also insist on a rigorous level of analysis, but you are correct that I do not try to box in students - or myself - by insisting ona pattern, whether it is realist or functionalist or postmodernist. And of course one has to concentrate on finding out causes and effects, as far as> possible: history is change over time, not a timeless void, and how canone interpret, in any mode, if this has not been established? You will doubtless answer that postmodernism will indicate that we can never know, but I am a proud defiant empiricist, and spend thousands of hours in> archives going through documents and reading other primary sources as far as I can, to establish what events took place, to compare accounts, always asking myself why the differences are what they are. The outbreak of war between states has more than once depended upon when a dispatch reached a Foreign Office, or upon who read it and what decision was taken and why. This may not turn you on, and the simple answer may be that you aretrapped> within an area of the discipline which does not stimulate you. I can understand this: I myself find social history less than engaging. But it seems to me that there is no point in doing history if it is not anattempt to establish what happened, why it happened, the consequences of itshaving happened, and how others have interpreted it, leading to new thoughts, new ideas, new approaches, and on it goes.
You imply that the main thing we do in seminar is to regurgitate facts, or look for simple causal explanations, but it is quite clear to me> that most members of the seminar do not know the facts, and if I can getan outline set out about whatever we are discussing, we can then go on from there. What's to interpret, if the basic knowledge isn't there? If you would like me to indicate, I will tell all of you what I want you to know> about the following week. I have done this once or twice. This will> perhaps be the better approach, since none of you, as far as I can tell, have much academic background in the topic. This is not a complaint: it is a statement of fact, given that high politics and diplomacy is something of a minority subject (although having said that, it is one of the two most> popular topics in the department at undergraduate level).
Since diplomatic history considers the relations of states with each> other in the period with which we are dealing - less relevant, perhaps, in> the ancient Near East or amongst those whose organizing principle is the> tribe or clan - it seems a bit strange to wonder whether the nation-state is a valid mode of historical analysis. Whether one likes it or not,> presidents, secretaries of state and Congress in the US, and prime> ministers, the Cabinet and parliament in the UK conceive, plan, and> implement foreign policy - if only because there has to be a crisis ofsome> sort for most other people to pay any attention to it at all.
Any element in life can have an impact on foreign relations. But this is one class for two terms, and I try to get an overview of thesubject> and the period. Students who then want to dig more deeply into aparticular topic can write a dissertation on it.
--------------------------
Eldridge to Burk III
Thankyou for your response on this matter, it has been useful. In part thedecision to do your course was because I understood it to be firmlyempirical,so I thought it would contrast nicely with other courses I am doing and havedone, which tend to lean towards postmodernism in their methodology.
However, it seems my understanding of postmodernism differs slightly fromyoursfor Ithink there are few that say you cannot know the past per se, maybe Derrida,not that I understand Derrida much, but most say that because we can knowthepast in many different ways it is how we represent and frame our historythataffects things, ie which bits we leave in and which we take out sincehistoryalways has to be selective. Postmodernism links this with power, hence, Isuspect, that is why diplomatic history does not tend to get on well withpostmodernism, as diplomatic history is all about elites.
For instance, a postmodernist might take issue with the choice of periodization and representation of time for your course. The fact that you chosen thetwentieth century means there is an implicit support for the idea of the'American Century', the theory of American ascendency in this period, whichisalmost self-congratulatory and similar to the triumphalist Americanhistoriography produced after the end of the Cold War. This is demonstratedinthe course by America's juxtaposition with Britain, which, you have argued,isin decline during this period. This is not a complaint: it is a statement offact, I read it in one of your articles. The choice and representation ofevents supports this argument, such as the emphasis on the periodimmediatelyfollowing the Second World War. Areas of ambiguity are moved through morequickly, such as the 1920s and 30s. The bibliography also seems weightedagainst Left Wing writers, for instance you have not included manyrevisionistwriters (to my knowledge). Not that all this invalidates your argument inanyway but it does mean that our approach is laden with ideology, discourse ifyouwill, before we approach the texts and our analysis is not a neutral processandthus not simply a case of verifying/extracting facts. This might be helpedbyacknowledgement of your aims at the outset. You might say in reply that wearefree to research any book we like perhaps even research any topic we like,however constraints of time make this unlikely, as well as the fact thatdiscussion in seminars would be hindered if we had all read completelydifferent things. Besides, the limits of your discourse seem quite firmlyenforced.
There is a generally linear, chronological progression through events, asopposed to, for example, a conceptual approach or heavy focus on key texts.This chronology relies upon a notion of an essential continuity thatconstitutes the nation-state. The boundedness and unicity of a nation-statearesocial constructs. A linear history also implies trajectory for the future.Britain or America thus appears to be an evolving species through time -thereis thus an underlying historical model that our seminars would struggle todislodge given that you choose the topics. In addition, by comparing Britainand America in this fashion the course becomes almost a paean to Americanindustrialism. Two countries are quantifiably and objectively compared,implying the mark of a civilization is its manufacturing output. Americasupplants Britain as world power, presumably with the "tribes" and "clans"youpreviously refer to ranking lower. One might therefore identify an elementofmodernist cultural chauvanism interwoven into the course which is notacknowledged.
The emphasis on establishing facts, with its strong subject-object dichotomydistracts from the ideological orientation of the course. A postmodernistwouldnot say that verifying facts is unimportant but it is prudent to acknowledgehowknowledge is manufactured. Wars are not caused by telegrams arriving inforeignoffices, they are caused by people on one side of an imaginary line thinkingthey are different from people on the other side of that line; history has a lot to do with the creation of those lines.
Although in class you sometimes ask for an 'argument' I have struggled
with how to frame such an argument in the context of the aims of your course. In my history writing I try to avoid simple causal explanations of topics 'What caused event x? etc.' or GCSE-style regurgitation of all available facts about a period but this is what seminars mostly consist of, it seems to me. For instance, should we be considering what the various schools of diplomatic> history represent (revisionist/realist etc.)? Should we consider the influence of postmodernism on the study of diplomatic history (for most other modules this seems a popular question)? What weight should we give internalfactors and issues? Should we be considering whether the nation-state is still a valid more of historical analysis (this has been done a few times in other classes)? Should the ultimate aim of diplomatic history be to decide who is 'winning' and has the most political power at any given time? - I am exagerating but that does seem to be the goal of the course sometimes.
In short, I am not really from a diplomatic history background and don't really know what it means so would appreciate a bit of guidance from you. Overall I acknowledge I have been a touch reticent in seminars but I do not feel there is a lack of effort on my part for I spend more time researchingyour seminars than my other two modules and with my job I have very little time> to> spare. Sometimes I read lots of books on your list but don't know what I'm looking for, at other times I research things that I do not bring up because they do not seem relevant to the discussion that develops. I am not suggesting you dictate with exact precision every aspect of study, I don't think either of us would want that, but I would appreciate suggestions on the nature of debate, what sort of questions would be appropriate to ask, what conceptual apparatus I could or should be using.
--------------------------
Burk to Eldridge II
I also insist on a rigorous level of analysis, but you are correct that I do not try to box in students - or myself - by insisting ona pattern, whether it is realist or functionalist or postmodernist. And of course one has to concentrate on finding out causes and effects, as far as> possible: history is change over time, not a timeless void, and how canone interpret, in any mode, if this has not been established? You will doubtless answer that postmodernism will indicate that we can never know, but I am a proud defiant empiricist, and spend thousands of hours in> archives going through documents and reading other primary sources as far as I can, to establish what events took place, to compare accounts, always asking myself why the differences are what they are. The outbreak of war between states has more than once depended upon when a dispatch reached a Foreign Office, or upon who read it and what decision was taken and why. This may not turn you on, and the simple answer may be that you aretrapped> within an area of the discipline which does not stimulate you. I can understand this: I myself find social history less than engaging. But it seems to me that there is no point in doing history if it is not anattempt to establish what happened, why it happened, the consequences of itshaving happened, and how others have interpreted it, leading to new thoughts, new ideas, new approaches, and on it goes.
You imply that the main thing we do in seminar is to regurgitate facts, or look for simple causal explanations, but it is quite clear to me> that most members of the seminar do not know the facts, and if I can getan outline set out about whatever we are discussing, we can then go on from there. What's to interpret, if the basic knowledge isn't there? If you would like me to indicate, I will tell all of you what I want you to know> about the following week. I have done this once or twice. This will> perhaps be the better approach, since none of you, as far as I can tell, have much academic background in the topic. This is not a complaint: it is a statement of fact, given that high politics and diplomacy is something of a minority subject (although having said that, it is one of the two most> popular topics in the department at undergraduate level).
Since diplomatic history considers the relations of states with each> other in the period with which we are dealing - less relevant, perhaps, in> the ancient Near East or amongst those whose organizing principle is the> tribe or clan - it seems a bit strange to wonder whether the nation-state is a valid mode of historical analysis. Whether one likes it or not,> presidents, secretaries of state and Congress in the US, and prime> ministers, the Cabinet and parliament in the UK conceive, plan, and> implement foreign policy - if only because there has to be a crisis ofsome> sort for most other people to pay any attention to it at all.
Any element in life can have an impact on foreign relations. But this is one class for two terms, and I try to get an overview of thesubject> and the period. Students who then want to dig more deeply into aparticular topic can write a dissertation on it.
--------------------------
Eldridge to Burk III
Thankyou for your response on this matter, it has been useful. In part thedecision to do your course was because I understood it to be firmlyempirical,so I thought it would contrast nicely with other courses I am doing and havedone, which tend to lean towards postmodernism in their methodology.
However, it seems my understanding of postmodernism differs slightly fromyoursfor Ithink there are few that say you cannot know the past per se, maybe Derrida,not that I understand Derrida much, but most say that because we can knowthepast in many different ways it is how we represent and frame our historythataffects things, ie which bits we leave in and which we take out sincehistoryalways has to be selective. Postmodernism links this with power, hence, Isuspect, that is why diplomatic history does not tend to get on well withpostmodernism, as diplomatic history is all about elites.
For instance, a postmodernist might take issue with the choice of periodization and representation of time for your course. The fact that you chosen thetwentieth century means there is an implicit support for the idea of the'American Century', the theory of American ascendency in this period, whichisalmost self-congratulatory and similar to the triumphalist Americanhistoriography produced after the end of the Cold War. This is demonstratedinthe course by America's juxtaposition with Britain, which, you have argued,isin decline during this period. This is not a complaint: it is a statement offact, I read it in one of your articles. The choice and representation ofevents supports this argument, such as the emphasis on the periodimmediatelyfollowing the Second World War. Areas of ambiguity are moved through morequickly, such as the 1920s and 30s. The bibliography also seems weightedagainst Left Wing writers, for instance you have not included manyrevisionistwriters (to my knowledge). Not that all this invalidates your argument inanyway but it does mean that our approach is laden with ideology, discourse ifyouwill, before we approach the texts and our analysis is not a neutral processandthus not simply a case of verifying/extracting facts. This might be helpedbyacknowledgement of your aims at the outset. You might say in reply that wearefree to research any book we like perhaps even research any topic we like,however constraints of time make this unlikely, as well as the fact thatdiscussion in seminars would be hindered if we had all read completelydifferent things. Besides, the limits of your discourse seem quite firmlyenforced.
There is a generally linear, chronological progression through events, asopposed to, for example, a conceptual approach or heavy focus on key texts.This chronology relies upon a notion of an essential continuity thatconstitutes the nation-state. The boundedness and unicity of a nation-statearesocial constructs. A linear history also implies trajectory for the future.Britain or America thus appears to be an evolving species through time -thereis thus an underlying historical model that our seminars would struggle todislodge given that you choose the topics. In addition, by comparing Britainand America in this fashion the course becomes almost a paean to Americanindustrialism. Two countries are quantifiably and objectively compared,implying the mark of a civilization is its manufacturing output. Americasupplants Britain as world power, presumably with the "tribes" and "clans"youpreviously refer to ranking lower. One might therefore identify an elementofmodernist cultural chauvanism interwoven into the course which is notacknowledged.
The emphasis on establishing facts, with its strong subject-object dichotomydistracts from the ideological orientation of the course. A postmodernistwouldnot say that verifying facts is unimportant but it is prudent to acknowledgehowknowledge is manufactured. Wars are not caused by telegrams arriving inforeignoffices, they are caused by people on one side of an imaginary line thinkingthey are different from people on the other side of that line; history has a lot to do with the creation of those lines.
Monday 1 January 2007
Divers and Varyed Observations in Satyre of the Naturre and Characterre of An Extroverte, Viz.
Theatre performers are not like badgers. They do not have quiet, nocturnal shufflings, to be passively and reverently observed in pastoral solitude. If there is not a constant stream of sound and fury, noise and movement, of harangue and grand brachial gesture I believe they would cease to be. They are clearly very philosophical in this. One can surmise that they have taken the Berkelyan notion that if something is not observed it does not exist as their central and sustaining ethos. They provoke irritation. However, I cannot deny an incorrigible fondness for them. 'Them' is a correct appellation, they are indeed a foreign, alien breed among Men, but special and to be preserved, and, I say reluctantly, admired - though at a safe and manageable distance.
It became apparent they are not like us 'normal' people when I sat in conversation with a number of such perfomers. Such language seem inappropriate. There was not a conversation, there was a competition to be the focus, the object of attention, regardless of the opinions of others, regardless of the inanity spumed forth in great abundance. It is a practice made necessary by the profession; where great numbers are tantalizingly close to the glorious validation of the audience yet distanced from the limelight by the membership of some anonymising chorusline, some faceless herd of dancers. The accolades of an applauding crowd seem magnificent but are so diluted by countless intermediary parties they are forced to struggle for the scraps.
The majority of the company that I keep in other circumstances is, by comparison, rather more self-moderated, or at least less conspicuously self-centred. The collective urge to quietly perform the necessary work of the day, to adhere to social mores, lends appeal to the lifestyle of the theatre performer, so obviously free, completely free, from awareness that anyone else in the World exists. Against such mores, in welcome defiance, stands the theatrical type, who has no qualms about being audible, who does indeed believe 'all the world's a stage' and everyone is asking for an encore. But despite and because of this, for me, they are an unsightly and welcome intrusion. Almost exotic. They live, thankfully, in numerically small numbers, colonies in the big cities, around us and yet wonderfully foreign.
Such contradictions I pondered as I sat listening to blonde Disney princess who had just played in Japan. She twirled as she made a cup of tea. Her friend, a man whose camp, Northern accent (it seemed a strange combination) extended every syllable to breaking point, and whose elocution seemed barbarous in its clarity. My friend, with her bright red hair and skin as pale as to be almost translucent was practically mundane in their presence. They were indeed strange aedifices of the performing arts.
In ages past actors were pariahs and ranked alongside lepers and Frenchmen. Now, (when successful) they are the zenith of human acheivement, just as once Keepers of the King's stool was one of the great positions of power, and now few would aspire to such a career. Not that such observations reveal some fundamental truth on the human condition, save that things change, a bit. Perhaps, it just means I can foolishly speculate and hope that one day sheer self-indulgent indolence will be revered as a profession.
Perhaps it already has...
It became apparent they are not like us 'normal' people when I sat in conversation with a number of such perfomers. Such language seem inappropriate. There was not a conversation, there was a competition to be the focus, the object of attention, regardless of the opinions of others, regardless of the inanity spumed forth in great abundance. It is a practice made necessary by the profession; where great numbers are tantalizingly close to the glorious validation of the audience yet distanced from the limelight by the membership of some anonymising chorusline, some faceless herd of dancers. The accolades of an applauding crowd seem magnificent but are so diluted by countless intermediary parties they are forced to struggle for the scraps.
The majority of the company that I keep in other circumstances is, by comparison, rather more self-moderated, or at least less conspicuously self-centred. The collective urge to quietly perform the necessary work of the day, to adhere to social mores, lends appeal to the lifestyle of the theatre performer, so obviously free, completely free, from awareness that anyone else in the World exists. Against such mores, in welcome defiance, stands the theatrical type, who has no qualms about being audible, who does indeed believe 'all the world's a stage' and everyone is asking for an encore. But despite and because of this, for me, they are an unsightly and welcome intrusion. Almost exotic. They live, thankfully, in numerically small numbers, colonies in the big cities, around us and yet wonderfully foreign.
Such contradictions I pondered as I sat listening to blonde Disney princess who had just played in Japan. She twirled as she made a cup of tea. Her friend, a man whose camp, Northern accent (it seemed a strange combination) extended every syllable to breaking point, and whose elocution seemed barbarous in its clarity. My friend, with her bright red hair and skin as pale as to be almost translucent was practically mundane in their presence. They were indeed strange aedifices of the performing arts.
In ages past actors were pariahs and ranked alongside lepers and Frenchmen. Now, (when successful) they are the zenith of human acheivement, just as once Keepers of the King's stool was one of the great positions of power, and now few would aspire to such a career. Not that such observations reveal some fundamental truth on the human condition, save that things change, a bit. Perhaps, it just means I can foolishly speculate and hope that one day sheer self-indulgent indolence will be revered as a profession.
Perhaps it already has...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)