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?