Blogging Again with Deep History
Interdisciplinary History
Where in the world do you begin a blogpost about Daniel Lord Smail’s Deep History and the Brain? So many thoughts, tangents, and theories come to mind but I’ll try to limit myself to just a few points of interest. “The history of Man includes man everywhere and at all times.” (31) At first this seemed like a rather obvious statement, but after reading Smail’s evolution of the teaching of history and where history begins it is not as clear. History should include man at all times but if historians apply a start date to history then this naturally leaves out some human history and creates a prehistory. And the fact that creating a prehistory means historians are leaving out part of the human story. This is alarming because what if part of what we aren’t studying could explain more modern events, and as Robinson said, “the bare fact that there was such a period constitutes in itself the most momentous of historical discoveries.” (31) Certainly this period of time and human experience shouldn’t be left out of human history, should it? I think Smail makes it clear he believes it should not.
This leads us to the question of how best to include a period of time where no written works help historians explain what happened? And who cares? Interdisciplinary study is the answer. But to accomplish this historians and other disciplines need to be flexible and willing to work with others. Social Sciences, Biology, History, Anthropology, etc. are disciplinary fields where knowledge exist in frameworks of theory and thought and for interdisciplinary studies to work these “frames…must stretch and bend.” (43) As Smail says this will require historians to become more scientifically literate and for professionals in other fields to become more “historically minded.” (73) Seems easy enough but I wonder how much resistance there would be and where the most resistance would come from? Smail notes the important ways science and history interact in the New Neurodiversity chapter, stating “there is not much culture without biology” and that “civilization enabled important aspects of human biology.” (155) Keeping this in mind it would only seem natural that multiple disciplines are necessary to study any topic involving multiple fields (which would seemingly include any topic of human interest). Deep History is truly deep and the implications of such a course of study could radically change the way we view the past, but I think this may prove too unsettling for some.
“This leads us to the question of how best to include a period of time where no written works help historians explain what happened? And who cares?”
How best to include time where no written works help historians? Uh…pass. I have no idea because I’m lucky enough to have written documents, although some are VERY hard to get my hands on, if not literally impossible. As far as who cares? Well. As you said, perhaps interdisciplinary people will care. However, in my own experience with some interdisciplinary departments (and limited, at that), history is quite looked down upon for some reason. I’m not sure anyone can quite get along enough at the moment to get any real work done, if that makes sense. It’s sad really, how much we judge and compete, when if we worked together so much more could be accomplished.
David,
If any of us were still hesitant to accept interdisciplinary work, I believe Smail provided an excellent argument for its merits. This infatuation with written resources within the field of history has resulted in the history before and in between written records becoming “pre” or lost entirely. Logically, if written work is absent, it is not that the history itself if absent, just ONE form of trace. By being open to the contributions of other disciplines, historians become open to other forms of traces that reveal the deep history. This concept seems so obvious, and yet it is so easy to become panicky when the written work isn’t available. Earlier on in the course, I would have been unsettled by this predicament, however, now recognizing the resiliency and ability of the field to transition, I am optimistic about the prospects of uncovering deep history through interdisciplinary work.
Hi David,
Does the Africanist perspective we read answer the “who cares” question?
Claire