Graduate History @ VT

I have never been a willing cat owner. As long as I can remember, our family cat-pets have always been involuntary additions, unwanted and dropped off. When there aren’t any no-kill shelters to take them in, and no voluntary kitty adopters to be found, they just kind of stuck around. They’ve always been there, yet I’ve never thought much about them.

After this week’s readings, though, I have more thoughts to think about them, and all other animal life, than I can possibly articulate. And, so, I’ll focus on one area that I find particularly interesting: the idea that the study of animals in history somehow threatens “human” history. And, again, I find myself smiling at the fact that we read this just a week after On Deep History and the Brain.

Throughout our readings this week, I was able to see the historiography of animal studies acting itself out in front of me. The conversation about how and why to study animals was occurring before my eyes, and it was captivating. And, yet, problematic. As Erica Fudge pointed out in her article “Milking Other Men’s Beasts,” “The article also—and inseparably—asks us to think about the nature of that being called the human that so frequently goes without comment in historical (as in other humanities) scholarship.” Wow. So much right there. First, I wondered—is history a humanity or a social science? When considering animal studies, in particular, wouldn’t it be more categorized as a social science, given the methodology and auxiliary knowledge necessary to study in this field? Subsequently, I began to wonder—why does the study of animals need to speak to the study of humans? Does a study of Indonesian culture speak to the nature of llama farmers in South America? I suppose in some way it does, in a basic compare-contrast manner. Yet I can’t help but feel that the two are related, yes, yet valuable in their own way. Just the same as the study of the history of homo sapiens sapiens is related to yet distinctly valuable from the study of the history of the ovis canadensis, or bighorn sheep.

Here’s the problem, though—the homo sapiens sapiens are the ones writing the history. As historians continue to balk at “giving voice to” or “letting speak” marginalized groups (based on, for example, sexual orientation), they are actively attempting to do this with an “animal” population. Does the very act of acknowledging or documenting animal agency in part negate its potency?

Likewise, the problem arises of sympathies and similarities. As mentioned in our readings, there is the desire—no matter how valiantly suppressed—to understand animals on a human level. It is a human restriction—a historian cannot empathize with something they are not. And, if they do on some level, it is still a secondary or tertiary empathy that doesn’t appropriately capture the original sensation. Again, as Erica Fudge discussed, despite best intentions, this simply isn’t possible. To me, it makes sense that I can never empathize with the experiences of a bighorn sheep. But I also can never empathize with the experiences of a 17^th century Spanish sailor, and yet I might try to make them the subject of my historical study. And so, I have to conclude, as I have all semester, that animal studies is an evolving area that is still methodologically developing, and which deserves its place on the scholarly table. As history becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, such areas of focus will become increasingly important. And I find that exciting.

Apparently it’s been too long, and I’ve forgotten how to blog. That, or my brain isn’t functioning at the appropriate evolutionary level, or my neurons are somehow messed up which, actually, wouldn’t be surprising. So, instead I’ll offer these words as offerings to the internet , and hope that they make some sort of sense:

1. I still appreciate how carefully constructed this course seems to be. I’ve noticed it in other classes as well, but it’s always such a delight to be doing a new reading and to “get” the insider historian lingo. To understand a reference to a theory or to start seeing the puzzle fit together into a wider historiography. To see a reference to someone (like Geertz in this week’s assignment) and say “Oh hey, world, I’ve read some of his work. I know some of his thoughts.” I appreciate this new and developing feeling of being rooted in this discipline very much.

2. Deep History and the Brain. When I first read this title, all I could think about were those tanks of brains in that one Harry Potter book, and how they had tentacles or something growing out of them and how they’d latch on to people. Maybe, I thought, maybe this book was about how history latched onto your brain? I also assumed that this book would be about how history is like a brine in which you pickle your brain—that to deeply study history, you need to be immersed and saturated and constantly reaching for more content. Instead, as I found out, the concept is more like that of “deep space,” as opposed to pickled brains. We are all deeply connected.

3. When Smail wrote, “But evolutionary psychology, with its inexorable presentism, is not, I think, the way to go,” I literally laughed out loud with sheer delight.[1] I absolutely love the fact that Smail is disagreeing with this approach not because of its factual validity or invalidity, but because it is a limited and limiting approach that he cannot accept. Presentism is not to be tolerated in historical study. I find this hilarious and awesome.

4. I was a bit surprised by reading this. I had always assumed that a scholarly history of deep history was accepted and existed, but that I hadn’t been exposed to it since it was beyond my area of focus. I suppose I never took the time to think critically about the moniker “pre-history,” and the implication that anything existing prior to this subjective date of creation “history” didn’t exist. I’ve always thought that “pre-history” was a part of history because, as Smail explains, historical record is like a fulcrum point on a teeter-totter, a recorded moment that ties both to the past and to the present through an endless strand of time. [2] As someone interested in food history, I’ve read studies tracing the evolution of certain varieties of crops. I assumed that this was widely accepted and found throughout the discipline.

5. Smail’s approach was, to say the least, troubling. I’m not particularly interested in how brains function, or functioned, and am a bit uneasy thinking that at least a passing familiarity with neurohistory is requisite to understand cultural or social history…to think that a human brain needs to be understood in order to help understand the defined culture surrounding it. I can understand his argument, yet it is unsettling. It suggests that history needs to become even more of a “social science” than it currently is, with a deepening dependence on interdisciplinary studies. A working knowledge, or understanding of, anthropology, biology, and archaeology, just to touch on a few, would be needed to study deep history. Can we still understand history if we don’t have an understanding of neurohistory? Where is a line drawn between what must and may not be understood while the study of history, in some form, can still be appropriately undertaken? Instead of continuing to wonder at these questions, I must step back and ask myself—what should be taken away from this book? First, I think it’s important to take into consideration the fundamental, biological and genetic traits that inform behavior. Without acknowledging that humans function first and foremost as a product of their physiology does leave out an important aspect to consider in the study of human history, and Smail certainly shows this. Also, as with the evolution of mankind and the planet, so must history evolve and adapt. His theory supports those of others we have read this semester, advising that history must adapt and become increasingly interdisciplinary. Smail’s argument is a bit more unique than the others since it advocates a closer connection with science proper, but it continues the theme seen earlier that history cannot exist in a vacuum. I know this, I appreciate this, and yet it brings me back to the question: where is the line drawn that separates the potential to study history, and the dreadful impossibility of never knowing enough to do so?

[1] David Lord Smail, On Deep History and the Brain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 8.

[2] Ibid., 14.

One of my favorite songs begins, “J’ai un problème d’intégration.” It was stuck in my head as I read through Scott’s “Symptomatic Politics.” The artist, Anis Kachohi, is (funnily enough) of partially Moroccan descent–rather appropriate, given the readings, and rather an appropriate opening line. Maybe this pleasant association made me more amenable to the readings, but I enjoyed the time I spent with Scott. I wish I had the opportunity to read these articles before reading Steedman, actually. I think I may have been better mentally prepared for Landscape for a Good Woman if I’d been exposed to Scott beforehand. But, at least it gave me something useful to look back with.

So, then, if it wasn’t Anis or my fevered brain, why did I enjoy Scott so much? She was clear, and she followed a form with which I am familiar. In “Gender: a Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” she made reference to the work of historians and explained how she believes feminist critique could and should be applied. I read this as a historiography essay, showing how others have and do practice gendered history, why it is important, and how it is applied. I liked that, so much more than I can say. I’m one of those weird ones who enjoys reading literature reviews or “state of the field” essays. I felt prepared to read more after starting with this.

Likewise, I found myself enjoying “Symptomatic Politics” for the very same reasons. Scott wrote in an engaging manner to lay out a very linear and readable article. She began with background, provided context, and then finally provided her critique. This piece was the perfect example of what she explores in “A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” where gender is inextricably bound up with class, ethnicity, politics, regionalism, language, etc. It was a very nice example of the method I’d just read, and I was silly pleased.

I found myself thinking ever so much as I went through these articles, and wound up with a long list of questions. Instead of analyzing or critiquing the writings, I think I’ll instead pose my questions and continue thinking on them.

How are we accommodating non-Western societal philosophies into women’s or gender studies? What histories are being composed or already exist there? How can that inform our future Western histories? Aren’t we always working through the lens of our present to create a meaning on a past? If so, how have the stories feminist historians have told changed over the years? Likewise, we’re working from a socio-cultural fixed point; how does that impact our histories?

If we, like Anis, have a problem with integration, then how can it be overcome? By continuing to integrate and bind women’s and gender histories into and with class, culture, race, politics, etc.? Or through another channel? By acknowledging that all actions are carried out in a necessarily gendered world, is anything substantively gained without additional action?

I do not think I remember ever reading anything quite like Carolyn Kay Steedman’s Landscape for a Good Woman. It made me think so many questions as I went along. Is this a gendered reading? Is it an analysis of the implications of the class system in England? Is it both? It must be, right?

All I know is: I prefer Foucault, I miss his fluidity and abstraction and even his nothing. I resisted the definitions and implications that Steedman created, or rather that she believes exist. As I read, I felt like a cage was being built around me. Instead of steel bars, though, it was built from life experiences and the perceptions of strangers and pressure to feel emotions that I have never felt, or to have thoughts I have never thought.

I grew up in a fatherless home. Yet, to me, I never knew about a “patriarchy” until I was in middle or high school. For me, my mother wasn’t my mother: she was my parent, and all you needed to make a family was one parent. I never felt the things Steedman implies that all girl children feel at some point during their lives. I found myself having to acknowledge the validity of the experiences recounted in this book, and yet fundamentally maintain that just because you share a trait doesn’t mean you should have similar experiences. I realize that my feeling of being caged is rooted in my own ideals and perceptions, and is not necessarily a construct of this work. This is me attempting to be reflective rather than reactionary. Is it working?

Throughout this book, Steedman is analyzing her memories as a primary source, which is both intriguing and potentially problematic. I can see this as being troubling because you cannot compare personal memories with those of other people—you cannot collect or curate their memories the same way you collect and curate your own. You can compare your memories from a time to your memories from another time, yet again you cannot contrast or compare them with other similar sources. Memories are difficult to contextualize. In fact, what I found most difficult about this book was the lack of context. I kept wondering if other mothers and children in similar situations had similar experiences and emotions. Steedman implied that was the case, but didn’t offer any examples.

I found myself wondering how much her mother’s situation had to do with being a child of World War I, just as I wondered how much Steedman’s situation had to do with her being a child of World War II. I wondered how much both situations had to do with the economic depressions of the early 20^th century. All of these topics were touched on—“They happened,” Steedman seemed to say, “but that’s not the story.” I think that, perhaps, they played a larger role in creating a cultural and emotional climate than they were given credit for.

Throughout my reading, I had to keep pausing, flipping back to the first few pages, and reminding myself: this book was published in 1986. I can appreciate where it rests in the historiography of Women’s Studies, and how radical it was when first released. I can see how important it is to exist and to be exposed to it. But, now it is 2014. How has Women’s and Gender Studies changed since 1986? Has it changed? Is there a landscape for good Women’s Studies, or does there even need to be?

“Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” or “This is not a pipe.” Right? Two completely different statements strung together with two completely different intents by markedly different individuals. And, yet, here we are thinking that they offer the same meaning. Reading through “What is Enlightenment” was challenging for me. Yes, it was certainly due in part because Foucault made all sorts of philosophical references that I’m not familiar with and used German without explanation, but also partly because the original French was offered beside the English translation. And, as I read, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated. I’ve taken a bit of French, and while I’m not one to judge a fine translation, there are certain nuances to language that are lost during translation. I prefer reading Rimbaud in French, for example. I might struggle with it sometimes, but there is so much more original intent in his French words; so many implications and connotations are removed when words are filtered through a translation.

As I continued reading, my frustrations grew. By translating Foucault, we were imposing a system of linguistics that didn’t always quite fit his original words. We were embedding an English mentality and set of symbols and connotations on his writing that wasn’t there originally. Who were we to alter his intent? And, yet, without the translation, I wouldn’t be able to most fully understand the basic notions he was exploring. I could see the conflict, and appreciate both sides. At this point, I sat down my papers, turned away from my computer and said, “Well, crap.” In that moment I realized I was subconsciously applying a belief in the “linguistic turn” and poststructuralism while completing my reading. As Gabrielle M. Spiegel said in her AHA Presidential Address in 2008, “We may legitimately take, I believe, the hallmark of deconstruction to have been a new and deeply counterintuitive understanding of the relationship between language and reality—counterintuitive in the sense that deconstruction’s framing of that relationship imposes so many layers of mediation that what we experience as ‘reality’ is seen to be a socically (that is, linguistically) constituted artifact or ‘effect’ of the particular language systems we inhabit, thereby undermining the materialist theories of experience and the ideas of causality and agency inherent in them.”[1] When I read this address, I highlighted this sentence because I thought it would be important to remember for class. I certainly didn’t intend to apply it to my reading so unconsciously, resulting in my complete shock when I realized what I was experiencing. After all, I don’t like the Analytic philosophers. All they do is confuse me.

So, I turned back to Foucault and I asked, “But how does this relate to what I’m doing with history?” I can appreciate that I need to learn about historiography and different theories applied to history over time—and I find that learning very interesting. I can understand how Marxist Theory is applicable to history, or how a familiarity with the conventions of cultural anthropology can help shape a more full historical analysis. Yet, I found myself struggling to apply Foucault. I certainly found myself sympathizing more with Spiegel’s statement that poststructuralism isn’t wholly sympathized with today, since it is arguably “overly systematic” in its critique of human behavior and language.[2] I do not believe I will deeply engage with poststructural analysis in my work, but I did realize something important—French-to-English translations can be as equivalent to an act recounted as history as “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” is to “This is not a pipe.” Not to be confusing, but the frustration I experienced with the loss of original intent or meaning or voice during a translation can, and arguably should, also be felt whenever a bit of history is historicized. When a person, event, act, etc. is studied, interpreted, and placed within a context, we are translating it and forcing into that translation all of the baggage that we as individuals and members of society carry with us. This is exactly why historians cannot deal in facts, and exactly why they shouldn’t want to.

And now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to go back to Foucault. I think we have more to talk about.

[1] Gabrielle M. Spiegel, “Presidential Address: The Task of the Historian,” American Historical Review (February 2009): 5.

[2] Ibid., 9.

[3] Title taken from Arthur Rimbaud’s Une Saison en Enfer.

I have long nursed a soft spot for ethnographies, which has led me to the false belief that I enjoy anthropology. As an undergrad, I took an introductory anthropology course. From what I recall, there was a lot of talk about early man and Lucy and cranium measurements, and that’s about it. I also remember learning a lot about how to flirt with the guy sitting next to you in class, and that somehow George Bush was responsible for all of the ills caused to mankind since homo sapiens sapiens started walking upright. Actually, I’m not even sure that homo sapiens sapiens were the first ones to start walking upright. That’s what I mean—anthropology sounded great in my head, but in practice was just an excuse to share coffee with cute dudes. What saved that class for me was that loved the ethnographies we read. Elizabeth Warnock Fernea’s Guests of the Sheik and Savages by Joe Kane read like novels and were the only books I didn’t gleefully sell-back from that class. Yet somehow I have maintained my delusion that I enjoy anthropology. I suppose it’s the same delusion that makes me believe I enjoy astronomy, when in reality I think the world would exist just fine without physics.

Knowing this, I happily set about our readings for this week. “Cultural anthropology,” I thought, “what fun! I love this stuff! The interdisciplinarity of history is what makes it so wonderful!” While I still believe that interdisciplinarity is one of the main aspects of the discipline that makes its study enjoyable, I don’t think cultural anthropology is for me. As I read through the first chapter of Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures, I found myself entirely caught up with how similar the study of cultural anthropology is to the study of history. Both have a similar fundamental foundation, as seen when Geertz explains Clyde Kluckhohn’s twelve-parted definition of culture, as well as an interpretive view of its own disciplinary past. The two disciplines seemed complimentary, and I assumed that aspects of each could be easily used in either field. It was with this belief in mind that I set about reading Robert Darnton’s article about his book, The Great Cat Massacre.

I would be lying if I claimed that Darnton’s accounts of animal violence didn’t disturb me. They did. However, I appreciated the fact that many things can seem foreign in a culture that is not your own, and I anticipated his explanation and analysis of the “funniest thing that ever happened in the printing shop of Jacques Vincent.”[1] Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Perhaps it was because this article was just a brief summary of his larger work, but I felt that it was incomplete and failed to explain important points. In fact, I would have found his piece more satisfying had he not approached it from an anthropological standpoint. His explanation of the events surrounding the 1730s killing was clear, and he provided a strong context for the events that transpired. It was when he began making broad claims about the significance of these events to their participants, and the meaning of their actions, though, that I began to scrawl unhappy notes in the margin. He labors to explain that violence towards cats was common throughout Europe during this period, yet later uses the same acts of violence as a vehicle to explain how and why the journeymen printers behaved as they did. Wouldn’t this, then, make the meaning of their behavior common to all the rest of Europe as well? In establishing the historical credibility of their actions, doesn’t he rob himself of the ability to establish this as a culturally significant and singular act?

Darnton continued on to explain that “the text made the theme of sorcery explicit from the beginning,” and explored the implications that this theme had on the story.[2] He claims that the master printer viewed the situation seriously, while the journeymen saw it all as one big joke; the journeymen purposely and symbolically exerted their power over their master through their acts.[3] Yet, again I found myself asking how much meaning Darnton, as an analyst, had imposed on these actions, how much agency he gave to the journeymen and how much naivete he had imposed on the master. The only account of this story was composed years after the massacre. Darnton himself says that “He [Nicholas Contat, the author] selected details, ordered events, and framed the story in such a way as to bring out what was meaningful for him. But he derived his notions of meaning from his culture just as naturally as he drew in air from the atmosphere around him.”[4] From a historical standpoint, Contat’s narrative is an unreliable source. While any written account does necessarily include the author’s bias, Contat had liberal time to absorb the events, reflect upon them, gauge the society in which he was living and writing, and compose the events into a series that created whatever meaning he thought best. What if all of Darnton’s symbols and meaning were constructed years later by Contat?

Roger Chartier’s criticism of the piece much more thoroughly and eloquently explored the potential weaknesses of Darnton’s piece than I have been able to do. Although I do balk at claiming that Darnton’s restrictions are, in fact, weaknesses. Darnton clearly approaches a topic in history from the position of cultural anthropology, and does so very well. I suppose my concerns come from the fact that I support a more solidly historical approach to analysis. As Chartier says, “…it is indisputable that the most pressing question inherent in cultural history today…is that of the different ways in which groups or individuals make use of, interpret, and appropriate the intellectual motifs or cultural forms they share with others.”[5] Darnton boldly stepped outside the realm of traditional historical analysis to attempt to impose culturally-based meaning on the journeymen’s actions. However, I believe it would have been more appropriate to take Contat’s narrative and explore the meaning of his choices. By dissecting Contat’s story, we can learn much more about his mores and world view than we can of pseudo-fictional journeymen printers from the 1730s. If Darnton had endeavored to “…take the text as a text and to try to determine its intentions, its strategies, and the effects produced by his discourse,” I believe he would have produced a more meaningful piece.[6] It seems tenuous to claim symbolic meaning of a third-party act, yet that is what Darnton does.

In the end, though, the world does not work without physics—and I recognize that. I try to wrap my mind around the formulas and laws, and it sometimes works. Such is also my relationship with anthropology. I understand its utility, and I support its use by historians. Yet there is a part of it that I don’t quite completely understand. That’s the part of me that would have preferred Darnton to analyze Contat’s narrative as a text in and of itself, rather than using it as a vehicle to analyze the subjects represented therein. That’s the part of me that still believes that something of Darnton’s work itself employed “cat lore,” which, in the language of symbolism that I have created to surround my evening, is defined as a fickle, tenuous symbolism subject to intense interpretation. It makes me wonder how my readers, if anyone has gotten this far, will interpret my interpretation of these readings and ideas.

[1] Robert Darnton, “The Great Cat Massacre,” History Today, (August 1994): 7.

[2] Ibid., 14.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Roger Chartier, “Text, Symbols, and Frenchness,” The Journal of Modern History, 57, no.4 (De., 1985): 688.

[6] Ibid., 194.

The theme of this weekend, for me at least, seems to be “willful disobedience.” So, while I fully understand that the purpose of this week’s readings was to teach me to put the historian E.P. Thompson’s writings within the framework of Marxist theory, I’m going to, instead, think and write about history itself. It may seem like an exhausted trend after the past few weeks, but it’s something I feel compelled to explore at least once more.

As a student, I’ve always thought that history is long—it has happened for thousands of years; it has existed in the same manner, more or less, for hundreds of centuries. However, our readings in Geoff Eley’s A Crooked Line truly showed me that history as we practice it is young; indeed, the history that I have grown up knowing and doing is little older than a lifetime. Somewhere in the back of my mind I’ve known this, but until today it appears to have never quite sunk in. Certainly, I understood that history has changed over time; I understood that there had been a shift during the 19^th century, and again during the mid-20^th century. Tosh’s The Pursuit of History had taught me about Ranke and the formation of history as we know it. So why did Eley’s piece strike me so? After all, we only read the section about Marxist theory. Three things, I believe, are what truly made me feel so connected with this work.

First, Eley’s conscious choice of tone made me feel as if I were sitting in an office with my very educated advisor. While reading, Eley was talking with me, allowing me to absorb content about the history of history while also advising me, imparting learned-wisdom. Through his well-explained use of personal pronouns, the book became one large conversation between the two of us. My marginalia became responses to his content, and we passed a few hours in pleasant exchange. Some things I did not understand, some rhetoric made me cock my head to the side and wrinkle my forehead, but most of all I was happily coerced into meaningful thought. I sipped tea and digested historical theory. My time was well-spent. We, Eley and I, both had purpose for a few hours’ time.

Second, this reading provided proof to me that individuals can experience history as a thing. Not as a passion or a profession, but as a tangible, changeable thing. Eley began school learning in the early, Rankeian mode and was, he says, bored with it. It wasn’t until he stepped outside the academic classroom and began exploring the local Paperback Shop which received new monthly shipments of new theory works.[1] For Eley, this pseudo-education helped to lay the foundation of the traditional education he received during his graduate studies. During a very brief period, he went from being trained in what was becoming an outdated mode to practicing social and cultural history. What hope this gives to a new graduate student. While I certainly don’t expect to become a historian in the same right as Eley, his story inspires confidence. During the last greatest change, new historians not only survived but succeeded. They were as uncertain as I am, and yet were able to create a more broadly applicable and accessible history by maintaining a dialogue, and by being excited by the changes taking place around them. By becoming involved, by educating himself and by seeking information from others, Eley became a contributor to history and historiography.

Finally, this optimism comes in the wake of three weeks of graduate school where I have learned that the state of history is currently in flux; that the field itself is changing, in more ways than we can count. The shift to digital history (recently explored in readings, blog musings, and class discussions) seems, at least in my small academic world, to be met with mixed feelings. There are those who have slight misgivings, those who are willfully disobedient and deny that change is taking place, and there are those who are embracing the shift and are excited to be a part of it. As our class discussion has evolved over the past few weeks, we have discussed the potential for incredible achievements and the potential for danger that our current digital shift involves. Yet, hearing about Eley’s experiences in the 1960s and 1970s again gives hope that we are in yet another natural, paradigm shift. As he explained of the shifts he experienced, “Methods improve, archives expand, subareas proliferate, bad interpretations are junked, and better interpretations mature.”[2] Just as this happened during the emergence of Marxist theory within history, and with the development of an interdisciplinary, social-science based approach to history in the 20^th century, so too can this evolution of change happen with our current shift. The future of history is not so bleak as we, or at least I, have come to believe in the past few weeks. As in the past when “[historians have] been required to respond not just to the various transformations internal to the discipline, including the remarkable changes in the society of the profession, but also to the constant pressure of events in the wider social and political arenas,” so too will my fellow students and I respond to the changing climate of the history we have entered and will become a part of.

Perhaps it is the warm weight of the ginger-haired cat sitting on my lap tonight, or the accomplishment I felt after flipping through a book just to read its footnotes, or my excitement to get to class to talk about the Thompson essays that is giving me this sense of calm and purpose. Historians have met change before, historians will meet change ahead. The profession and field of history will persist, as it has. We cannot be like Eley’s early professors who “willfully closed their eyes to the changes occurring outside.”[3] And I know that we will not. The key is to remain in dialogue, to explore the interdisciplinarity of the field, to experiment with what can be thought, and to be willfully disobedient (while still respecting theory and methodology, of course…I’m not crazy). We must endeavor, we must explore, and we must drink tea—and we will flourish.

[1] Geoff Eley, A Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the History of Society (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005), 4.

[2] Ibid,. 6.

[3] Ibid., 2.

The first blog post I composed for History 5104 was just a few weeks ago, and it was an extremely stressful experience for me. Not only was I worried about whether or not I’d satisfactorily completed my assignment, I was filled with anxiety about publicly posting my thoughts. Should I be allowed to so openly voice my opinions on a topic when I’m still just a student? Is my voice important enough to be heard? What if, by some fluke, someone actually reads this stuff? Without realizing it, I was engaging in the practice of digital history. I was forcibly elbowing my way into a global discussion in a field that has, arguably, not experienced such massive change since the 19^th century. To me, that was, and remains, terrifying. Instead of spending years focusing on a body of work, having it vetted by respected academics in my field, and then releasing it as historians have typically done, I was just letting my thoughts out there, like releasing balloons into the sky.

The field of history is changing…but what, then, is the historian’s role in this changing world? While Ranke codified and professionalized history in the 19^th century, today we are facing a mass disbursement of information and a veritable cacophony of voices determining what history is. As Leslie Madsen-Brooks states, “…one important role for historians at this cultural and digital moment is helping people gain the skills to interpret an era’s documents, photographs, and material culture.”[1] That is exactly why I find myself writing this post. Four years after finishing my BA, I decided to leave an awesome position at a museum to return to school. While I loved and was good at my job, I wanted to be trained as a historian. I wanted to more fully understand the methodology of a historian, to be taught and trained, to become better, to become erudite enough to engage knowingly in a historical conversation no matter where it takes place—in a journal, on a conference panel, or on a blog. In coming to Virginia Tech, I am looking to my professors to do just what Madsen-Brooks claims is their role—to continue training laypeople to understand how to do history. In essence, one of the most basic roles of a historian needs to be that of a teacher, whether it is to the general public or to a class of graduate students.

Even before coming to grad school, though, I could have engaged in this conversation as so many others do. As Robert S. Wolff discusses, Wikipedia and similar sources have allowed for an incredibly diversity of voices to engage in not only the discussion but the creating of history.[2] One could argue, then, that what is happening right now is exactly what historians have been trying to do over the last 60 years or so. Instead of looking back to try to find lost voices and marginalized histories, individuals are taking the initiatives to record their own history as it is happening, and to offer their thoughts on history—in a sense adding to the historiography of that topic. While the conversation can seem chaotic and undisciplined, isn’t this the kind of materials historians have been dying to find since New History came to life?

In addition to helping non-historians to acquire the critical and analytical skills needed to interpret and understand sources, historians can also provide a curated offering of historical materials for the general population. This already happens, of course, in museums and libraries and at universities across the world, but it’s also happening on the internet. Some of my favorite examples come, interestingly enough, from Michigan. For years I have been using the resources provided by Michigan State University at their Feeding America online exhibit for my research. This online exhibit provides not only transcriptions, but also scans of original materials and information concerning provenance. As Sherman Dorn pointed out in his essay, actual copies can be of far greater value to historians due to the potential presence of marginalia or annotations.[3] MSU offers even greater context for this exhibition, providing an introductory essay, a video tour, a collection of FAQ, and other items that provide context for the exhibition. Just today I found another wonderful online exhibition from the University of Michigan’s Clements Library concerning the history of sugar production and trade. These exhibitions make amazing resources available to anyone with just a few mouse clicks, but what makes them wonderful is that they don’t leave their user alone to muddle through alone. Instead, they give a bit of interpretation to guide their user, showing another critical way that historians can curate or mediate the dissemination of historical knowledge in our growing digital library.

It’s clear that the internet must now be considered a source for history, just as our books and journals have been in the past. The internet diminishes privilege of access to resources in an exciting way, while also allowing for potential abuse. With easier access there will certainly be more misinformed interpretations and more spreading of inaccuracies. However, this provides historians with the opportunity to proselytize. Instead of bemoaning the spread of falsehoods, historians—professional historians included—need to take this opportunity during a time of change to solidly re-root their profession and demonstrate how essential they are to daily life. History flows through the veins of every individual; every political, social, or cultural movement; and every community. The distance between history and those who compose it is being shortened, and the days of history being only found at academic presses are potentially ending—but that doesn’t mean that methodology and academic rigor need to be lost. Indeed, it provides historians with the opportunity to spread their knowledge and remind everyone of the inherent worth of the study of history.

[1] Leslie Madsen-Brooks, “’I Nevertheless Am a Historian’: Digital Historical Practice and Malpractice around Black Confederate Soldiers,” in Writing History in the Digital Age, ed. Kristen Nawrotzki and Jack Dougherty, (Ann Arbor, MI: U of Michigan Press, 2013), http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dh/12230987.0001.001/1:4/–writing-history-in-the-digital-age?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1#4.1.

[2] Robert S. Wolff, “The Historian’s Craft, Popular Memory, and Wikipedia,” in Writing History in the Digital Age, ed. Kristen Nawrotzki and Jack Dougherty, (Ann Arbor, MI: U of Michigan Press, 2013), http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dh/12230987.0001.001/1:4/–writing-history-in-the-digital-age?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1#4.1.

[3] Sherman Dorn, “Is (Digital) History More than an Argument about the Past?,” in Writing History in the Digital Age, ed. Kristen Nawrotzki and Jack Dougherty, (Ann Arbor, MI: U of Michigan Press, 2013), http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dh/12230987.0001.001/1:4/–writing-history-in-the-digital-age?g=dculture;rgn=div1;view=fulltext;xc=1#4.1.

I don’t frequently get angry, but when I do it’s typically self-righteous anger. That’s exactly what I found myself filled with as I read the Cronon article, and I couldn’t get past it. As someone who has been involved in living history and interpretation, I know how easy it is to fall into the ease of simply storytelling. How easy it is for someone who is not a historian to fully believe that all history is is storytelling. But, at the end, I don’t want to just be a storyteller. I don’t want to be an actor regurgitating meaningless lines to make a visitor content in what they see. I actively sought a career in history as opposed to English because I wanted to be so much more than a storyteller. So, what is Cronon saying in his AHA presidential address, “Storytelling?”

I would argue that, as the reader of his story, my reaction is more important than what he has to say. Isn’t, at the end of the day, a story composed to elicit a reaction? As Cronon explores the narrative style of historians such as Michael Pollan and filmmakers such as John Sayles, he makes the note that Pollan is an extremely engaging storyteller who can carry his reader through a myriad of topics and content, and that Sayles is able to fill his films with “evocative moments.” As someone who has long been involved in public history, I feel there is a strong case for not just focusing on these “evocative moments” or author-led narratives. At least, I never resorted to them during the five years I interpreted or during the 12 years I was involved in some way with living history interpretation.

When I was interpreting 19th century domestic life, my intention was not to evoke emotion from my visitors. Rather, it was to create a connection with them, a bridge into history, so that they could feel ownership over history in some way. My connections were crafted through food—by comparing and contrasting the meals that I was preparing and how they related to meals prepared today. I tried my best to dismiss the shock-value of having flies in my kitchen, or having fresh meat from a recently butchered animal. Instead, I tried to use those facts as jumping off points for conversation that was personal to the visitor. I only ever relied on shocking moments of emotion when I was personally tired or disconnected from the interpretation. On those occasions, I certainly did my visitors a disservice.

Third person interpretation has always served me well, because it allows me to create an active conversation between the visitor, history, and me—as Cronon says, Carl Becker stated the role of a historian “…was to place the past in dialogue with the present.” It was through giving these visitors a sense of ownership over the history we discussed that they were truly able to connect, to truly understand, to become interested in doing further reading and research.

Is first person interpretation, then, bad? It does prompt us to ask how disparate narrative and historical truth can be, since the modern individual has only limited resources. Is “acting” in first person dishonest to the truth of history because it is giving voice and autonomy to thoughts that may have never existed? I can see its utility; I can see the attractiveness of edutainment and the wish to engage people with theatrics. However, I see them as being historically dishonest, because we won’t ever know what was felt, spoken, explored. By participating in historical storytelling we are robbing history of the story it actually has to tell—we’re putting words in its mouth that don’t belong there.

Cronon’s point that historians must seek a fresh and engaging way to relate the stories of history is valid—without engaging future generations and the populace in general, the field will die. “Remember to always be on guard against boredom,” Cronon says. Digital history in the form of social media, etc., has offered ways for historians to stay relevant. Yes, this is true. However, history shouldn’t be turned into shock-and-awe journalism or a movie in order to stay relevant. There are other ways. History cannot be navigated by following a leader such as an author—to do so is to undermine the critical thinking inherently necessary to the profession of historian.

It’s all very well to tell stories, but it is important, in my opinion, to note lose history in the story. When non-historians become involved in history, it is a swift and dangerous fall into drama and theatre that represents nothing more than anachronism and simply evokes emotion without content. There’s a lesson to be learned from storytelling, and a balance to be struck between remaining relevant and retaining professional integrity. It is possible. And, now that I have concluded my raving thoughts on Cronon’s storytelling, I’ll perhaps be able to continue my assignments for the week. Cronon told a story; he evoked an emotion; he based his narrative on accepted truth and documentation; he appropriately achieved his goal as a historian, right?