3 ms·

>"Why does an article about history have to address what is currently seen as the cutting edge of historiography?" Identity politics is the « cutting edge of h

by Bayart 5y ago

>"Why does an article about history have to address what is currently seen as the cutting edge of historiography?" Identity politics is the « cutting edge of historiography » ?! It looks like the butt-end of it to me. At least I can't say I've seen it ever being taken seriously by proper historians in the periods I'm concerned with. Of course you could make the case that it's just conservatism and intellectual stiffness, and that it'll percolate eventually. You could also make the case that's it's not a very fruitful research field. The bulk of the work in social history and the history of mentalities has been done, as far as I'm aware, especially in regards to the Modern period. Historical materialism and its descent have ran their course, more or less. If anything the cutting edge of historiography is reassessing traditional narratives that predate it, as well as feeding on the progress in other disciplines that use a lot of computer modelling (genetics, linguistics).

lkrubner 5y ago
You are equating historiography's increasing focus on "questions of gender, race, or generational relations" to "identity politics". That is quite a leap. One can, and should, draw political conclusions from history, but that doesn't mean that professional historians are being overtly political merely for expanding the focus of their research. I'll point out that the expanding focus of history has been constant at least since the mid-1800s. The historian Fernand Braudel once quoted the historian Jules Michelet, who had boasted in 1862, "Only in the modern age have we discovered truly universal history." Braudel remarked "Even since then historian's have been looking over their shoulder." The point is, Michelet felt he had invented universal history because he had expanded the focus of history to include some economic realities, yet his focus still seemed limited compared to the work that Braudel and the Annales School were doing in the early and mid 20th Century. And so Braudel wondered, would his own work seem limited to people living in the mid 21st Century? And of course, the answer is yes. The concerns of history, and the methods of historiography, continue to expand, constantly.

by Bayart 5y ago

lkrubner 5y ago

You are equating historiography's increasing focus on "questions of gender, race, or generational relations" to "identity politics". That is quite a leap. One can, and should, draw political conclusions from history, but that doesn't mean that professional historians are being overtly political merely for expanding the focus of their research. I'll point out that the expanding focus of history has been constant at least since the mid-1800s. The historian Fernand Braudel once quoted the historian Jules Michelet, who had boasted in 1862, "Only in the modern age have we discovered truly universal history." Braudel remarked "Even since then historian's have been looking over their shoulder." The point is, Michelet felt he had invented universal history because he had expanded the focus of history to include some economic realities, yet his focus still seemed limited compared to the work that Braudel and the Annales School were doing in the early and mid 20th Century. And so Braudel wondered, would his own work seem limited to people living in the mid 21st Century? And of course, the answer is yes. The concerns of history, and the methods of historiography, continue to expand, constantly.