What approaches to historical study does each historian advocate
for? What produces the best kind of history, according to Himmelfarb? What produces the best kind of history, according to Scott?
In her article “Some Reflections on the New History” Gertrude
Himmelfarb notes that the ambiguity brought by the New History as an approach to historical research leaves the subject too open to interpretation, which constantly calls for a revival of narrative. After my close reading of the article, I was left with the lingering impression that Himmelfarb is rather a critic of all modern approaches to history, be it social, cultural, quantitative, etc. and all their subcategories. Himmelfarb advocates a traditional historical approach noting that, with the new history and its varieties, “what is being “deprivileged” and deconstructed is not only history as traditional historians have understood it but the past as contemporaries knew it” (Himmelfarb, 667). Himmelfarb’s interpretation of history seems to be more agreeable to what traditional historians have presented. She refers to new history as a kind of history that leaves us “with a history that is “disjointed and incoherent,” that lacks “central themes or a framework,” and that does not try to answer any “significant questions” of the kind raised by previous historians” (Himmelfarb, 664). After watching this video, I was able to better understand Himmelfarb views; she is a conservative historian quite concerned with the demoralization of society and ultra-focused on Victorian values. It seems fitting that she would oppose most postmodern academic approach.
In her article, “History in Crisis? The Others’ Side of the
Story,” Joan Scott argues that social history allows for a broadened understanding of History as a subject. Scott notes that “By “history,” I mean not what happened, not what "truth" there is "out there" to be discovered and transmitted, but what we know about the past, what the rules and conventions are that govern the production and acceptance of the knowledge we designate as history” (Scott, 681). According to Scott, what produces the “best kind” of history is an “engagement in a democratized historical practice” meaning the acceptance of the facts that “there will always be a plurality of stories, that telling them involves contests about power and knowledge, and that the historian's mastery is necessarily partial” (Scott, 691). Here is a video that shows not only the academic achievements of Joan Scott but also her legacy. I hope you enjoy it.
2. How does Himmelfarb critique Scott, and vice-versa?
Gertrude Himmelfarb criticizes Joan Scott’s work “Gender and the Politics of History” noting that “Social historians devoted to the study of the working class are being criticized by feminist historians for being insufficiently attentive to gender” (Himmelfarb, 662). It could be argued that Himmelfarb’s comment reflects her neoconservative views on Gender history itself. Himmelfarb further notes that Joan Scott “denies the parity of the terms in the "class, race, gender" trinity, suggesting that race and gender are more primary than class (Himmelfarb, 665), which to me deals with a much broader struggle to define American identity in the 1990s, (when both articles were written). In turn, Joan Scott notes that “Gertrude Himmelfarb's book title poses the "old" history-the "traditional" way history has presumably always been done- against the subversive and illegitimate new” (Scott, 684). Scott explains that Himmelfarb's arguments claim that there is “only one way to conceive history and only one standpoint for the historian” (Scott, 684), which reinforce an elitist approach to historical research.
3. Do you think that history should remain holistic even if
exclusionary, or is history better in a deconstructed version that is more diverse?
I believe that a historical approach that seeks to define a new
path beyond the existing understanding of traditional history is the best approach. For example, Scott points out that most of the modern era featured social structures that were defined from a certain point of view. However, taking the traditional historical view as a default lens for interpretation implies that the history laid down by the majority is an inherently correct or superior version of history (Scott 685). The claim of the old history as the one and true narrative is belied by the fact that history, even the old history, by any definition of that term, has always changed over time. As Scott points out, the historians who cling to old history and denounce evolutions in the field are themselves practitioners of a new history relative to what was the old history at one time (Scott, 686). The irony of the authors this week advocating questioning of (or, in the case of Himmelfarb, defending) the traditional political history in favor of post-modernism or deconstructuralism is that the authors are all women. Thus, they are of a class whose perspective is traditionally vacant from the historical record of the “old history” as Himmelfarb calls it. However, the fact that women are now, in these modern times, advocating for or discussing changes in the historical field in terms of interpretation and direction of the discipline proves Scott’s point that power structures (political history) change over time. Much of the history seen as the old history from Himmelfarb’s piece refers to a time when female historians were relatively rare and their perspective was, therefore, missing from the record. Thus, alternate methods such as deconstruction and postmodernism are helpful and getting at the hidden power structures that exist beyond and in nuance with the broad, visible strokes of traditional power or political history.
References:
Himmelfarb, Gertrude. “Some Reflections on the New
History.” American Historical Review, Vol. 94(3) June 1989, pp 661- 670. https://www-jstor- org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/stable/pdf/1873752.pdf?refreqid=excelsior% 3A10cd1e6a55332b14ad17950785f27bc9 Scott, Joan W. “The Others’ Side of the Story.” American Historical Review, Vol. 94(3), June 1989, pp 680-692. https://www-jstor- org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/stable/pdf/1873754.pdf?refreqid=excelsior% 3A654a8053024c876cc53cc1f84046bc5d "Gertrude Himmelfarb – Victorian Virtues to Modern Values." Uploaded by Tradarchives via YouTube. Accessed 02/26/19. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiH_RxJfcaM&t=75s “Joan Scott – On Free Speech and Academic Freedom.” Uploaded by American Academy of Arts and Sciences via YouTube. September 18, 2017. Accessed 02/26/19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOwuL-X8ZLE