tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post8472342139319191778..comments2024-03-28T18:32:05.933-04:00Comments on bensozia: What Historians DoJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-11881500945155646892011-01-22T12:04:36.261-05:002011-01-22T12:04:36.261-05:00Good food for thought. I'm reviewing science ...Good food for thought. I'm reviewing science papers for a conference and I'm constantly surprised at the lack of current context that is provided. Perhaps I shouldn't be.kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18319281601473812339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-13909991905395376302011-01-21T11:17:45.784-05:002011-01-21T11:17:45.784-05:00Too right, as the Aussies say. As you're awar...Too right, as the Aussies say. As you're aware, sometimes the complaint that a scholar is not referring to the current scholarship is simply disingenuous rather than reflecting a principled belief in a profession-wide conversation. Sometimes the complainer is simply saying that the author hasn't referred to the complainer's own scholarship, or the complainer's students' or faction's. Sometimes it's a way of saying "this is simply bad" or "I disagree with this politically." No matter the motive, the complainer is obliged to point the author to the scholarship they should look at.<br /><br />I would add that I think the conversationalists are of two types, which often scorn each other in such a way that their unity on the point of conversation becomes irrelevant. There are the Germanic professionals, who like to think of history as operating more or less like a science, where keeping up with the literature is a sacred duty. Then there are the campus radicals, who think it's got to be about contemporary politics (inside or outside the university, left or right). These two factions usually despise each other more than they despise the solitary aesthetes, whom they don't take very seriously. (I once remarked to a political activist colleague how much I was enjoying a particular document, and she simply looked at me in wonder and said, "Wow, you really are a nerd." She made clear that she didn't mean it as an insult, she simply couldn't imagine being one herself. I think she kind of envied me. For her, history was simply a way of helping the cause of labor in Colombia.)<br /><br />Obviously I'm basically a historical aesthete myself, but I do sympathize a little with the complainer, in the sense that, if someone writes something about a fairly narrow topic, the others in the field might at least have the courtesy to read it. And, like you, I do find conversations with other historians very stimulating, if they're actually about history.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993570411881726772noreply@blogger.com