Instructor: Professor Jennifer Evans
Objectives:
Historians place their work in conceptual frameworks informed by historiographical debates and trends. Even if they do not see themselves as working explicitly with theory, their writing resonates with intellectual and methodological currents animating the field. How scholars conceptualize the state of play is worth thinking about, including the choices they make about which categories to use (and how) and what themes to address. This course seeks to do just that, to lay bare the process at work in history writing from both a methodological and epistemological standpoint.
Over the course of the year, we will explore the work of select authors whose ideas have shaped the discipline, whether as historians or as thinkers whose work has influenced how historians practice the craft. This will be a collaborative affair; course participants will help craft the syllabus and readings. What this course will not do is provide all there is to know about select theorists. Rather, its aim is to provide doctoral students a foundation for understanding the ebb and flow of ideas within the field of history itself. As much as we will read work from other disciplines, we will also reflect on how these ideas have shaped historical thought and practice.
Evaluation:
- 20% – fall term assignment
- 35% – winter term assignment
- 45% – participation (includes attendance, quality of participation in seminars, blogging, and seminar facilitation)
Participation:
Full attendance and participation is expected in this course. Our readings will be available online or in the library’s reserves (please allow some time for this to be set up). There will be readings that are particularly challenging. We will work through them together.
Beyond in-class participation, students will write blog entries that speak to the core readings. Within 72 hours of each class, students will post a short (200-250 words) reflection on any aspect of the material. Entries should be posted before we meet, but students are also encouraged to circle back to them after our session. It might also be a place to register thoughts you weren’t able to articulate in class. The only condition is that everyone must respond and comment on each others’ missives.
Seminar Facilitation:
Each week’s seminar will be facilitated by a class member, who will introduce the readings with a short 8-10 minute presentation of what they believe are the key issues at stake. This may take many different forms, and students are free to experiment with different formats and styles. The primary goal is to create a firm foundation for the ensuing discussion. One approach might be to draw out the biographical background to the scholars in question while another might seek to tie the readings together or place them in a larger context or conversation. That same facilitator will also be responsible for designing questions to guide discussion. This is an art and not a science. It will require some forethought to anticipate where discussion might go.
The first semester’s readings are set; the second one will be at the students’ discretion. This will provide the opportunity to explore themes and issues of interest to you and your own work directly. That said, it should be viewed as an opportunity to tackle something new, a thought or body of work that you have yet to work through.
Assignments:
Fall Term Assignment
Here you have one of two choices. One possibility is to analyze the body of work of one particular historian so as to chart the intellectual development of the author in relation to changes in and outside the discipline. [That historian could even be you — in which case you would be writing an intellectual auto-biography, charting which thinkers, scholars, and ideas have shaped your thinking and how. The trick is to be precise in a meditative kind of way. There are examples of such writing by practicing historians. Geoff Eley’s A Crooked Line is one example, Joan Scott’s rejoinder to her own article “Gender: A Useful Category of Analysis?” is another]
The other option is to analyze the content of a history journal over the last five years, charting how it has responded — again — to historiographical and intellectual change. In either case, your paper should be no longer than 8 pages (double spaced, 12pt in whatever font you choose) excluding notes and bibliography. You do not need to summarize all of the articles you discuss. Instead, the task is to relate the works conceptually, according to themes of your choosing.
Winter Term Assignment
The final assignment is a major paper 25-30 pages in length, double spaced, with 12pt font, excluding notes and bibliography. There are many different ways of structuring this paper, and I am happy to discuss all alternatives. One possibility is to focus on a single issue or debate and its theoretical underpinnings. Another might focus more surgically on a single text whose reception shaped the practice of history writing. In this case, your discussion would move outward to the various books and articles influenced by this core work. Another still might explore a set of ideas in a different discipline and discuss the various ways these percolated back into history (and the implications of it doing so).
In other words, this assignment will challenge you to work on two levels, broadly, conceptually as well as narrowly and empirically. And, fundamentally, it asks you to develop your own perspective or stance in relation to the topic at hand.
A note on writing for both assignments: it is expected that at the doctoral level, students will be able to discern historiographical approaches and individual arguments. This is the minimum standard. For the writing assignments, don’t be afraid to be bold. Put forward an argument that advances an original point of view, something overlooked or perhaps taken for granted. Even if the material is difficult, this does not preclude you from making a well-informed intervention.