The President's Corner

THE PRESIDENT'S CORNER by EtNOK Genovese O tu A, .mong the endless current absurdities, spiced with flagrant mendacity, few match the wonderful assertion that a focus on "the people" rather than on elites has emergedfrom the Left and necessarily serves its ideological purposes. Those who long ago demanded the integration ofsocial history into political, intellectual, diplomatic, and military history intended to deepen, not replace, those standard subjects. They properly defended the centrality of politics, which cannot be understood without knowledge ofthe exigencies ofeveryday life. They were right, but that is only halfthe story. From Herodotus to Gibbon, thegreat historians paid attention to the social and cultural conditions and political influence ofthe lower and middle classes. Gibbons illuminating ifacerbic account ofthe rise ofChristianity and its impact on the Roman Empire alone belies the droll notion ofexclusive concern with elites. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire provides a model for those who would trace the influence of"the people" on the most historic ofshifts in political and socialpower. fustke to the ¿unis on whose shoulders we stand is, however, noi the primary issue. The historical profession has solemnly assumed that social history and the study of popular culturo musi necessarily serve particular political and ideological interests. Allegedly, they are the creations and handmaidens of the Left, much as political. intellectual, diplomatic and military history have been the creation and handmaidens of the Right. Ho«- anvonc could be dumb enough to think that only leftwingers could WTBe labor, women's, and Afro-American history honestly and well dotics imagination. And yet, so deeply has this curious notion pervaded the profession that we find precious few conservatives who work on these subjects and find a great many who Dear Historical Society, condemn them out-of-hand. The fault canno) be laid wholly on the latter-day McC „inIn ites who have closed the doors of, say, women's studies programs to those who IV)CCi feminist ideology. 1 he Right has done us Ix-st to perpetuate the myth of inherent leftwing bias in the subject matter, and it has, il inadvertently, thereby abetted it. I he early demands for programs in Afro-American studies, women's studies, and other subjects had a rational and constructive foundation. The virtual exclusion of blacks and women from the curricula meant, first and foremost, a debilitating distortion of history, and it cried out for correction. But because the demand came from people perceived—not always fairly —as wanting to transform campuses into continued on page 5 I would like to commend all those who produced Historically Speaking. It was highly informative and extremely well written. The "Job Crisis" was the clearest statement of the problem and the most cogent set of solutions I have ever read. I enjoyed Richard Schneirov's introduction of the "Labor History Panel" and wished there had been a summary of the panel discussion as well. As our discipline fragments, this kind of article is important in keeping us up to date. I found President Eugene Genovese's address characteristically thoughtful and witty. I think he captured the hopes that many of us have for the new organization. I am sorry I missed the conference. I am proud to be a member of THS and when I finish my dissertation will take a more active role in advancing its goals. Donald B. Connelly Ph.D. Candidate, University ofHouston 3 -Ss-' <.·*.· The Profession I Presidents Corner 3 Uve Director 7 Viewpoint: The Future ofHistory 7 Viewpoint: it Is Globalizat 9 The Practice ofHistory 12 THS s First Convention 15 Regional Reports 17 THS in the News 21 THS National Conference Program 23 Recent Publications 29 Awards 32 Announcen 35 Membership Form 39 :PRESIDENT continuedfrompage¡ ideological training schools, thcv met a sullen opposition that failed to distinguish the justice of the demands from the effort of factionalists to build a Trojan horse for .1 factional coup d'etat. University administrations yielded to the politica] pressures with no discernible concern for academic freedom or academic standards. And by failing to hold the new subject nutter to academic standards. .idiiiiinsii.iMons treated them with contempt and perpetuated the "racism" and "sexism" thcv professed to oppose. What would they have done it they had had to face counter-pressure from those who agreed on the necessity for reform and insisted on their right to participate ? Suppose, instead of casting anathema and leaving the field open to campus politicians , those, whether from Left, Center, or Right, who uphold academic standards and academic freedom had demanded that all programs promote genuine diversity and become places of ideological contention in which everyone's pet theories could be subject to stern criticism? Wc have paid a huge and steadily mounting price for our failure to wage a principled struggle. The best work in Afro-Amcrkan history deserves respect and careful attention from all historians—not just historians of the United States—but too often those who should know better ignore it or reject it without bothering to study it. Simultaneously, the ghettoization of programs and subject matter spares the worst and most ideologically driven work the intense and deserved criticism. The 1 Iistorical Society has a special responsibility to set an example of how these subjects must be pursued—in frank, open exchanges among those wlio agree that all theories are hypotheses subject to empirical verification. I he fear that certain subjects contain an inherent bias to the Left (or Right" should make us laugh, but we had better be careful. Since laughter contributes to » hostile atmosphere for those incapable of holding their own in debate, it may well sentence us to those "awareness seminars" which nicely replicate the happy totalitarian practice of referring dissidents to psychiatrists . Still, historians of the Old South, among others, have little choice. Is an insistence on a "history of the people" a left-wing ployJ If so. the slaveholders qualified as extreme leftists, for. perhaps mote si rough· than any other Americans of their day, they insisted upon it. Maybe they »ere noi loo bright—but do not believe it. In am case, thcv went to great lengths to insist upon the rewriting of history to focus upon the common people. I hey did not doubt that such a focus would bolster their worldview. I he leaders of southern thought condemned, ever more harshly, the elitist cast of historical writing. Thcv advocated an integrated history of society to replace the narrow focus on politics and insisted that neither great men nor mass movements in themselves determine the course of history. When they spoke of a "history of' the people," thev did not counterpoise social life to politics, diplomacy, and war. Oswald Spengler, in The Oedint cf the II«/, probable expressed their view more concisclv than they managed to do: True history is not 'cultural' in the sense of anti-political. ... It is breed history, war history, diplomatic historv, the lusiorv of being-streams in the form of man and woman, familv. people , estate, state, reciprocally defensive and offensive in the wave-beat of grand facts. Politics in the highest sense is life, and life is politics. Everv man is willy-nilly a member of this bartJe-drama, as subject and as object—there is no third alternative. continued on page 6 X s s — Z r. Z < :PRESIDENT continuedfnm pep 5 Those on the Left who ami at Spengler might cry Antonio Gramsci: " I he philosophy of every man is contained in his policies,'' To be sure, the proslavcrv theorists. who read widely .md deeply m world history, agreed that great individuals have always led historv-bcaring groups whole peoples, classes, armies, and parties) and that mass movements haw never conquered and sustained power except under the leadership of great individuals. But when they called upon the "great men" of history. thcv did so in opposition to impersonal forces, to isms, to ideological constructs. Uninfected by the superficial doctrine of "history from the bottom up," the ablcsi southern «Titers regarded the history of the "bottom" and tlic "top" as alternate forms of an abstract antiquananism unless formulated in organic relation to each other. The social historv sought by the most aggressive proslavcrv theorists stressed the primacv iit culture over ordinary politics and focused on its hegemonic function. Thomas Roderick Dew, a prime architect of the proslavcrv argument, in his lectures to seniors at the College of William and Man' on the course of Wstcrn civilization. associated himself with the "language of Guizot," according to which "OnIv two great figures appear on the stage of Europe, the government and the people." Specific .ilh. ??-w taught that the Reformation was not an accident attendant upon the personal character of Luther: "It was one of the great wants of the times—Luther merely gave expression to the feelings of the Age." Southerners loved Samuel Johnson, and they especially applauded his remark on historical writing: "I wish to have one branch well Aux·, and that is the fusion of manners of common life." Accordingly, the proslawrv intellectuals set out to demonstrate that the affairs of the common people lay at the center of historical development and that a proper understanding of their history would strengthen a conservative and spccifically slavcholding worldview. Consider a few examples. In assessing the progress of civilization, fosepri CummingS told the students of Emory and Henry College in 1 85 1. "The comparison lies not between individuals but the masses ; .ind I I. Clay Pate, a historian, called for greater attention to local history to unearth the lives of easily forgotten people and strengthen the sense ot personal identity among Virginians. |ohn Fletcher of Louisiana, in his influential Studies on Sloven; added pithily chai throughout historv most people have writhed m or near poverty: "It is with these lower classes we have the most to do." Hcnrv Augustine Washington praised Virginia's early historians tor their useful work on political historv but insisted. "What we now want is a historv of her people—her institutions, her social and political svstem—her civilización—a history of Virginia in the sense in «Inch Guizot has«ritten the historv of France, and Macaulay the history of England." Washington paid due respect to the greatness of George Mason and the others who established the principle ot the sovereignty of the people in the constitution ot Virginia, but stressed that the character ot the people shaped the contributions of Mason and others. Thus, he argued. Virginia escaped the wild theorizing of men such as Sicvvs and safely relied on the experience ot its people. Henry Dickson chimed in. "The progress of man in civilization, his advancement in knowledge will Ix- found as distinctly impressed upon the character ot his recreations, his favorite amusements, as upon his occupations and serious pursuits." When John Archibald Campbell of Alabama—and the United States Supreme Court—acclaimed Sismondi, Guizot, and Michelet as among "the great historical «Titers of France," he especially praised them for their insights into the social conditions and changing mores thai have engendered the crises and decline of great states and empires. The stance assumed by the proslavcrv intellectuals led to a call for the application of statistical methods to unearth hidden dimensions of the history of ordinary people. George 1ticker of Virginia, One of the few antebellum Americans «hose work loscph Schumpeter saluted in his magisterial Iliitcr/ of Economic Analysa, did pioneering work in economic and historical statistics.»Inch illuminated the contributions of«omen and blacks. 1. 1 ). B. DcBow presided over the Census of 1 850 and devoted much of DeBow's Review to the dissemination and interpretation of statistical data. Jacob Cardozo's forays into econometric analysis were outstanding by the standards of his day. Hcnrv Hughes, «ho preached personal servitude for the laboring classes of all races, called for careful statistical work to bolster the scientific sociology he sought to establish. To a noticeable extent. Southerners read historians and novelists, most prominently Sir Walter Scott, for their depictions ot everyday life in communities, which thcv saw as essential to an understanding of philosophical principles and political power. The novels, litcrarv criticism, and historical and biographical writing of William Gilmore Simms did much to illuminate the social history of South Carolina and the contributions of the Indians to it. These men and others like them. including the Souths own historians, had no doubt that an honest appraisal of the bistort of cht Common people would support their consérvame interpretation of historv and. specifically, their commitment to slavery. Never mind whether thcv «ere right. Individually and collectively, thcv presented strong arguments that require empirical testing and cannot be dismissed as mere apologetics. The same rn.iv Iv sud for the ablest exponents of the other side. Anv historical method or subject matter nut legitimately Ix- interpreted to support Ot undermine anv politics and ideology. But if so. the case for open debate among historians emerges as the case tor testing che claims of every political and ideological movement. I hose who actually believe what thcv S.1V thcv believe ought CO welcome that struggle as a way to establish their claims. I'lxisc vvlxi would suppress opposing ????jxiints by whining about hostile atmospheres stand exposed as charlatans who cannot sustain then own arguments and do not know what thcv are talking about ¦-»-· Eugene D. Genovese is President oj The Historical Society. ...