"The Historical Society's First Convention"

U TheHistoricalSociety's First Convention by Richard Satuirov, Indiana State University (From the SHCAPt Newsletter—Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 9:2, Fall 1999. reprinted bv permission) ... Lt is impossible to talk about the Historical Society without confronting two charges that have been leveled against it. The new organization has been criticized by some as "conservative," hence somehow illegitimate; and by others as unnecessarily duplicative ofthe existing associations ofprofessional historians. Thefirst criticism immediatelyforces one to confront an issue that is a core reason for the formation of The Historical Society, the growing tendency to characterize scholarship according to ideology and politics (see Jerry Z. Müller, "Discontent in the Historical Profession," Society 36.2). Few historians are naïve enough to believe that it is possible or even desirable to build afirewall between theirpolitics and their scholarship, but the old dictum that scholars should be constantly on guard against their own biases is rarely heard today. It now appears that many historians accept the notion that academic life isjust another area for political combat between politically motivated interpretations ofhistory . That some could offer the criticism that the new association is "conservative" is itselfan indication that politics—not in the more general sense ofworldview, but in the narrowerpartisan sense—has moved to the center ofthe profession. f V But. The Historical Society is not in fact "conservative," though a conservative might well feel comfortable in it. Historians .ici?? in the new association range broadly across the political spectrum. Io Ix- sun-. IXvuld Kagan among the founders of Ihc Historieal Society, Gertrude Himnx-lfarb. and Kiclurd Pipes, both on the Board of Governors, are usual Iv labeled Conservative politically, but many others including John Womack, Marlin |. Skiai, and Louis Fedeger are scholars known for left-wing political views. Eugene Genovese, the president of The Historical Society is harder to categorize, but personally considers main- ol his positions on the left. I, for one, found it refreshing and healthy that historians troni different political viewpoints could give papers in the sanie session—for example lhe sessions on the cold war and the work ol kneph Schumpeter—and were able to communicate with one another cordially based on the recognized canons of scholarship. Indeed, such political diversity . »Inch seems to Ix- declining in the regular associations, might Ix- viewed as one of the Society's strengths. The view that The Historical Society is not really necessary because the Al IA and OHA arc already open to diwrsc kinds of scholarship is a mote serious one and can only Ix- judged after a penivi of tiim-. Some attending the conference were quoted in The Chronicle of Elicer Education (June 1 1) as saying that the sessions and the papers at the conwntions could haw been presented at conwntions of the major associations. But, whether they were liltelv to have been presented v. an entirely different question. There can be little doubt that, righth or wrongly, main- historians believe their scholarly contributions .ire not welcome in the OHA and AHA and feel marginalized. continuedonpage /6 15 Z 2 > 5 :HISTORICAL SOCIETY'S FIRSTCONVENTION nmtmual/hwipage 15 This is true for those whose approach to history is out of vogue, e.g.. the grand nárrame style, and those «hose subject nutter is now not popular, such as political, economic, or diplomatic history. Thus, in a recent article entitled "The State and Practice of American Political History at the Millennium." |oel Silbcv writes that "political historians race an unusually deep abyss of disinterest, dclegitimatization, and disdain from their peers—it they are noticed at all." Journal of Pcluv History I 1:1. p. 2). Many historians don't attend the conwntions of the regular associations, or if they do, don't participate in them. Others haw retreated to specialized groupings like the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations SHAFhT, our own SHGAPE, and the more than 100 other societies affiliated with the AHA. Many ol these historians are troubled by the fragmentation in the discipline and some sec The Historical Society with its small si/e .\n¿ coinnuimcnt to dealing with broader issues ol periodization and historiography as offering the opportunity...