Reflections on The Historical Society's 2002 Atlanta Conference

September 2002 » Historically Speaking 31 Reflections on The Historical Society's 2002 Atlanta Conference Donald A.Yerxa The Historical Society's plan forits diird national conference in Atlanta was ambitious. Scholars working in a wide variety of geographical and chronological settings would examine historical reconstructions in comparative fashion, possiblyas a firststep toward a new research agenda. In an academic climate decidedlyreceptive tocomparative and transnational approaches to historical topics— one need look no further dian die recently published Rethinking American History in a GlobalAge— die topic of historical reconstructions certainly seems to be an appropriate, even ripe, subject for comparative rethinking. After all, reconstructions have received virtually no comparative attention since Eric L. McKitrick's preliminary stab in Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction (1960). So it was a veryhelpful exercise to bring—for the first time—scholars from such diverse fields as the ancient Near East, postwar Europe, and classical Greece together with those ofdie American Reconstruction to talk about historical reconstructions in comparative perspective. Conference attendees were treated to many interesting panels, made more stimulatingbythe structural dynamics ofdie conference whereby those presenting papers could assume diat many, ifnot most, in die audience would be from outside dieir field. This often led to lively discussions, as was definitely die case in die session I happened to moderate on reconstructions in classical Greece. Here four prominent classicists— John Hale, Victor David Hanson, Barry Strauss, and Loren Samons—gave superb papers bothin contentand deliverydiatgenerated discussionwell pastdie scheduled time for the session to end. As informative as many of the papers were, it is one thing to present a number of papers on reconstructions from different times and places and quite another to wrench from diem anything like conceptual clarity. As the conference progressed, itwas clear that there was much work to be done. For one thing, the inescapable question of definition needed to be addressed. This was obvious when in the concluding plenarysession Elizabeth Fox-Genovese voiced concern that the very term reconstruction may have little more than metaphorical meaning for the pre-modern world. To apply it liberally to Adiens after the Peloponnesian War or to France in the aftermath of the Hundred Years' War, she suggested, risks conceptual dilution. David Moltke-Hansen, on the other hand, did not diinkit necessaryto link reconstructions to modernity. He adopted a definition of reconstruction (essentially, rebuilding after large-scale destruction) flexible enough to be exported to any number of historical settings. His more expansive definition is clearly congenial to the agenda—only begun in Adanta—ofexploring the commonalities of past reconstructions. Predictably, the reconstruction of the American Soudi loomed as large in die conference halls as it did outside die doors ofdie beautiful Adanta hotel where it was held. Perhaps itloomed too large. And diis gets to die heart ofthe matter. It is fair to say that for most American historians, including many presentat theAdanta conference, theAmerican Reconstructionreallyis paradigmatic. If so, doesn't diat, as Fox-Genovese righdy noted, presume some sort of comparative analysis? One would diink so, but paradoxically American historians have not done this. So diere was an unresolved tension in Adanta: die comparative impulse responsible for the conferencewas continuallyin dangerofbeingoverwhelmed bywhat Moldee-Hansen called "our preoccupation widi American Reconstruction ." Itwould be naive to expectdiat one conference by itself would yield conceptual precision. And while the jury is still out as to whether historical reconstructions can sustain a robust research program , the conference did reveal the broad contours ofa possible research agenda. We already have, of course, many studies on Athens after the Peloponnesian War or France after the Hundred Years' War; what we nowneed are newinvestigations diatlook at diese familiar episodes with a new set of questions and concerns. The Atlanta conference began this task because many presenters implicidy agreed widi Moldce-Hansen and prepared their papers with die assumption diatdienewsetofquestions should focus on die dynamics ofrebuildingnotjuststructures , but institutions and even whole societies afterdie crisis oflarge-scale destruction. Thatwas certainly die case in die session on classical Greece. Obviously, the comparative study ofhistorical reconstructions needs more case study analysis dian one conference can provide . Still, caution is in order here. Since ours is an evidentiary craft, the local and 32Historically Speaking » September...