When the Metadata Doesn’t Help: Constructing Frameworks for an Ambiguous Region

When considering new directions in the history of the Midwest, it is critical to ask at what point scholarship—and the evidence that informs scholarly work—becomes essentially midwestern. The geographic and cultural ambiguity of the region leads most scholars to form initial research questions focused on identifiable cultural, ethnic, or political groups within clearly delineated states, counties, cities, or river valleys. Situating one’s research within a regional framework typically occurs as an afterthought, manifesting most often as theoretical efforts that are subsumed by larger arguments. Relegating regional concepts to brief introductions is a good start but ultimately impedes the constructive conversations required for moving forward. The future of the field depends upon more scholars formulating research questions firmly grounded in regional frameworks from the outset. I offer no ready answers for how this can be done, but rather insight into why building midwestern frameworks remains so elusive, as well as suggestions for initiating discussion on the subject. It all comes down to the words we use to describe what we do, and who we include in the conversation.

A central issue in the framing problem is that the evidence historians rely upon is rarely identified as “midwestern.” The questions we ask often depend on the available resources, but archival collections explicitly described with regional titles are rare. The Newberry Library in Chicago maintains a collection of midwestern maps, and utilizes “Midwestern MS” as part of their call number system for manuscripts related to the region, but this is more an exception than a rule. Precision in language is critical in describing archival collections and the idea of the Midwest is far from precise. Even when only describing geography, the term “Midwest” competes with several other terms. For example, a search for “Midwest” in the Library of Congress Subject Headings turns up eight variant terms: Middle West, American Midwest, Midwest States, Midwestern States, Central States, Central States Region, North Central Region, and North Central States. Note that only half of the variants use the term “Midwest” or “Middle” while the other half uses “Central,” complicating how scholars would search for materials. Compare this to New England, which has only one variant: “Northeast.” The American West, expansive as it is, has only five variants, all of which contain the word “West.” The American South has twelve, but these include three references to the Confederacy, while the remaining nine include the term “South.”

Furthermore, the Library of Congress defines the Midwest as a purely geographical phenomenon, keeping to the generally accepted twelve-state definition, but excluding sub-regions such as the Great Plains, the Great Lakes, or the Missouri River Valley. There is nothing in the official definition that even hints at culture, politics, or economics. Granted, this is not easy to describe in one word for any region, through the American South contains the cultural variant “Dixie.” It is little wonder that archival standards lean toward descriptions within political borders or in direct relation to individuals or organizations. It makes perfect sense for a region with shifting borders and titles, and no cohesive cultural construct.¹

My goal here is not to challenge archivists to think differently, but rather to challenge historians to consider the problems archivists encounter when describing midwestern materials. One question that I circle back to is: even if we had effective metadata, would scholars use it? Do scholars currently search for “Midwest” when locating primary source materials? I have my doubts, but it is nevertheless an intriguing question. By engaging in conversations about our sources and questioning the moment when they become essentially midwestern, we can begin to see new relationships between the materials we use and the region we hope to understand.

In her framing of the nineteenth-century cattle industry in Illinois, historian Kristin L. Hoganson proposed that regional historians adapt borderlands theory to make sense of the persistent conflict and negotiation that defines the region. Effective application of borderlands theory requires deep understandings of different cultures and perspectives, and how diverse people interact when they encounter one another in shared spaces. This is not...