Henry Wiencek's comment below strikes me as spot on. The implications of his point speak directly to the contemporary dilemma that we confront, not only as responsible educators but also as politically active and engaged citizens. As political theorists from Aristotle forward have in various ways noted, a certain kind of emotional attachment to the polity is a precondition for wide-spread political participation. For Jefferson (to take just one example), the long-term success of the Republic depended on the continued existence of an actively and thoughtfully engaged citizenry. One of the many roles that the study and promulgation of history has played is to produce, replicate, or reinforce that sense of attachment. In this sense, history is a kind of myth.
Much of the very best impulses in modern historical study has been to unmask such mythological conceits, and to problematize conventional narratives and stories. Unmasking carries its own risks, however, since the laudable urge to expose the occlusions, omissions, and other work that myths perform to entrench power relations can on occasion serve the interests of creating new ones. Some theorists argue that *all* mythologizing valorizes some persons at the expense of others. As an aside, I found very helpful in thinking about such issues the short book by Ian Hacking, THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF WHAT?
Anyway, our aspiration for truthful historical textbooks risks becoming paradoxical. If a thriving and successful republic requires thoughtfully engaged citizens, and if historical or foundational myths play an important role in sustaining that engagement, then what is or should be the role of historians? I confess I lack good answers to this question, but it certainly was the case that the dilemma was fully on display in the public criticism to which Dr. Wallenstein, myself, and others had to respond.
All best wishes,
Kevin
___________________________
Kevin R. Hardwick
Associate Professor
Department of History, MSC 8001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807
________________________________________
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Henry Wiencek [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 03232232Z12 Re: Textbooks
I was struck by Kevin's astute observation: "The older consensus,
which viewed study of history as preparation for civic engagement in
the present, collapsed in the 1970s (if not earlier) and has not been
replaced by anything to which most concerned parties in the
conversation can agree." Some of our very greatest scholars have
raised this issue. Conservative and liberal historians alike shrink
from what recent historical study has wrought. In place of reliable
verities, recent scholarship offers up uncertainties and
contradictions that leave us "looking into the abyss," as Gertrude
Himmelfarb writes. Gordon Wood writes that "the consequences of not
being able to make distinctions between truth and falsehood can be
terrifying." Directly addressing Kevin's point, Joyce Appleby writes
that digging too deeply into our past "raises very fully the
disturbing possibility that the study of history does not strengthen
an attachment to one's country. Indeed, the reverse might be true,
i.e., that open-ended investigation of the nation's past could weaken
the ties of citizenship by raising critical issues about the
distribution of power and respect."
Henry Wiencek
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
