Zussman Volunteer's Blog

Week 3 (7 Feb 2010)

zussmanvolunteer — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:15:39 +0000

The decorum that is associated with academia, and history in particular, regards itself with a degree of elitism, that when infringed upon, can cause a great deal of problems, both for the professional and the profession. The examples in Mr. Wiener’s Historians in Trouble illustrate this point quite clearly. Divulging into the nitty gritty of the scandals that have rocked the profession over the past decade or so, Mr. Wiener does a forth rights job of showing that the historical profession is not immune from the problems of politics, fraud, or lying. However, there are a number of areas where his analysis is quite biased and or not fully developed, such as the brief discussion of plagiarism. Regardless of this, one of the most interesting points that he raises regards oversight in the historical profession.
While the changing dynamics of the historical have rendered multiple layers of accountability, it seems, as put forth by Mr. Wiener, that there is a great lack of accountability. In some cases, such as in the Fox-Genovese Case, there was a lack of accountability at the university level. While not strictly related the history, this case begs the question that if Emory University, a prominent and well respected institution, cannot have sufficient oversight in it’s administrative affairs, then how can it be held accountable for the accuracy or veracity of its professors and their works. In other cases, such as that of John Lott, blatant fraud should have been caught by the various levels of publishers and university presses. Finally, in the case of plagiarism where there was not a university press or university, i.e. the Stephen Ambrose, the accountability of professional review and sanctions by the American Historical Association was lacking. While the layers and levels of accountability are present, the action is not.
History as a profession, requires oversight, otherwise myth, legend, lore, fallacies, and gossip will replace fact. Much like the debate regarding accountability and oversight in the medical profession, questions are raised about who should control the oversight and when there is too much oversight. These are the questions that will define both the historical profession and its esteem. In my opinion, it is up to the American Historical Society. While enforcement may become an issue, the AHA should be the firewall from which history is protected, simply because its sheer size gives it prevalence and credence. I have no illusions that incidents will continue to occur like those in Historians in Trouble, it is both frustrating and disturbing to see the systems and safeguards put in place simply not being used.

Week 2 (31 Jan 2010)

zussmanvolunteer — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:56:32 +0000

The discussion from Wednesday, brought up several interesting points that I feel have been often over looked. While the process of professionalization, begun under the guidance of von Ranke, helps to legitimize the historical field and the historian, it also raises the question as to what role does commercialization play in the pursuit of history? It would be a lovely world in which commercial interests did not play a pivotal role in the minds of historians, but, being the pesky creatures that we are, needing food and shelter, necessitate this evil. With this being the case, how do historians stay true and honest to their craft while simultaneously, being profitable? Additionally on this point, how does the historian reconcile an aspect of entertainment and interest in their work, while adhering to the code of conduct that has been established?
In recent years, a number of historical tracts have come into popular culture and have made a name for their authors. 1776 by David McCullough, Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose, or the very popular works of Robert Remini, all fall into this category. While these men, and there have been many others, have come into the limelight of prosperity because of their works, do these works compromise their professional ethos to achieve success? Works that have passed into mainstream literary culture do possess many of the establishments that von Ranke created, such as linearity of time and a grand narrative emplotment, I personally find a major difference from these works and those that would be “academic” works.
While I cannot speak for everyone, I believe that there is a profound difference between the works that have become popular and successful and those which have become successful in the academic circles. An example of this would be Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. While this book has been wildly successful in bookstores, it has taken a great deal of criticism in the academic community. Iggers Historiography, while interesting, will never reach the bestsellers list. Is there a difference in professionalism between Stephen Ambrose and Robert Remini and Marc Bloch or Lucien Febvre? Has the essence of the historian changed in popular culture but remained the same in academic circles?
These are questions that I simply do not know the answer too, although I will try. I am a simple person, and I believe that the essence of the historian is not necessarily what Mr. Iggers or Mr. Cronan put forth. While these are unique aspects of what a historian can adhere to, for me, the essence of the professional historian is the ability to successfully pass on the past to the present and preserve it for the future. While Iggers addresses this in his final chapter, the face of the historian is changing. We owe much to von Ranke, but we owe equally as much to Herodotus and Thucydides and Homer. They may not have followed the ethos of a professional historian, but they achieved the overarching goal of every professional historian.

Hello world!

zussmanvolunteer — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:16:15 +0000

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!