Several years ago a fellow Civil War historian asked people where he should pursue postgraduate work in history. Although he was the author of several fine works and was well known as an authority in his field of specialization, it still nagged him that he might want a PhD.
I asked him why he wanted that degree. His work already qualified him as a historian, and his reputation rested on his work. He and I had spoken at the same conferences and we’d gone out on the field together. It seemed to me that if he wanted the degree as some sort of self-assurance, he’d have to admit that; unless he wanted the degree as part of a shift in his occupational pursuits, it didn’t make sense for him to pursue that degree, and that those of us who evaluate historians by the work they do and not by the academic status they have could care less as to whether he had a degree. Sure, he might not be a part of academic conferences, but it isn’t as if that’s a big loss (I’ll discuss that another time); he’d also be freed of some of the nonsense academics encounter all the time, including the jealousy and contempt of some colleagues who deep down wonder why they aren’t on television, interviewed on radio, consulted for movies and documentaries, or whose books sell.
Mind you, there are benefits to professional training in history, but there are areas of inquiry and approaches to study where it is not nearly as valuable as one might think. I think I’m a better historian because I have that training given my choice of occupation, the questions I pose, and the way I approach my interests, but I was already working with primary documents when I was in prep school and writing a paper that formed the basis of my first book. I don’t think professional training would add much to the scholarship of the scholar in question, and I wonder whether there might be other ways for professional academic historians such as myself to work with people who want some professional training to assist in their research endeavors without having to commit to years of classroom work.
The above serves as a long-winded prelude to what provoked this particular post. It has to do with the complaints of some members of the blogging community and a few other folks who feel that conferences held in academic settings and run by academics are slighting them and their contributions to engaging in research activities and promoting the dissemination of their findings to a broader audience. I’ve heard these complaints several times: they echo other complaints (about which blogs get attention, for example). Oddly enough, all too often these folks sound a little bit too much like my academic colleagues who seem annoyed that some of us sell more books and get more attention than they do … so, in short, I’ve heard this before.
Frankly, I don’t understand this complaining. Is it because, for all the complaining I hear about academics from non-academics, that non-academics seek the approval and blessing of academics? Would it make various endeavors any more worthwhile if they were recognized at academic conferences? Why?
It’s quite true that some academics are snobbish and condescending. Indeed, at times this seems to exist in inverse ration to their impact on society at large. But why seek the approval of of inclusion by people you already view with a skepticism that is sometimes warranted?
Mind you, such complaining (some might call it whining) happens all the time, even among people whose names you would recognize. Some people believe they are the recognized experts on various matters, and they get irritated when other people are recognized in that role. I’ve also seen people engage in various forms of professional pettiness (as well as blatant favoritism) when it comes to constructing programs or deciding which people to include in a project. That’s the way things are, and these sentiments, behaviors, and reactions aren’t limited to certain groups.
Moreover, it appears to me that with the advent of social media these folks can bypass the academic (or institute-sponsored) conference altogether. Using cyberspace to host a virtual conference would reach far more people than the usual academic conference (C-SPAN can’t be everywhere). Popular magazines could find new ways to serve as outlets of bringing Civil War history to broader audiences. The real problem with acknowledging academics as gatekeepers is that there’s absolutely no need to do so, and that it just might be time to think out of the box and to assert one’s independent authority. It just might be a better use of one’s time and energy to explore these options and open new doors instead of complaining about which ones remain shut.
Instead of complaining that no one’s asking you to the dance, folks, hold your own dance.
This post seems to have something of an echo in Kevin Levin’s musings yesterday on academic publishing. http://cwmemory.com/2013/01/12/how-many-books-did-you-sell-this-year/ I would never denigrate the rigor and training of those who earn a Ph.D. in history, but I wonder how many excellent minds were dissuaded from following that course by poor job prospects in that field and the need to support a family. The 21st Century, with its opportunity for internet research, cyber communities of researchers, blogging to mass audiences, e-publishing, and skype conferences opens new frontiers beyond the academy to do history. Your friend’s Ph.D. aspirations sound less like a desire to pursue a course of study and more a felt need to be admitted by credentialed gate keepers to an inner sanctum of respectability. An on-line community of scholars could perform the same function.
I saw the post in question after I had finished composing this one and set it for publication. I understand Kevin’s feelings, although my experience is different. First books are eye-opening experiences for the author.
That professional recognition often opens doors to primary resources that those without are not granted. How about becoming an advocate for someone, perhaps opening one of those doors for them, perhaps giving some direction on where to look, etc., and perhaps discussing pitfalls and best practices. That could help a lot of folks get started.
That is basically what I’m suggesting … that doors be opened precisely by thinking outside the box, as opposed to this wasteful “us” versus “them” chatter that depends all too much upon the creation … of … an … Other.
As you alluded to, having the degree, the title, confers status. It doesn’t mean you’re brilliant, it just confers status and, to some, respect (not to mention income). This is found not just in academia but elsewhere. Whether I think it’s warranted or not, people think I know more because I’m an attorney, because I have a title. Maybe it’s just the nature of today’s society to defer to people who have a title, whether they deserve it or not.
The basis of my pay is my teaching. However, the easiest part of my career to monetize is publication followed by visibility (as in external interest). Administrative responsibilities often mean relief from teaching courses, although the impact on research and publication would seem to be evident if not always understood. But not all research and publication is the same or has the same impact on professional advancement.
I don’t know if you were around at the time but, after the J.D. became the degree granted by law schools rather than another B.A. (largely prompted by lawyers complaining that law school was graduate school and an appropriate degree should be awarded instead of another college degree), there was a debate as to whether attorneys should use Dr. in their names (as many Ph.Ds were doing) instead of or in addition to the traditional Esq. afterwards. A few tried it but were pretty much greeted with derision and it was dropped.
Most of the time Bummer has little or nothing new to offer. Looking for new slants or opinion on Civil War topics is part of this students daily exercise. If one has that Masters or Doctorate the “old guy” has a tendancy to listen more acutely, however if a well informed tale or myth is shared, all ears. A lot of the time it’s the story that’s being told and the delivery, not the credentials of the teller.
Bummer
Good topic and good advice.
As someone who has worked in academia and who is now in a related private sector field primarily because of family-related ifnancial needs, I’ll say this – I appreciate the training and education I received in my pursuit of my degrees, especially in terms of finding and weighing evidence, and making a solid case for a given finding.
I read history for enjoyment, but, because of my own taste toward evidence and the reality-based community, prefer an author with an academic orientation, as opposed to a journalistic or (even worse) “popular” orientation; having said that, finding an academic who can write engagingly is, as Bummer says, a distinct pleasure.
My spouse and one of my children were holiday shopping and both found that their best bet in finding something I will enjoy is to look for works that have received academic awards and – especially – with strong footnotes/endnotes, and bibliographies. Call me a traditionalist…
As far as gatekeeping goes, the “non-academics” may wish to simply accept that there is a cost of doing business – whether that includes the Phd or not may be a case by case basis, but certainly membership in the OAH and similar professional organizations is not difficult to achieve – there are professional associations for everything from anthropology to zoology.
Best to all
I think there is a form/function/audience/purpose discussion here. Let me explain.
My work includes publications intended for a broader audience. Those works provide me with very little traction among my colleagues, and in some cases may be viewed with skepticism. At times I choose to do things that my colleagues will question, for one reason or another … say this week’s appearance on The Ultimate Guide to the Presidents. Of course, I’m not speaking to them, and I make no claim to conducting much in the way of original research in that format. But I also know that there’s a little envy and jealousy in the reactions of some folks who will probably not enjoy such exposure and who are candid in their desire to write for their peers and not a larger public.
The irony is that some of the academic historians who address a larger public get it from both sides: resentment from non-academics as snobs and condescension from colleagues elsewhere in the profession who see them as pandering to the public. That’s just the way it is, and all I worry about is being true to myself. I don’t judge others for the choices they make, and I don’t see them as entitled to judge me or what I do in return. I think they could spend their time in more constructive ways, and that perhaps it’s time for some fresh thinking on the subject.
I understand your “form/function/audience/purpose discussion” points – obviously, there are multiple audiences in any potential intellectual pursuit, ranging from pure research to applied research across the spectrum to pure entertainment.
If a given practitioner can be sucessful in more than one element of the spectrum, more power to them.
As far as the “fresh-thinking” goes, I think your point about “holding your own dance” is worthwhile; something like semi-pro or Double A leagues?
Best,
I would not characterize these folks as minor leaguers, especially as that would highlight a status issue in some minds. But it would not be hard for these folks to set up their own cyberconference, and thus assure themselves of access to a broad audience.
That could work – basically, a CWRT writ large.
A lot of people never get out of the social organization of elementary or, at most, junior high school. A “popular” or “queen bee” clique NEEDS “inferiors” not only to look down upon but for the “inferiors” to desperately want the approval of the clique.
The problem in this case is that, for all of the supposed (and real) snobbishness of the academy, it happens to be a few outsiders who are doing the complaining even as they seek to be recognized by the cool kids.
I think there are plenty of people who are secure in who they are and who just go about their business. Perhaps giving attention to the complaints of those who seem hurt or who are voicing displeasure is akin to focusing on certain proponents of “black Confederates” or “Confederate heritage,” because they may be more vocal than representative.
Love this post Brooks, just love it. Asking all the right questions IMHO. If knowledge is the goal, a credential could help, but it may hinder too, and increasingly I think it may depending on what one wants to know. Life is all about tradeoffs, but no tradeoff can salvage a distorted view of what is most important. Is knowledge (and wisdom) the goal or isn’t it? If a credential helps you get knowledge, then great. If it is a hindrance, then it is not a good thing. If it is neutral, then either choice is fine, but for the average person I suspect I suspect increasingly for some of the reasons said or hinted by your post, it won’t be neutral. At least if one’s competitors are on their toes. If you can get the knowledge at less cost there are lots of possibilities for doing other better things that will be recognized sooner or later. Knowledge can’t be professionalized, which should put a crimp on the professionalization of everything else. We are living in a time of an explosion of knowledge. Some haven’t yet figured out, and for those folks it still seems as if the barriers haven’t been lowered.
Slightly OT: But I’m surprised the Kevin has sold 621 copies of his book. It seems to be a faint echo of better known books (Slotkin’s comes to mind). In any case, given his subtitle “War as Murder” and his addiction to using history as a platform for his liberal politics I’m amazed 621 serious Civil war readers spent the money.
That would suggest that sales have nothing to do with quality.
Then I assume you also have a quarrel with Confederate General Daniel Harvey Hill who famously described the Battle of Malvern Hill as “It wasn’t war; it was murder.”
You assume wrong.
Have you read the book?
That’s a fairly pointless comment.
Having read plenty of MA theses and Phd dissertations over the years, FWIW, I think it is a pretty solid work, and certainly ties the action and its consequences on postwar Virginia politics together pretty well.
What, pray tell, qualifies as “liberal politics” in your view? Calling out the neo-confederates?
Or pointing out the numerous flaws in the MacArthur Mythology. After all, we know that Ike, Nimitz and Truman were “fellow travelers”.
Don’t forget GCM…
The only MacArthur mythologies I know of are the absurd “Doug-out Doug” mythology – and the “MacArthur’s Pearl Harbor” Myth. That and anything Max Hastings writes about him.
Here’s a change of pace – how about your version of the facts regarding MacArthur’s activities in the Philippines between September 1 and December 8, 1941? And then maybe you can provide some enlightening details specifically about the hours between first word of the Pearl Harbor attack and JAAF bombers dropping their payloads on parked planes at Clark. A nice timeline of MacArthur’s actions during those hours would be appreciated. Facts are generally more useful than (erroneous) labeling and name-calling directed at the messenger.
I’ve noted a lot of misconceptions about this over the years. No professional historical association, to my knowledge, bars non-academics. Every session of every meeting is open to all who register. True, the larger groups are unlikely to place non-academic on panels, but a lot of academics who apply don’t make it either. I once served on a Society of Military Historians panel with Kevin Levin, who, as a poster notes above, does not hold a doctorate. Finally, state and regional associations usually welcome non-academics as panelists; the Alabama Historical Association immediately comes to mind. I think there’s less to these complains than meets the eye.
I think Ken makes a valid point. The problem is that all it takes is one or two academics who are dismissive of what is obviously good work by non-academics to create the impression. And I have occasionally seen such comments. Then there’s a problem which I suspect that academics who focus on the Civil War, military campaigns and battles, etc. encounter in their own realm – the dismissive attitude of their peers. Hence, to an outsider, the apparent pressure to cater to this pressure by shifting focus to “social” history, etc. That has a spillover effect on the perception by others. As an aside, I note that the training which one receives as a lawyer is in many ways equivalent to that which “professuonal” historians receive (alluded to by T.F. Smith above). So we have Eric Wittenberg, Alan Nolan, Gordon Rhea, etc. I have no idea how they are viewed in the “academic” community (if one could even find a monolithic view) but it ought to be favorable.
As another one of those non-professional “historians” (I’m just a J.D.) dipping a few toes into the academic history pool with university press book published in 2012, I’ve encountered a number of incredibly encouraging, welcoming professors (including a big name) and also a some contemptuous, dimissive ones (primary source based narratives aren’t for everyone). But that range of reactions is to be expected among any professional group where one wants to be evaluated for quality and not just applauded for effort. Seeking validation from a professional guild as an outsider is a fool’s errand: lawyers don’t applaud many pro se litigators, regardless of their quality. Nor do I expect many professors, who struggled for years to advance in a competitive profession, to go out of their way to praise some lawyer who thinks he can produce quality work during weekends or after the kids go to bed. It’s amazing, and rare, when “amateurs,” like the men mentioned by John Foskett, do pull that off and win academic respect. Now that I’ve gotten back into history as a “hobby,” I’ve found validation from occasional praise from professionals, but even more so from non-professional readers who picked up my book and told me that they read it, enjoyed it and learned a lot about from it.
And to the fellow J.D.’s that I mentioned I’d add the several non-academic NPS types who have won well-earned respect for their work. Krick, Krick, Hennessy, O’Reilly, to name only a few.
I’m reading Walter Stahr’s “Seward” right now; biography may be an easier approach for someone who was not educated in the social sciences, but I’m pretty impressed – solid use of primary sources, thoughtful reasoning when there are conflicting sources, caution about knowns and unknowns, and lively writing with a good turn of descriptive phrasing. Hard to ask for more.
Best,
Walter and I were classmates at Exeter.
Eastern establishment elitist…
I as a year after the most famous graduate of my high school. Been downhill ever since…
As a published Civil War author and holder of an M.A. in history I considered a year ago moving to a city where I could pursue a Phd. I sold a blog that I was running as it was controversial and was not helping me in my academic life. As I prepared to possibly move (I live in the Mountains of Colorado and there are no universities) I decided to hold off as I realized the desire to possibly work at a Phd had more to do with me than it did anything else. However, I do at times feel ignored as the work that is happening at my current venture is I think important, yet unrecognized for the most part. So I can understand that need to be validated by your peers and if a Phd would accomplish that, well so be it!
Go Mavs!