Brave New World

[sinjefe]

by Victor Davis Hanson

All I can say is, my sentiments exactly.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson...inglepage=true

[Peregrino]

A voice crying in the wilderness.

[JSMosby]

Yes.

[Sigaba]

Hanson's professed astonishment with topics, issues, and trends Americanists (to say nothing of Europeanists) have kicked around for decades is surprising. The stratification of wealth and its impact on democracy, the intertwined issues of immigration and assimilation, and the fragmentation of social ties caused by advances in communication technology, are not new to serious students of modern history.

Nevertheless, his editorial is evidence of both the fragmentation of professional academic history and Hanson's growing unwillingness to step outside of his own intellectual comfort zone.

The latter dynamic is especially problematic as Hanson once made his living in the Ivory Tower. Maybe if he had spent more time engaging with and listening to colleagues who disagree with his approach to history rather than railing at them, he'd be in a better position to affect the change he desires.

Or, maybe Hanson knows many of his readers fall into the "most of us" category.

Yet most of us are scarcely aware of the collective effect of that odd habit repeating itself millions of times over each day, of millions of books not read, of “hellos” not offered, of brains wired to screens rather than the physical world about them.

After all, why should Hanson take genuine intellectual risks if he can get an endless chorus of "Atta boy" by preaching to the choir?

My $0.02.

[TXGringo]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

post

My $0.02.

Is there anything in particular in his editorial that you take issue with?

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by TXGringo

Is there anything in particular in his editorial that you take issue with?

Everything. Mostly because I posted it.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by TXGringo

Is there anything in particular in his editorial that you take issue with?

Hanson's not taking genuine intellectual risks. He's railing when he could be voguing. That's all.

[Ape Man]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Hanson's professed astonishment with topics, issues, and trends Americanists (to say nothing of Europeanists) have kicked around for decades is surprising. The stratification of wealth and its impact on democracy, the intertwined issues of immigration and assimilation, and the fragmentation of social ties caused by advances in communication technology, are not new to serious students of modern history.

Nevertheless, his editorial is evidence of both the fragmentation of professional academic history and Hanson's growing unwillingness to step outside of his own intellectual comfort zone.

The latter dynamic is especially problematic as Hanson once made his living in the Ivory Tower. Maybe if he had spent more time engaging with and listening to colleagues who disagree with his approach to history rather than railing at them, he'd be in a better position to affect the change he desires.

Or, maybe Hanson knows many of his readers fall into the "most of us" category.
After all, why should Hanson take genuine intellectual risks if he can get an endless chorus of "Atta boy" by preaching to the choir?

My $0.02.

Sigaba,

As a blue collared dude who has been reading professional historians all his short life, what you just said does not make a lot of sense to me.

It seems to me that most professional historians are in ideological lock step with each other. To pick on the one of the few outliers as an example of someone who will not step out of his intellectual comfort zone without any concrete examples seems like a cheap shot born out ideological hostility.

I have my disagreements with Hanson same as I do with everyone. But his brand of historical analysis sits better with me then the "professional historians" who have taken it upon themselves to decided that Domitian was not so bad in spite of the universal testimony of the classical authors. Their dubious grounds on basing this assessment is that they can detect signs in the archeological record that the roman economy improved under his reign and the class background of classical authors means they were "biased" (oh, the horror).

To my simple uneducated mind, this is like future historians saying that Stalin was all right because the Soviet economy recovered under his watch and all the people criticizing him in the historical record came from a well educated class of people that did not represent the masses as a whole.

Russian economy had nowhere to go but up after the Russian civil war, World War I, and World War II. The same thing could be said about the Roman Empire after Domitian took it over.

All that is a long winded way of saying that I think "Professional historians" have swung the pendulum to far in the direction of thinking that they know better than the classical authors (or the source authors of what ever time period they are studying). I understand that slavish devotion to such sources have there problems, but there is still a place for humility and giving the people who where there the benefit of the doubt.

In this regard, I see Hanson as being one of the few who fights from the other side of pendulum and tries to make sure that the classical authors are still given their due.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Ape Man

Sigaba,

As a blue collared dude who has been reading professional historians all his short life, what you just said does not make a lot of sense to me.

It seems to me that most professional historians are in ideological lock step with each other. To pick on the one of the few outliers as an example of someone who will not step out of his intellectual comfort zone without any concrete examples seems like a cheap shot born out ideological hostility.

I have my disagreements with Hanson same as I do with everyone. But his brand of historical analysis sits better with me then the "professional historians" who have taken it upon themselves to decided that Domitian was not so bad in spite of the universal testimony of the classical authors. Their dubious grounds on basing this assessment is that they can detect signs in the archeological record that the roman economy improved under his reign and the class background of classical authors means they were "biased" (oh, the horror).

To my simple uneducated mind, this is like future historians saying that Stalin was all right because the Soviet economy recovered under his watch and all the people criticizing him in the historical record came from a well educated class of people that did not represent the masses as a whole.

Russian economy had nowhere to go but up after the Russian civil war, World War I, and World War II. The same thing could be said about the Roman Empire after Domitian took it over.

All that is a long winded way of saying that I think "Professional historians" have swung the pendulum to far in the direction of thinking that they know better than the classical authors (or the source authors of what ever time period they are studying). I understand that slavish devotion to such sources have there problems, but there is still a place for humility and giving the people who where there the benefit of the doubt.

In this regard, I see Hanson as being one of the few who fights from the other side of pendulum and tries to make sure that the classical authors are still given their due.

Albeit unintentionally, you prove my point for me.

Professor Hanson offers polemics about eggheads and their allegedly pernicious influence upon American society. Members of the general public, based upon their experiences (which do not include an immersion into how academic historians are trained, nor exposure to the professional, political, personal, and philosophical issues with which they grapple on a daily basis) fall over themselves to agree.

This agreement comes without an appreciation for the irony of comments such as:

To pick on the one of the few outliers as an example of someone who will not step out of his intellectual comfort zone without any concrete examples seems like a cheap shot born out ideological hostility.

And:

But his brand of historical analysis sits better with me then the "professional historians" who have taken it upon themselves to decided that Domitian was not so bad in spite of the universal testimony of the classical authors.

In regards to the first quote, you demonstrate a growing reluctance among members of the PS.COM peanut gallery to use the search button. By not using the search button, you made the decision not to test your assumption that I am picking on Hanson without providing concrete examples. Yet, a quick search provides the following <<LINK1>>, and <<LINK2>> and also <<LINK3>>. Or, if you prefer, you could take a look at Hanson's "The Dilemmas of the Contemporary Military Historian" (1999) and ask yourself how his assessment of the craft differs from those offered previously by such military historians as Peter Paret in 1971, John Kegan in 1976, Maurice Matloff and Thomas E. Griess in 1988, or John Lynn in 1997?* (If nothing else, the two 'take aways' should be [1] I don't take "cheap shots" at historians and, [2] #TSBIYF.)

In regards to the latter quote, the comment displays the very intellectual complacency that Hanson derides--and with which you apparently agree. Is the serious study of history about reading books that "sit better" with a reader? Or is the serious study of history about challenging one's own understanding of a topic/subject and remaining up to speed with the ongoing debates over interpretations of the past?

My beef with Hanson is as follows. Were he more interested in using his skill set as a historian, he could use his first rate mind and his enviable skills as a writer to give readers concise overviews of the numerous debates over the relationships between the events of the day and the past.

He could also show a general audience how historians face an ongoing crisis of relevance and effectiveness. This crisis is not because they, as you mistakenly believe, walk in "ideological lock step" with each other. (And it is curious that you made the decision to not provide examples given what you accuse me of doing. But, hey, I'm sure that's different. ) On the contrary, the crisis exists because historians disagree on many key issues. That is to say, academic historians cannot, at present, provide American audiences with a tidy usable past because they focus on trees at the expense of the forest.

Instead, the man more and more operates as a polemicist who is pitching his own books. Instead, the man perpetuates a sense of crisis without reminding readers that many of the issues we face today are not new and without showing how a "sense of history" can provide perspectives that allow a sense of urgency that doesn't devolve into the air of desperation that has settled upon the land.

Two quick points. First, transparent attempts at self-effacement ("To my simple uneducated mind") would be more efficacious, and less ironic, if one avoided simplistic suppositions. Using what future historians might say about Stalin as a reason to display umbrage with the profession of academic historians does not work as well as displaying a familiarity with what current historians are saying about Stalin, the two world wars, or Russia both during and after Stalinism and then taking those existing interpretations to task.

Second, claims that one is "who has been reading professional historians all his short life" might be more credible if one were to drop some names and/or delineate clearly fields, topics, and time periods of interest.

__________________________________________________ ___________
* Victor Davis Hanson, "The Dilemmas of the Contemporary Military Historian" in Reconstructing History: The Emergence of a New Historical Society, ed. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn (New York and London: Routledge 1999), 189-201; Peter Paret, "The History of War." Daedalus 100:2 (Spring 1971): 376-396; John Keegan, The Face of Battle (New York: The Viking Press, 1976; reprint, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1993); Maurice Matloff, "The Nature of History," in A Guide to the Study and Use of Military History, ed. John E. Jessup, Jr. and Robert W. Coaklely (Washington, D.C.: [U.S. Army] Center for Military History, 1988), 3-24; Thomas E. Griess, "A Perspective on Military History," ibid., 25-40; John Lynn, "The Embattled Future of Academic Military History, Journal of Military History 61:4 (October, 1997): 777-789. FWIW/FYI, a previous discussion of John Jessup took place there.

[bubba]

Anyone ever stop to think what the average Centurion was up to around the time of the fall of Rome?

Maybe the dark-ages were NOTHING compared to what is upon this epoch of human history that stands ahead?

We'll see...... meanwhile, I am buying precious metels...... Lead, Copper, Brass, Silver, etc........

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by bubba

Anyone ever stop to think what the average Centurion was up to around the time of the fall of Rome? ...

I suspect most were shopping for a barbarian bride and a strategically significant location to construct a motte-and-bailey fort. I'm partial to intersecting trade routes or river crossings myself; better to start small and consolidate that bite off more than you can control with whatever legionaires you can bring over with you. Course it helps if the aforementioned bride has lots of tribesmen loyal to her bloodline. I like the idea of collecting precious metals too.

[Knight]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

A voice crying in the wilderness.

May have just heard the echo from the first shot in the wilderness. This continues to get more disturbing at a rapid pace.

[Beef]

Good article, thanks for posting it. It's a nice little summary of our current situation.