When writing a historical work, it’s important to think about what one needs to accomplish with it, which is a two-level issue.\u00a0 On one level, one simply needs to check an item off a to-do list: write something publishable, get a line on the CV, secure your professional credentials, move on.\u00a0 So, let’s say there’s a set of “publication requirements”.\u00a0 But (ideally) we also hope to contribute in some way to a historiographical literature and enhance historical understanding in some way.\u00a0 And here is a question that needs to be seriously addressed: what is the relationship between historical work and historiography?\u00a0 It raises a subsidiary question: does the individual historian have a responsibility to the historiography, and, if so, what defines that responsibility?<\/p>\n
Insofar as authors are expected to address the historiography, it seems obvious that they do have a responsibility.\u00a0 But is this a trivial responsibility?\u00a0 I ask the question this way, because the topic and argument of the individual historical work is usually left to the historian’s own “interests”.\u00a0 We all know the phrase, “I am interested in X, Y, and Z”.\u00a0 Now we get into a touchy subject: are these interests sacrosanct?\u00a0 Are we allowed to say: “Well, that sounds fine, but I’m quite familiar with the literature on X and Y, and I’m not really transported by the experience; it really just seems to reinforce an insight that everyone pretty much already accepts.\u00a0 Wouldn’t it be more useful if you were to address a topic about which we know little?”<\/p>\n
It’s legitimate here to say “actually, interests are sacrosanct; let me be,” and thus endeth the conversation.\u00a0 So long as these works continue to fulfill publication requirements, they can continue to be produced, and unless you plan on taking over the journals and imposing your dictatorial regime, boo on that.\u00a0 But suppose a historiography presents a set of needs that can be identified; suppose these needs can only be addressed through community rather than individual action; and suppose the fulfillment of these needs is capable of changing the criteria of what constitutes what is “interesting”.\u00a0 Clearly research topics cannot and should not be dictated, but is it possible that there is such a thing as identifiable responsibility or obligation toward historiography, and that authors can be called upon at any time to justify their work with respect to that responsibility?<\/p>\n
Christopher and I have been discussing this sort of question, and it seems to boil down to questions about scholarly culture.\u00a0 At an opportune moment, I floated a test balloon on this subject<\/a> in the comments over at one of my favorite blogs, History of Economics Playground, which is run by a group of people in the History of Economic Thought.\u00a0 The response by Lo\u00efc, which struck me as very insightful, suggests there are similar sensibilities within that community as well.\u00a0 Anyway, it’s a subject we hope to explore here further this fall.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When writing a historical work, it’s important to think about what one needs to accomplish with it, which is a two-level issue.\u00a0 On one level, one simply needs to check an item off a to-do list: write something publishable, get a line on the CV, secure your professional credentials, move on.\u00a0 So, let’s say there’s<\/p>\n