READING NOTES--SEPT. 25
Use this as a guide to proceed swiftly
and efficiently through the material!
The Anderson reading is by far the hardest for today's class: save it until
- p. 457--start
- p. 458: do you agree with Novick that "schools of historical
interpretation are never politically neutral?"
- 458-465--skim; crisis of leftists and conservatives
- 465-67 "the most serious breakdown"--read closely--what are
implications? Do you share Novick's decision to link these intellectual
developments to political trends?; How do "fragmentation"
and "polarization" differ? Do they?
- 467-472--skim, discussion of universalist ethos of discipline, with which
you should already be familiar
- pp. 472-491: black history
- p. 491-510: women's history--read one of these sections closely, depending
on your interest
- 510-521--skim, but be prepared to intelligently discuss the question of
what is "public history," and whether
we should consider it history or a separate discipline in and of itself.
Paterson essay. You don't need to read the Ross essay; many of her points are
raised by Paterson.
- p. 186: "The irony of the situation . . ." very impt
paragraph--do you agree with JP's conclusion?
- 186--how do you explain the broad interest in biographies of great
figures--and how does that correspond with the practice of modern history?
- pp. 187-189--how important is the concept of periodization? why?
- pp. 189-192--skim
- p. 192--key question--why has Marxist theory had relatively little effect
on the practice of American history?
- p. 193--what is "cultural history"? And, like "public
history," is it essentially a separate discipline?
- p. 195--to what extent do you agree with JP's critique of social
historians? And is there an ideological tinge to much of social history?
what distinguishes social history from cultural history?
|NOTE: This is probably the most difficult read we will have this term.