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 the end.

NOVICK

• 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.

WOOD/MOLHO

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?

ANDERSON ESSAY