Great Caesar’s Ghost! Are Traditional History Courses Vanishing?

New York Times ^ | June 10, 2009 | Patricia Cohen

[reaganaut1]

To the pessimists evidence that the field of diplomatic history is on the decline is everywhere. Job openings on the nation’s college campuses are scarce, while bread-and-butter courses like the Origins of War and American Foreign Policy are dropping from history department postings. And now, in what seems an almost gratuitous insult, Diplomatic History, the sole journal devoted to the subject, has proposed changing its title.

For many in the field this latest suggestion is emblematic of a broader problem: the shrinking importance not only of diplomatic history but also of traditional specialties like economic, military and constitutional history.

The future of the history profession (as well as the journal’s title) are the subject of a roundtable discussion to be held this month at the annual convention of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. Many historians “are on the defensive,” said Thomas W. Zeiler, the executive editor of Diplomatic History and the moderator of the panel. (Mr. Zeiler, who floated the name change, said he did not have a particular replacement in mind.)

To Mr. Zeiler there is no doubt that the days when diplomatic history dominated the profession are gone. Fewer traditional courses in the subject are taught, fewer articles are published in refereed journals, and graduate student training has changed. Nonetheless Mr. Zeiler is not as worried as some of his colleagues. The shift does not necessarily mean students aren’t learning the material, he noted, but rather that a new approach to teaching it has developed.

The shift in focus began in the late 1960s and early ’70s, when a generation of academics began looking into the roles of people generally missing from history books — women, minorities, immigrants, workers. Social and cultural history, often referred to as bottom-up history, offered fresh subjects.

[warchild9]

I’m a little late to this one, but...

I teach six sections a semester of modern Western Civ and classes on World War II. In the fall, I pick up a section on the War Between the States, which I’m very much looking forward to.

My approach to all this is very straightforward, with papers and two “reaction sheets” due for each class, where the students THINK about a topic, and then give me their opinions. We require lots of thinking from our students; but, then, we are considered an elite school and I’d estimate half of my students are looking towards law or graduate school.

I am a Reagan Republican, now an Independent, as are half of my coworkers. The loons who see a commie in every classroom have never been to college, it’s obvious.

[CatoRenasci]

Don't forget both of Paul Johnson's books. Modern Times is fantastic, a History of the American People good, but flawed. There are truly few sweeping books left.

I'm at work on a "big" project that is essentially a "Patriot's History of the Modern World." Probably 60% finished.

I like Johnson, but I find him interesting, but perhaps to much a popularizer for my taste. His Intellectuals was good in places, but he horribly badly misreads Nietzsche (as do many who haven't really studied Nietzsche), which put me off the book.

I look forward to your next project.

We should probably also include the somewhat idiosyncratic From Dawn to Decadence by Jacques Barzun. It's great stuff, but probably better suited to those who've already digested Palmer thoroughly than as a place to start.

[wildbill]

She was working on her Masters to get a raise.

[Hegemony Cricket]

What’s that phrase about people who know more and more about less and less...