Fred Logevall and Ken Osgood, the authors of the op-ed are very fine historians who I
count as friends. They argued that there is “a crisis” in the history profession.
American political history as a field of study has cratered. Fewer scholars build careers on studying the political process, in part because few universities make space for them. Fewer courses are available, and fewer students are exposed to it. What was once a central part of the historical profession, a vital part of this country’s continuing democratic discussion, is disappearing.
As for the reason for this development, they invoke an old,
tired argument: diversification of the field of history, in part, displaced “traditional”
fields like political history.
A chorus of voices exploded across the scholarly twitter
community, explaining that political history remains vibrant. The op-ed “misses
the resurgence of political history,” noted Leah Wright Rigueur, author of TheLoneliness of the Black Republican (2014). People began tweeting their favorite
political history books, many very recent, and eventually tied together with the
hashtag #poliscihistory (see also #thisiswhatpoliticalhistorylookslike).
There are two different reasons the op-ed’s argument fell flat.
The first is that political history now appears in different forms than in the
1950s, so that much political history appears in those new, more diverse fields.
It is always the case that scholarly fields evolve, of course. Nowadays, scholars
of African American history, women’s history, queer history, disability
history, environmental history, legal history, U.S.-and-the-world history and
other fields are doing political history. One can write political history and succeed
in a women’s and gender history “slot.”
But even on its own terms, the authors’ argument did not
hold up. Caleb McDaniel tweeted American Historical Association data showing
that political history has not declined over the previous 35 years. Instead the
percentage of historians identifying themselves as primarily political
historians has remained constant, as is clear from this chart:
Jim Grossman, Executive Director of the AHA chimed in to
say that the oped had relied on the wrong source in drawing its conclusions. The AHA is the source of the most complete hiring data.
Political history is, in my view, more exciting than ever in
departments of history, political science and law schools. But Logevall and
Osgood make an important point that their critics will agree with: political
history matters beyond the academy.
Knowledge of our political past is important because it can serve as an antidote to the misuse of history by our leaders and save us from being bamboozled by analogies, by the easy “lessons of the past.” It can make us less egocentric by showing us how other politicians and governments in other times have responded to division and challenge. And it can help us better understand the likely effects of our actions, a vital step in the acquisition of insight and maturity.