It is a disciplinary issue. And I'm not defending her, just trying to see where she's coming from.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @susandamussen ja @jshelat1
Then the discipline is complicit in presenting a problematic view of the period, if there's a sustained refusal to use the language of race that is available to us. It's then presenting a race neutral early modern period. We might be saying the same thing.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy ja @jshelat1
Historians handle it differently. But many of us are *not* presenting a race neutral early modern period. My sense is that Iberianists do better than British historians. My own thinking keeps changing as I keep reading and working with my own questions.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
I was definitely guilty of this at the start of my PhD. I’d been taught that ‘anachronism’ is the worst crime a historian can commit. But then my supervisor suggested I read Kim F. Hall, and I realised that this ‘anachr’ concern was just unproductive disciplinary boundary work.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 5 tykkäystä -
It seems to me that the language of what we call race was there in the period, yet we are being forced to think of race, in particular, as opposed to gender or sex, in restrictive ways. This raises the question of why that is so. What is the disciplinary&critical investment in 1/
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @DrDadabhoy, @EvaJohannaH ja
In condoning off race by calling it anachronistic? There’s a there there and we have to uncover it. Race doesn’t simply materialize one day in the form we recognize from the enlightenment. It’s foundations are older, they had to be to institute the form of chattel slavery 2/
5 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
But we are not doing that. Early modern history is probably 10-15 years behind English Lit on thinking about race. For me, it was doing research on race and slavery, finding the people. I’m a social historian by temperament. /1
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @susandamussen, @DrDadabhoy ja
It’s worth noting that there are early modernists who still ignore gender. Many historians of my generation, esp political historians, have been very positivist in their approach. Race is not that different, we’ve just been talking about it for a shorter time. /2
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
I did a NEH institute with historians and I was so thankful for the feminist historians present otherwise I would have thought there were no women in the Middle Ages or Renaissance.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 7 tykkäystä -
I’m so glad that I was taught by feminist historians at a department of cultural history. In 90’s Finland the disciplines were still quite divided by politics, so we were all considered suspicious lefties anyway.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä
Forgive this unserious question but did you get a sword with your PhD?
-
-
No, I didn’t :-) It is actually done at a separate conferment ceremony after the PhD defense which happens every few years. I was always too broke as a Postdoc to participate as the hats and swords are quite expensive (even if the swords are cool).
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä -
They should be free!
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.