Jack Miller Center Essay Prize Competition for the best essays published in Historically Speaking

.
Announcing . . .

The Jack Miller Center Essay Prize Competition for the best essays published in Historically Speaking during 2011 in the following areas:

Intellectual History or the History of Political Thought

Military or Diplomatic History

The prizes are $1000 each and will be awarded in January 2012. Essay submission guidelines for Historically Speaking can be found at www.bu.edu/historic/hs/ guide.html. Direct all submissions and questions about the prize competition to: Donald Yerxa at historic@bu.edu.

The Jack Miller Center is a nonprofit, nonsectarian, nonpartisan, educational organization dedicated to strengthening the teaching of America’s founding principles and history.

Second Annual Conference on Public Intellectuals at Harvard University

Randall Stephens

I've been working with Larry Friedman and Steve Whitfield on organizing the Second Annual Conference on Public Intellectuals at Harvard University, April 7-9, 2011. The program has shaped up nicely. Those who attended last year can attest to the lively discussions and debates generated by panels and keynotes. (We've asked all participants this year to pay a $25 fee. Friedman hopes to have funding options in the future, which might reduce or eliminate the fee.)

The 2011 conference will feature a variety of session that are sure to be productive. (See the program below.) Panels will address "Historians as Public Intellectuals," "The Cosmopolitan Generation of Intellectuals," "Religion and Public Intellectuals in America," and "Race, Gender, and Public Intellectuals." We anticipate roughly 20 participants and a number of non-presenters.

SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS, APRIL 7-9, 2011

Thursday, April 7

4:00 - 6:00: OPENING RECEPTION
Larry Friedman’s house, 335 Highland Avenue, Somerville (a 10-minute walk from the Davis Square stop on the Red Line T)

7:00 - 9:30pm: OPENING SEMINAR
James Hall penthouse seminar room, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge (please read James Kloppenberg’s Reading Obama: Dreams, Hopes, and the American Political Tradition in advance)

Introduction: Larry Friedman (Harvard University)

James Kloppenberg (Harvard University), “Reading Obama”

Comment: Dinesh Sharma (Institute for International and Cross-Cultural Research)

Friday, April 8

8:30 - 9:00am: Conference Chair: Anne Wyatt-Brown (University of Florida), welcome; coffee, tea, bagels, pastries, etc. provided.
James Hall 1305

9.00 - 12.00pm: Panel 1: HISTORIANS AS PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS
James Hall 1305

Chair: Jill Lepore (Harvard University)

Bertram Wyatt-Brown (Johns Hopkins University), “C. Vann Woodward and W.J. Cash: Similarities and Contrasts”

Joyce Antler (Brandeis University), “Gerda Lerner, Citizen-Scholar: ‘Why What We Do with History Matters’”

David D. Hall (Harvard University), “Perry Miller: Prophecy, Declension, and the Promise of America”

Ray Arsenault (University of South Florida), “The Freedom Writer: John Hope Franklin as a Public Intellectual”

12:00 - 1:15pm: Lunch on your own

1:15 - 4:30pm: Panel 2: THE COSMOPOLITAN GENERATION OF INTELLECTUALS
James Hall penthouse seminar room

Chair: David Starr (Brandeis University), with remarks on Solomon Schechter

Neil McLaughlin (McMaster University), “Fromm, Riesman, Nisbet and the Public Intellectuals: A Sociological Perspective”

Anke Schreiber (University of Chicago), “Erich Fromm as Public Intellectual”

David Andersen (Helena, Montana), “Three 1950s Classics: Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, Erik Erikson’s Childhood and Society, and Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism”

Jonathan B. Imber (Wellesley College), “Philip Rieff and Fellow Teachers”

4:30 - 5:30: Break

5:30 - 9:15pm: DINNER AND A CONVERSATION WITH GERDA LERNER AND ROBERT LIFTON
James Hall penthouse seminar room

6:30 - 6:50pm: Gerda Lerner (Madison, Wisconsin) on her life as a scholar and public intellectual (Skype video connection)

7:00 - 8:30pm: Robert J. Lifton (Harvard University) on his life and career

Saturday, April 9

8:30am: Coffee, tea, bagels, pastries
James Hall penthouse seminar room

9:00 - 12:00pm: Panel 3: RACE, GENDER, AND PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS
James Hall penthouse seminar room.

Chair: Roberta Wollons (University of Massachusetts Boston)

Mark West (University of North Carolina at Charlotte), “The Literary Roots of Theodore Roosevelt's Views on Women’s Rights”

Steve Whitfield (Brandeis University), “The Many Facets of Frank Tannenbaum”

Damon Freeman (University of Pennsylvania), “Kenneth B. Clark and the Just University”

Jim Clark (University of Kentucky), “‘In the South these Children Prophesy’: Robert Coles’ Documentary Argument”

12:00 - 1:30pm: Lunch on your own

1:30 - 4:30pm: Panel 4: RELIGION AND PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS IN AMERICA
James Hall penthouse seminar room

Chair: Jon Roberts (Boston University)

Maura Jane Farrelly (Brandeis University), “No Man is an Island: Catholic Clerics and the Perils of Public Intellectualism”

Bo Peery (George Washington University), “On ‘Doing Nothing’: Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr Debate the Merits of Taking Action in a Tumultuous World”

Randall J. Stephens (Eastern Nazarene College), “The Public Intellectual and the Public Anti-Intellectual: The Life of the Mind among Conservative Evangelicals”

Ronald E. Doel (Florida State University), “Religion, Science, and Cold War Visions: J. Lawrence Kulp and the Challenge of 20th Century Biography”

4:30 - 5:00pm: Break

5:00 - 6:30pm: CONCLUDING ROUNDTABLE WITH ALL CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS: “WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL?”
James Hall penthouse seminar room

For final discussion please read pre-circulated material: Lawrence J. Friedman, “Public Intellectuals on Philanthropy,” in Philanthropy in America: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia, ed. Dwight F. Burlingame (ABC-CLIO, 2004), 390-402; David A. Hollinger, “How Wide the Circle of the ‘We’? American Intellectuals and the Problem of the Ethnos since World War II,” American Historical Review (April, 1993); and selection from, Russell Jacoby, The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe (Basic Books, 1987)

7:30pm: Dinner at Chang Sho, 1712 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138

All participants are asked to contribute $25 per person toward the cost of the conference.

Jack Miller Center-Historically Speaking Prize Essay Competition

Randall Stephens

We are happy to report the inaugural winners of the Jack Miller Center-Historically Speaking Prize Essay Competition. At a recent Jack Miller Center reception held in conjunction with American Historical Association’s annual meeting in Boston, Pamela Edwards, the Miller Center's director of academic initiatives, and Donald Yerxa, senior editor of Historically Speaking, announced the winners of the 2010 Miller Center Prizes (of $1000 each) for the best essays published in Historically Speaking in the areas of (1) intellectual history and the history of political thought and (2) military-diplomatic history.

Christopher Shannon, associate professor of history at Christendom College, won the intellectual history prize for his essay: "From Histories to Traditions: A New Paradigm of Pluralism in the Study of the Past" (January 2011). Peter Paret of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton won the military-diplomatic prize for his essay "Two Historians on Defeat and War and Its Causes" (June 2010). The Society thanks the Miller Center for its support of historical scholarship in the service of improved public understanding. We are delighted with the partnership being forged between the Historical Society and the Jack Miller Center. It promises to be a very congenial and mutually beneficial collaboration.

Third Annual U.S. Intellectual History Conference

.
A notice from Andrew Hartman, organizer of the Third Annual U.S. Intellectual History Conference. The schedule looks tremendous. Well worth a visit to the Big Apple.

The Third Annual U.S. Intellectual History Conference be held on October 21-22, 2010 in New York City. The Conference is being organized by the editors of the U.S. Intellectual History (USIH) blog in coordination with the City University of New York's Center for the Humanities (The Graduate Center). This year’s theme is “Intellectuals and Their Publics.”

Beyond dozens of exciting and relevant sessions, I would especially like to call attention to our keynote speaker and our two evening plenary sessions.

The keynote will be given by Harvard University Professor James Kloppenberg on Friday (Oct. 22) afternoon. Kloppenberg will be presenting from his book, "Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope, and the American Political Tradition," forthcoming from Princeton University Press.

The first plenary session, on Thursday (Oct. 21) evening, is on "Renewing Black Intellectual History," featuring Adolph Reed, Jr., Kenneth Warren, Dean Robinson, and Touré Reed. Based on an anthology of same title, this plenary seeks to map the changing conditions of black political practice and experience from Emancipation to Obama.

The second plenary session, on Friday (Oct. 22) evening, is titled, "Intellectual History for What?" It includes George Cotkin, Rochelle Gurstein, Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn, Wilfred McClay, David Steigerwald, and Casey Nelson Blake, who will raise a number of questions involving the relationship between intellectual history and less specialized audiences and genres of expression, including: intellectual history and social/cultural criticism; intellectual history as a resource for moral reflection and edification; writing for, teaching, and speaking to generalist audiences; and the ambiguous position of intellectual history within the research university.

Other notable participants include, in no particular order: Jackson Lears, Jennifer Burns, Kim Phillips-Fein, James Livingston, Bruce Kuklick, Leo Ribuffo, Robert Westbrook, Joan Shelly Rubin, Andrew Jewett, Jonathan Scott Holloway, Martin Burke, Eugene McCarraher, Daniel Borus, Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, J. David Hoeveler, Jennifer Delton, Philip Gorski, Nancy Sinkoff, Neil Jumonville, and Jeffrey Perry.

Program and registration information.

Larry Friedman on Erich Fromm and Public Intellectuals

Randall Stephens

See the new issue of Historically Speaking, now available on the Project Muse site. (Most will only be able to access the full issue from a university computer or with a university account.)

I excerpt here part of my review with Larry Friedman, professor of history in Harvard’s Mind, Brain, and Behavior Initiative at Harvard University. Friedman has published a variety of books and articles on the history of psychology, the history of race and racism, and the history of social reform movements. His books include: The White Savage: Racial Fantasies in the Postbellum South (Prentice-Hall, 1970), Inventors of the Promised Land (Knopf, 1975), Gregarious Saints: Self and Community in American Abolitionism, 1830–1870 (Cambridge University Press, 1982), Menninger: The Family and the Clinic (Knopf, 1990) and a definitive study of developmental psychologist and psychoanalyst Erik Erikson: Identity’s Architect (Harvard University Press, 1999). He’s currently working on a biography of one of the most influential psychologists and public intellectuals of the 20th century, Erich Fromm.

"Erich Fromm and the Public Intellectual in Recent American History: An Interview with Larry Friedman," conducted by Randall Stephens, Historically Speaking, September 2010.

Randall Stephens: The popular psychologist and social critic Erich Fromm was once one of the most influential public intellectuals in the West. Yet many are unfamiliar with his life and work today. Could you say something about his context and significance?

Larry Friedman: Yes, that’s true. But his influence is still felt in many quarters around the globe and, as you say, he was once a major public figure. . . .

Fromm is significant for a number of reasons. But, perhaps most importantly, he had a wide influence as a best-selling author. His first book, Escape from Freedom (1941), linked Nazi and authoritarian regimes with the individual’s fear of freedom and autonomy. To escape from freedom was to find a greater sense of order in sadomasochism and its cycle of degrading others. Fromm’s The Sane Society (1955) railed against consumerism and made the case for local face-to-face democracy. His most enduring and popular work, The Art of Loving (1956), called for the love of self as a central component in the capacity to befriend and love others. It sold a staggering 30 million copies globally and was available in airports, drug stores, you name it. In 1973 he published The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, which suggested that a conflict exists in all people between necrophilia and biophilia, a rage for death and annihilation on one hand and an affirmation and love of life on the other. To complete this book, Fromm took up the study of neuroscience, physical anthropology, linguistics, and other fields far outside of his training in psychoanalysis to explain why some favored death and destruction while others preferred life and love. We might speculate that if mainline psychoanalysis had branched into other fields as Fromm had done, psychoanalysis might have escaped the doldrums of recent decades. . . .

Stephens: How relevant are [Erich] Fromm's interests and causes to the average educated reader today?

Friedman: For one, his writings on war and devastation are still remarkably discerning. Of course, in Escape from Freedom he was concerned with the perils of Nazism and Stalinism. But he also pointed to future developments, like McCarthyism and the Red Scare. And he is exceedingly relevant even to today's world. Take, for instance, his position on the Mideast, specifically Israel. He was very critical of Israeli belligerence. His views bear some resemblance to those of Noam Chomsky.

Stephens: Your historical work has had a heavy psychological component. What's your opinion of the psychohistory of the 1960s and 1970s?

Friedman: I thought much psychohistory had become reductionist by the late 1960s. I felt that it was giving psychological exploration a bad name. It overemphasized the psychoanalytical element and did not employ cognitive psychology or neuroscience. It tended to be ahistorical. Now what is sometimes called the new cultural history is heavily psychological, but less reductionist than the old psychohistory of the 1960s and early 1970s.

Stephens: Your next book is about Richard Hofstadter and the mid-century New York scene. I wonder if you'd say something about that.

Friedman: Hofstadter was one of the greatest historians of the modern era. You can say he's wrong on a number of points, but he's brilliantly wrong and always worth going back to. Current debates about the role of conservative religion in America or the influence of anti-intellectualism revolve around some of Hofstadter's basic ideas. His take on the American political tradition continues to influence high school curricula. He remains amazingly relevant. What interests me especially is mid-century New York City. His friends and associates who lived there, intellectual giants like Peter Gay, helped shape our basic understandings of history and culture. Hofstadter also interacted with Manhattan's theater community and art world. Hofstadter's New York in the 1950s and 1960s was a fascinating intellectual and cultural hub. >>>

Larger Pictures

Heather Cox Richardson

The Saturday night plenary session of the Historical Society conference got me wondering about the larger contours of history. The main speaker was Michael Barone currently of the American Enterprise Institute, who delivered a presentation on “The Enduring Character of America's Political Parties in Times of Continual Change.” Leo Ribuffo of George Washington University and Sean Wilentz of Princeton commented. (Listen to full lecture and comments here.)

Barone revealed his past career as a pollster (he was a vice president at the polling firm of Peter D. Hart Research Associates from 1974 to 1981). He outlined the percentages of the vote for each party in elections spanning the twentieth century to point out that elections were decided by quite small margins. To win, parties had to mobilize pivotal constituencies: quite small populations that determined the electoral votes of large states or regions to swing elections one way or another.

Ribuffo responded to this analysis by pointing out that Barone’s numbers imposed an order on electoral politics that simply wasn’t there. Elections were often decided by quirky contingencies that no one could have foreseen.

Wilentz also poked holes in Barone’s analysis. He pointed out that Barone had utterly neglected a discussion of the role of class in determining voting patterns. Any analysis of American politics without that element included was simply missing the point, he suggested.

And listening to these three distinguished scholars, I couldn’t shut up the voice in my own head whispering that the role of ideas in politics was absent from this particular discussion. Surely the parties stand for something, and people vote according to their beliefs about what the parties will do in office.

Each of these arguments has merit, and is probably, at some level, right. So how can they be reconciled to produce a definitive account of American political history? Or is it the nature of deep historical research to produce a number of accounts from which individuals pick as most important the ones that resonate most closely with their own unique experience?

This is a different question than that of the postmodernists, who ultimately argued that there was no such thing as “truth” or “history” because each perspective was different and equally valuable. The question of reconciling the different perspectives of cliometrics, contingency, class, ideology, and so on, is fundamentally a question of what constitutes good history.

Forced to think this one through, I would throw my weight behind the idea that all of these different factors matter in general, but that individual ones take the lead in different eras. They also might matter in every era, but answer different questions. For me, though, the question Barone, Ribuffo, and Wilentz raised remains an open one.

First Annual Conference on Public Intellectuals, 23-24 April 2010, Harvard University

Randall Stephens

This weekend I'll be taking part in an interesting new conference on public intellectuals. The organizers Larry Friedman (Harvard) and Damon Freeman (UPenn) hope to draw interested parties to the conference. All sessions (held in Harvard's William James Hall) are open to the public.

Here's the summary:

In 1993, literary critic Edward Said defined the ideal intellectual as someone who stood outside circles of power while advancing knowledge and freedom for the wider public in "speaking truth to power." This first annual Conference on Public Intellectuals seeks to deepen and broaden Said's critique by providing an opportunity to scholars who are writing on public intellectuals.

The conference will take place over a period of two days, Friday and Saturday, 23-24 April 2010 at Harvard University. It is free and open to the public. The conference venue is in Room 1305 of William James Hall, 33 Kirkland Street on Harvard's campus. Sixteen papers are spread over four sessions: Public Intellectuals as Cultural Icons; Religion, Science, and Tolerance; and Race, Gender, and Protest, Parts One and Two. The conference also features two plenary sessions on Career Reflections. The conference is also working in conjunction with "The Future of American Intellectual History" symposium taking place Friday afternoon, 23 April in the Lower Level Conference Room at Harvard's Busch Hall.

See the full program here.

Further Discussion of State of Intellectual History at U.S. Intellectual History Blog

Randall Stephens

Over at U.S. Intellectual History Tim Lacy and others have been commenting on the forum Historically Speaking ran in September on the state of intellectual history. This is a great ongoing discussion about some of the issues raised in the forum and some of the matters left out of it. Lacy writes:

I first received word of Historically Speaking's forum in August. The prospect excited me both for its topic (of course) and the participants: Daniel Wickberg, David A. Hollinger, Sarah E. Igo, and Wilfred M. McClay. It is not every day that advanced and senior historians in intellectual history choose to wrap their minds around this peculiar subfield, whether assessing the United States variety or otherwise. I am grateful for each contributor's effort, and that Historically Speaking took on the topic. The forum did not disappoint. The contributions touched on a great many issues for the U.S. branch of intellectual history. Apart from simple topical relevance, every essay held persuasive points. Indeed, Wickberg noted in his final rejoinder that one can "scarcely address all the issues that were discussed" (p. 22). My colleague Paul Murphy called the forum "engrossing." As such, I believe the endeavor already qualifies as required reading for all graduate students and working professionals in U.S. intellectual history. Just the books and articles cited in each forum essay should be on required reading lists across American graduate programs. read on>>>

Many thanks to Tim Lacy and other commentators for picking up the thread!

September Issue of Historically Speaking

Randall Stephens

The new issue of Historically Speaking will soon be mailed out to subscribers. Not long after that, it will appear on Project Muse. The September issue includes a variety of essays, interviews, and an extended forum on the current state of intellectual history. Senior editor Donald Yerxa introduces the forum as follows:

The sense that the discipline of history was marginalizing traditional fields like diplomatic, economic, military, constitutional, and intellectual history—fields that critics charge focus far too much on elite decision makers—was a major concern of the founders of the Historical Society. As the Society enters its second decade, it is appropriate to revisit this matter, especially when the status of traditional historical fields is still debated, most recently in the pages of the New York Times (Patricia Cohen, “Great Caesar’s Ghost! Are Traditional History Courses Vanishing?” June 10, 2009). [See this earlier post on the matter here.] Historically Speaking has received a generous grant from the Earhart Foundation to publish a series of forums examining the state of four traditional fields that some believe are being neglected in today’s academy. Intellectual history is the focus of our first forum. We asked Daniel Wickberg, a cogent observer of historiographical trends, to write the lead essay. Three distinguished intellectual historians—David Hollinger, Sarah Igo, and Wilfred McClay—respond, followed by Wickberg’s rejoinder.

In his lead essay, Daniel Wickberg writes:

What the transformations wrought by both the linguistic and cultural turns point to is just how much the methods, approaches, and theoretical concerns that have characterized intellectual history have become central to mainstream historical practice. A generation ago, intellectual history was in crisis. Today there is evidence everywhere that intellectual history speaks to the dominant historiography of our day; its insights and methods have become part of the common coin of the most significant work currently being done. And yet there is a lingering sense that intellectual history as intellectual history is a field safely ignored by most historians, that the old arguments for its dismissal still retain life, that intellectual historians sit on the margin of the history department where more mainstream historians are free to characterize them as not quite historians. So the contemporary condition of intellectual history is somewhat paradoxical.

Table of Contents, Historically Speaking, September 2009

A Superficial Evocation of Our Times
Joseph Amato

Becoming Historians: An Interview with James M. Banner, Jr. and John R. Gillis
Conducted by Donald A. Yerxa

Pillars of World Christianity: A Review Essay
Robert Eric Frykenberg

Securing Possession: A New Way of Understanding the Past
David Day

Last Rites: A Conversation with John Lukacs
Conducted by Donald A. Yerxa

A Forum on the Current State of Intellectual History

Is Intellectual History a Neglected Field of Study?
Daniel Wickberg

Thinking is as American as Apple Pie
David A. Hollinger

Reply to Daniel Wickberg
Sarah E. Igo

Response to Daniel Wickberg
Wilfred M. McClay

Rejoinder to Hollinger, Igo, and McClay
Daniel Wickberg

America in the Jacksonian Era: An Interview with David S. Reynolds
Conducted by Randall J. Stephens

Dual Discovery, Dual Dialogue: Reflections on the Global Modernization of Historical Writing
Q. Edward Wang

Peaceable Kingdom Lost
Kevin Kenny

Lincoln and His Admirals: An Interview with Craig L. Symonds
Conducted by Donald A. Yerxa

Who’s Counting?
Derek Wilson

The History of Race on Trial in America
Ariela J. Gross

Spiritual, Yes; But Religious? A Review of Edward J. Blum's W. E. B. Du Bois, American Prophet
Kevin M. Schultz

Letters