On periodisation: two ‘early modern’ Englands?

Sorry for the lack of activity on the blog, currently writing a few pieces. Thought the following would be interesting as a stop gap.

the many-headed monster

Brodie Waddell

This is the fourth post in our new Monster Mini-Series on periodisation. Click here for the Series introduction.

Last week I had the privilege of attending Laura Gowing’s inaugural lecture on ‘A Trade of One’s Own’. She told the fascinating story of women’s changing relationship with London and its livery companies over the course of the seventeenth century.

It was a brilliant lecture in all sorts of ways, but what caught my ear was the way she implicitly divided her story into two periods. From my recollection, there were relatively few formal changes in the way the companies dealt with women over the course of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – yet Gowing showed that unofficial norms shifted substantially. Specifically, she showed that the number of women as mistresses and apprentices rose from the 1640s onwards and resulted in a new landscape in which – for…

View original post 754 more words

Advertisements

Contemplating approaches to History

I am currently off work. Two weeks ago i twisted my knee moving some boxes (of books) and have been sat at home.

During that last 14 days i have done the following: i have read, i have played Fallout 4 and i have watched a lot of Time Team the Channel 4 archaeology programme from yesteryear. Aside from my reflections on how Tony Robinson is clearly a synth (he never seems to age) i have been struck by the relationship between the discussions/arguments in my texts and some of the arguments in the programme and others i have watched.

Before i go on, i appreciate that Time Team isn’t necessarily an expression of best practice and in some ways is either dull or repetitive. My own love for the programme came from a time when all History documentaries where either the brilliance of monarchs or battles. Time Team gave me as a youngster an insight into how people lived, and whilst i always appreciated Phil Harding playing with a cannon, knowing where people came from even within the confines of an hour-long programme edited appealed to me.

As part of my general preparations for Keele i am currently reading a few texts which i feel will be useful ahead of my general historical studies i will have to do. As much as i would like to keep focused on reading Tudor Economic Documents, the MRes is an opportunity for a formal historical grounding which i lack.

So this is my current reading list:

  • History in Practice by Ludmilla Jordanova
  • In Defence of History by Richard J Evans
  • Rome by Michel Serres
  • Reason, Truth and History by Hilary Putnam
  • Historical Economics by Charles P Kindleberger

this is an entirely subjective collection of books that i have kept out of storage before i move house so i make no claims or judgements about them other than they interested me at the exact moment i had to make a selection, but they are important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they represent my reading around the subject of History. Serres is a French Philosopher and somewhat off the wall, and Hilary Putnam is a (recently Deceased) philosopher from America. Secondly, Jordanova and Evans represent a view of History as it is in practice and praxis. Finally, with all of them i have varying ways of writing which interest me enormously.

As i have stated previously i am tend to look at History as both a discipline and as a subject. These texts help with this process and assist with the reflective practice which i get the feeling is central to my studies.

However, watching re-runs of Time Team has given me the chance to ‘apply’ some of the issues which seems to repeatedly arise from the reading. All of it stems from the epistemological, the ‘knowing’ of what the evidence is telling us as researchers. Often in the programme we will have some sort of disagreement which is either:

  • Archaeologists v archaeologists
  • Archaeologists v historians
  • Geo-Physical archaeologists v everyone
  • Archaeologist surveyor v everyone

And as it is a programme these disagreements are concentrated for the viewing public, but they also reflect the very obvious fact that it is possible to present the same evidence to differing groups and arrive at differing understandings. The debates and discussions, from the voracity of the evidence available through to the conclusions of what the dig means generally reflect the debates i am reading about in Jordanova in terms of the practical ‘doing’ of history.

But more subtly, the philosophical work is also being reflected. For example, Serres book ‘Rome’ is the first of his ‘Foundations’ trilogy and its broadly defined as a work of History looking at the foundation of Rome. Personally, i view Serres work as being a work with History, an almost literature based approach to explore the origins of structures and systems.

Crucially, Serres claims to have ‘no method’ as such he simply follows sources and resources and see what they tell him. Such an approach is perhaps difficult to understand but a version of it can be seen in how in certain circumstances on Time Team, when the evidence is different from expectation forces a change in approach either to open another trench or to review the assumptions held. Because of its condensed time scales, a process that would take place over a longer timeframe, is in fact condensed and that process itself relies upon what the evidence states rather than having the time to prove your point.

But i have also been struck at the question ‘why did they do that?’ Putnam, in his works used the example of an Ant which had drawn on sand a perfect portrait of Winston Churchill. Putnam’s work in part focuses on the intention of participants, the Ant didn’t intend to portray Churchill, it just did.

Whilst excusing the Mathematical improbability of that happening, the idea of intention behind someone’s existence is also interesting to see reflected in how i approach History. Looking at the evidence i assume a certain amount of intent on the part of the people i am studying and observing. The reality is however, i cannot be sure ‘what’ that intent is.

A recent re-run of Time Team looked at a cave where bones had been discovered. The debate focused on whether the bones were involved in a ritual process or if they had been dumped. On the last day, evidence was found for a causeway that lead up to the Cave, and based in part on the evidence of some of the people found in the pit being sick or even murdered, the suggestion was made that the cave was in part ritual because those people where ‘victims’ of social pressures and outcasts.

To me, the intention in that theory is separate from the evidence, but i found it fascinating to watch the episode when reading in Jordanova and Evans talking, in essence, about historians and their facts. Taken together, it presents a neat contradiction, between looking at what the evidence states and what we want it to. In fact, as Jordanova highlights, the complexities of causes and impacts across a wide variety of issues from economic and political have affected how we try to decipher the intent of the people we have collected evidence for.

Reading and watching at the same time, it seems that the methodological faults of Time Team are simply a neatly packaged version of the ones we already have in History. In fact they give a visual representation of how History has evolved in recent years, even if the debates can’t be resolved. Unpicking this will be fun.

 

 

Obama, History & Brexit

The President of the United States has suggested that the UK should remain in the EU because of a ‘post-colonial’ grudge. This nugget of insight has come from Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.

Whether you have decided about the EU referendum, our national History is a key part of understanding the identities we create in forming our opinions. Thus, although i doubt the voracity of Messrs Johnson and Farrage statement, Obama having a grudge is a perfectly reasonable position for him to have. Likewise, if Mr Johnson wanted to invoke the great statesmen of our past, or even use Mr Obama’s campaign statements, he is doing a similar thing referencing a portion of his own historical experience to make a point.

However, if Obama truly held a grudge against the UK wouldn’t he encourage us to leave? With all of the economic uncertainty and the potential reduction in our world standing wouldn’t that be a worthy means of screwing the British as Mr Johnson presumes is the motivation, and one laudable bearing in mind the appalling way in which Empire’s tend to treat people who oppose it?

Obama’s statement on the EU is far from using his ancestry as a stick, and more a profound recognition that the world has moved on and changed. History shows us Empires rise, change and fall, but also that our institutions tend to evolve as well. America appears to be grappling with this same issue, following a long century of economic stability and strength, its reconciling the cost of its conflicts and its domestic institutions with the way the world has changed.

I doubt Mr Obama, whose stuggles to close Guantanamo Bay, is judging the British for the way it treated the Mau Mau rebellion, but if he did – he would be right (in my opinion) to do so.

Rather like the legacy of Guantanamo and the Mau Mau, this is an issue of recognising that the ability of nation states to project themselves on the world stage is undertaken through supra-national bodies.

It’s why Argentina and Spain are using the UN as a means to raise the colonial issues of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, and they have more reason than Mr Obama to propose Brexit. But it’s also the reason that these issues take longer to resolve, because no one nation has enough power to force its will on the others.

Far from a grudge, this is a friend warning his mate that he is about make a fool of himself at the party.

 

 

Facing the future with a sense of the past

When you are facing changes it becomes natural to think of the elements and items which have become familiar.

Strangely enough one of those things for me is the sense of being organised and well-planned. It’s a skill which doesn’t come naturally to me at all but one which i think i have acquired over time through my work.

As an undergraduate i coasted and was generally useless. At least once it led to me letting down colleagues on marked assignments and worse it undermined my standing generally meaning that my sense of not being listened too came to be truthful but because of my own arrogance.

Being older and wiser, I have to avoid this situation again.

Something which the world of work has taught me is that being organised isn’t simply getting stuff done on time; it’s an sense of what you are doing each day and over the long-term. In my most recent position I had a manager, whom i would say, got the best out of me. To put it bluntly he beat the edges off me and rebuilt my sense of how i approach each day at work. Going from a rough guess to a clear plan, is more losing the daily act of faith that you dont miss something rather than somehow betraying your character.

To do lists, blocking time out in calendar, and simply knowing when things are going to hit a crunch point are all obvious points. But the more I think and reflect, I have a tendency to plan without meaning too. Prior to this my approach to work was very much in the moment and i doubt that my studies (much like my career) allows for such a narrow view.

Its been a valuable lesson, looking to my long break before I start at Keele it would be easy to see it as essentially a long holiday. It isn’t, although it is a break, it is a break with the past and thus has to be forward-looking. I am already planning it, but not within an inch of insanity – I am realistic. But the realisation that i am prepared to do that fills me with confidence that i am not planning to fail.

Part of that stems from me deciding to invest in Microsoft Office & Outlook on my Mac. What has brought this betrayal? As much as I appreciate and love google and apple products, the work-inspired familiarity of office and outlook are worth the price i have paid. It’s no more than that, i feel in a better place with familiar bongs and tones of office and outlook shredding my core memory and halving my battery life. And, as i currently have the salary to pay for it, it doesnt feel prohibitive.

However, there is always the pertinent point that best intentions don’t always reflect the best outcomes. But if I mess this up, it wont be because i have been half-witted and badly organised.

The Economic History Society Conference, 2016

From a conference i had to miss but will definitely attend next year….

Dr Anne L. Murphy

Ec Hist Soc confBetter late than never, here are my thoughts on the 2016 Economic History Society conference held at Robinson College Cambridge on the weekend of 1-3 April 2016. This was the best attended of the Society’s conferences to date with over 300 delegates, nearly 50 New Researchers papers and over 100 Academic papers. There was an abundance of riches for scholars of the eighteenth-century. And the nine academic sessions and six new researcher sessions dedicated to financial history in some form this year attest to the continuing and welcome interest in the field in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis.

The EHS always begins on the Friday afternoon with the New Researchers sessions. For the past three years I have been Chair of the NR Prize Committee. This has been a welcome task because it has reminded me of the generosity of academics who give up their time to observe…

View original post 1,177 more words

And so it begins….

With only 71 working days left of the gainful employment i have had for the last ten years, i must confess that i am both excited and anxious that my decision has finally caught up with me.

To explain, at the ripe old age of 31 i have decided to abandon my career in local government and undertake a MRes at Keele University. I have always had a passion for History and over time this has evolved from the your classic, linear model of dates, battles and people into an obsession with economic history.

My partner, whom you will often read referenced, has been the driving force behind me in doing this, i honestly couldn’t have even started the process of thinking about this until she pushed me. To leave a well paid, strategic job in a good local authority at a time of massive public sector reform has both surprised me and filled me with the obvious trepidations that you would expect.

So why am i doing it? and what is this blog for?

On the first point, i am doing this because i should. If i didn’t i would always wonder if i should have and i would frankly be sad about it As my partner said, it won’t do me any harm to take a least a year out and test myself – it might even be the start of something new.

In terms of this blog, its purpose is ill-defined at present. I am by all thoughts an absent minded writer of a blog. My aim is to become a better writer over time, share my experience and some of my thoughts; beyond that i haven’t a clue about this and its purpose.