Cross-posted to Cliopatria
Let’s say you have carte blanche to populate a history department located in, say, the U.S. midwest. For purposes of the exercise, the department has no preexisting faculty — or, if you like, numerous faculty will retire over the next five years, and you are asked to develop a strategic plan showing what the department should look like in five years. Select the faculty positions you consider most important for the 8,000 undergraduate students who attend this liberal arts college. You have fifteen FTE (full-time equivalent) slots available and a salary/benefits budget of $1,290,000, with benefits computed at 36 percent of salary. (Thus, a faculty member receiving $50,000 in salary would also require $18,000 in benefits.) You can count on an annual pool of 1.5 percent (e.g., $19,350 for the first academic year, for merit increases).
Thus:
FY 5: 1,290,000 (Year 1 of the strategic plan)
FY 6: 1,309,350
FY 7: 1,422,225
FY 8: 1,493,336
FY 9: 1,568,003
What positions would you select, and why?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
38 Comments
My choices:
1. Colonial/Revolutionary US History (1600-1800)
2. Early US history (1800-1877)
3. Modern U.S. History (1877 to present)
4. Early Modern Europe (ca. 1500-1800)
5. Modern Europe (1800 to present)
6. African American history or African diaspora
7. US Women’s history
8. Women’s history (geographical specialization open)
9. East Asian history (preference for modern China or Japan)
10. Modern Middle East (ca 1850-present)
11. Latin American history
12. Ancient or medieval history
13. World History (to 1500)
14. World history (1500 to present)
15. 20th century military/diplomatic (geographical specialization open)
Most of my choices are pretty conventional. I figure students need a good grounding in the history of the United States (1, 2, 3; and certain specific experiences within that history (6, 7, 15). Similar, Europe has been so important, both intrinsically and in its influence on the U.S., as to rate two positions (4, 5), reinforced by ancient or medieval history (12). Ancient history would also provide a useful foundation for modern Middle Eastern history (10). Latin America, East Asia, and Modern Middle East (9, 10, 11) are included to give students exposure to the non-western world, especially those regions most likely to be of importance to the future of this country. The two world history positions (13, 14) are intended to give students a solid overview of the dynamics of colonization, decolonization, and globalization. Depending on who was hired, they would also provide additional depth to one or more of the nonwestern fields.
I include two positions in women’s history (7, 8 ) because the history of half the people who have ever walked the planet is of major importance. It would also give students exposure to gender as a category of historical analysis, and would add depth to US history and the history of some other part of the world.
I think that leaves just military/diplomatic history. I include it mainly to demonstrate to people who complain about the few number of jobs in military history just why this state of affairs exists — it isn’t necessarily a matter of knee jerk hostility to the field, but rather the fact that other fields are also important and college resources are finite. I selected modern military/diplomatic history (15) because this specialization seemed most likely to help students grasp the present national security environment.
I have no illusions that the mil/dip slot didn’t come at the expense of other worthwhile possibilities; e.g., subsaharan Africa, south Asia, environment history, legal/constitutional history, etc.
Other thoughts?
Hmmm…I see the logic in your choices, and I don’t disagree with them, but I would provide a slightly different list that may, nonetheless, be compatible with yours. For instance, in this day and age an Africanist is needed in a department this size, but that could fall under 13 or 14; similarly, I think a department this size should have regular offerings in American intellectual history, but that could be covered by #s 1-3 and 7. Oh, and a South Asianist would be nice (but one can see how that might overlap with 5, 13, or 14).
To be blunt, what concerns me about your list is the opportunities for mischief is still leaves. I think it is necessary for a department to have women’s historians and social historians (for instance), but in your scheme it’s quite possible for a department to fill _all_ these slots with one or the other, and never appoint good scholars with primary specialties in fields such as political or intellectual history. You’ve given yourself an out by saving one slot for your favored specialty; but re-describe that slot as a “20th c. international” one and it’s easy to see how it could be filled by a scholar knowing nothing about diplomatic/military/national security history. So I would favor your list only if there was a second “thematic” list overlying it that guaranteed a position to specialists in such fields as American political and military history. What should these fields be? I’ll hazard an (incomplete) list:
1. military or diplomatic history
2. American political history
3. American intellectual/cultural history
4. Economic history
5. American social history
6. Environmental history
7. US or European religious history
8. History of Science
Given this, there is still a lot of leeway to hire a range of scholars; for instance, one could imagine hiring a US women’s historian with an intellectual specialty, an Asian economic historian, a historian of the British Empire who also does South Asia, a historian of ancient science…
Hey, you did say you had carte blanche.
I’m imagining Iowa City …
My suggestion is that you look for someone who’s written interestingly in the area of Federal Indian Law or Canadian Aboriginal Law.
Incidently, the 2×100 slots (pre- and post-1877) sum to half the (400 years) period from ethnohistoric contact to the federal period, and even European-American history in this period is wicked interesting.
So read that as a colonial == post-colonial equivalency suggestion.
Having mentioned ethnographic contact, and presumably there is someone doing gender and deconstruction, I suggest you look for someone who’s written interestingly in the area of the late-precontact, either a PoMo archy or a straight (or lgbtg) ethnohistorian. My SO just mentioned she’s available.
Since we’re in Iowa … and we’re doing a decent job of the indigenous, and settler histories of Mezo, and British North America, a historian of cultigens and culture would be … unique. Left to the Ag dept, this is just current yeild rubbish and historical trivia. It is why there are any Europeans in Iowa, and why they have self-organized variously for two centuries.
Mexican social history is another winner.
monboddo – Your choices make sense to me, but I wonder a bit about the “potential for mischief” comment. Suppose a department adhered mainly to geographical criteria and in each search, the best finalist happened to approach the subject from a social, cultural, or gender perspective. Would this be an instance in which programmatic balance should trump intellectual quality?
By the same token, I’m not sure than even defining a position as “political history” would necesarily yield only candidates with a traditional approach to the subject. Here I can easily imagine a specialist in race, gender or class, since much of political history consists of a power struggle to exclude from, or include within, the political community such groups as African Americans, women, and the poor and propertyless.
That’s meant not as a challenge but simply as an observation. And I thank both you and ebw for being the first to participate in this exercise.
Personally, in a department of only 15 faculty members, I’m not sure I could really justify a military historian. And as ebw avers, part of a department’s makeup would — or at least should — reflect the community in which it found itself. Thus in some loaclities Hispanic history, immigration/ethnicity history, urban history, business history, etc. would be logical choices.
I’m wondering–in such a small department, could you really afford to have two positions in women’s history? Or, for that matter, one in Latin American history? If it were up to me, I’d focus more on a few areas:
1. The British Atlantic empire and the American Revolution
2. The early national and Antebellum periods, the Civil War, and Reconstruction
3. The Gilded Age and Progressive era
4. Post-1917 US history
5. Post-1917 US history
6. Someone capable of teaching courses on Greece, Rome, and Late Antiquity
7. Someone to teach courses on Europe from Late Antiquity to the 15th century
8. Early Modern Europe, perhaps an historian of Ancien Regime France
9. Early Modern Britain, especially the 17th and 18th centuries
10. 19th and 20th-century Europe
11. The Middle East and South Asia after the coming of Islam
12. Someone who can teach Chinese history, pre-Han to 1644
13. China post-1644, with a focus on the 19th and 20th centuries
14. World History, pre-1500
15. World History, 1500-1800
I should probably drop one of the American history positions to make room for another historian of 19th or 20th-century Europe. And ideally I’d have separate positions for Reformation and Ancien Regime Europe, but I really wanted a position in British history. Then again, the scholar teaching the first British Empire and the Revolution could probably teach early modern British history. Now that I think about it, this opening would be better used to hire a specialist in the second British Empire, in order to cover world-historical themes post-1800.
A position in the modern Middle East would probably be useful for students as well, but going with the World History emphasis, I’ll choose the pre-modern period. Though I guess you could choose a Middle East scholar engaged with World History for the pre-1500 World History slot. The same goes for pre-Qing China. I think having at least two positions in Chinese history is critical, including one on the modern period, not only for the sake of engaging in the World History debate but also to better prepare students for the world-historical changes they’ll be living through.
Ajay – Sounds reasonable to me. Seems like a lot of US history, though — basically a third of the department. So I agree with your thought to trim one of those slots to make room for something else, though not necessarily (IMO) more Europe.
Do you want a department that can cover many areas competently or one that specializes and really excells in one aspect, at the expense of others? That depends on the nature of the institution. I could for instance see the Wellesly (http://www.wellesley.edu/) history department having at least three historians dedicated to womens’ history. For a West Point, I would want more military historians, even at the expense of leaving other areas uncovered. Howard University should definitely have more than one African-American/African area historian.
As for what our hypothetical midwestern unversity should look like…if you are going to go the broad area coverage route, as you seem to suggest, I would propose that military history should have the same one slot everyone else gets. How many large “general” universities that use the broad approach have a military historian on staff?
Jaron, I’d like to see a complete list from you: Fill those fifteen slots!
I will try. Give me a day or so to think on it. I am just a history buff and not in academia.
Jaron, As an alternative, you could poke around the history departments of small liberal arts colleges until you find a range of coverage you like!
1. Colonial/Revolutionary US History (1600-1800, gender/culture/political)
2. Early US history (1800-1877, gender/culture/political)
3. Modern U.S. History (1877 to present, gender/culture/political)
4. Early Modern Europe and Empire (ca. 1500-1800, gender/culture/class relations)
5. Modern Europe (1800 to present, gender/culture/class relations/political)
6. African American history or African diaspora
7. East Asian history (preference for modern China or Japanese Empire)
8. Women’s history (geographical specialization open)
9. Latin American history
10. Modern Middle East (ca 1850-present)
11. Subsaharan Africa
12. Southeast Asia
13. Ancient or medieval history
14. U.S. Legal/Constitutional
15. 20th century military/diplomatic (geographical specialization open)
The top five slots should have a nice balance between gender, culture, and political history. Your military/diplomatic and U.S. Legal could further balance these areas for those who desire a different perspective in the big five subject area. I’ve cut world history. I’m sure those types of courses work in some departments but I have yet to run across one that really succeeded down here. You could also lose the Women’s history position if the big five tend to concentrate in that area. If that’s the case, I’d add a Russian History position.
Well, I’d say you’d want one Ancient and one medieval, and maybe lose the early World. The rationale is that the service courses are also going to be World courses, and faculty should be able to handle them.
Alternatively, lose one of your damned Americanists. You have FOUR of them out of 15, for a maybe 400-year period. Sorry, but as an Ancient/Medieval person, it always amazes me that we get stuck trying to teach everything covered in a couple of thousand years, and seldom really get to specialize, because, well, lots o’Americanists.
And I think that it’s interesting that you are looking at particular emphases. I understand looking for balance, and I can see specifying one person in military history, one person in economic history, and one person in women’s history, areas TBD. But, for example, I’m more or less a political historian, in that my focus is on royal and noble administration — except that, in the Early Middle Ages, there’s no real way to do that kind of history without doing institutional history, church history, and social/family history, because the paucity of some types of sources and the nature of rulership and institutions demand it. That’s true for a lot of us, as you no doubt know. If I ever had to teach US History (heaven forbid), my class would be very heavy on social and economic history for the pre-revolutionary period, and very much institutional and constitutional history up to the Civil War. Part of that is that I think it’s important in a survey to expose students to lots of approaches, part because I find those approaches most interesting and the most accessible for the periods in question.
According to my department’s faculty page, we have 34 faculty engaged in some way, shape or form with American history. The list includes those on regional campuses, professors emeritus, and in some cases double counts professors if their interests span both pre-1877 and post-1877 US history. Still, it’s suggestive. By way of contrast, we have three medievalists listed on the faculty page, though I think a fourth (Heather Tanner) was inadvertently overlooked by the web author. So I think Another Damned Medievalist has a damned valid point.
BTW, I cross-posted this entry at Cliopatria and responses are beginning to come in the comment thread of that post as well.
UPDATE, October 1, 12:20 a.m.: As of this hour, there are 15 comments on the Cliopatria post, many quite extensive and quite good.
Mark–Thanks for the kind response. I identified the possibility of all the spots being filled in by gender/social historians because I think it the most likely possibility these days; I’d certainly oppose a department with a different bias as well, for instance one with all political historians. And I think your example–what if the best candidates in each chronological category are always (say) gender historians–is only applicable because you started with so many chronological slots. What if we had economic, intellectual, and military slots, and the best candidate for each was a post-45 US historian? Surely you’d bend the pure-merit approach a bit to cover more chronological territory.
And I couldn’t agree more that the categories needn’t always produce a “traditional” scholar of the field; one could imagine the economic spot going to a historian of colonial America who studies women’s economic activity, and a lot of the good recent American political history has a gender component.
BTW, on reflection I think most significant field missing from your list is History of Science.
Hmmm…This is how I would do it. I throw in the caveat that I am not an academic and know little of how best to organize a deparment, so your ideas will be far more informed.
1. East Asia (China focus, but competence in the region).
2. SE Asia
3. SW Asia (India focus, but ability to teach at least survey courses on the surrounding areas)
4. Africa (not an area I know much about, but it should be covered)
5. Middle East
6. Early Modern Europe
7. Modern Europe (I throw in 2 Europeon slots since:
a. This is still largely a western culture/society. Were this a university in India, I would have at most one slot for this area
b. This was the greatest focus of power in the modern era.
8. Ancient World
9. N. America
10. Latin/S. America
and now for the thematic historians:
)
11. Womens’ History
12. Military History
13. Islamic History
14. Jewish History (hey, its my list
15. Political/Philosophical Movements (nationalism, communism, etc.)
I justify themetic historians since those listed themes encompass many regions in many eras.
This is a model for a broad general competency. If the university wanted to really excell one area, I would give that chosen area or theme at least 3 dedicated faculty. Other spots would just go uncovered or there would have to be “catch all” world history professor to fill the gap.
For the purposes of maximum course coverage, here is my gut reaction:
1. Sub-Saharan Africa/World (Modern, open speciality)
2. East Asia/World (open period, speciality)
3. South Asia/World (open period, speciality)
4. Middle East/Islamic World (open period, speciality)
5. Caribbean/Atlantic World (open period, speciality)
6. South America/Pacific or Atlantic World(open period, speciality)
7. Mediteranean (pre-modern, open speciality)
Within these first seven, including least one environmental and one gender historian.
8-11. 4 European, including:
1 Medieval, 1 Early Modern, 2 Modern;
1 Britain, 1 France/Spain, 1 Germany, 1 Eastern Europe;
1 Gender.
12-15. 4 American, including
1 Colonial, 1 Early US, 2 Modern;
1 African-American; 1 Gender; 1 Cultural; 1 Political/Diplomatic.
Flame away 8-).
Cheers,
Mike Davidson
Mike, How are we to count 8-11 and 12-15, because it looks as if you have 9 FTEs in the former and 8 FTEs in the latter. Probably you mean to say that these profs should have more than one specialty, and the speacialties should be the ones you name; but if you’ve ever seen a college search you’ll realize it’s almost impossible to get that level of fine-tuning. You have to work from the pool of candidates who apply.
Anyway, no flame coming from this end, just a request for clarification.
I just discovered this site and am very pleased to have done so. I am neither an historian nor in the military (although I did stay in a Holiday Inn once). Being new to the site I thought I would just jump in and say “Howdy.” With that said, here is my suggestion for the new History department
1.American Colonial history (through the revolution)
2.19th-century American history
3, 20th- and 21st-century American history
4. Religious history
5. Early modern European history
6. 19th- through 21st-century European history.
7. Islamic history
8. Chinese and Japanese history
9. India and SE Asian history
10. Latin American history
11. Ancient & Medieval
12. Cultural history
13. Philosophy of History
14. Pre-19th-century military history
15. 19th-century and later military history
The first three [1,2,3] are pretty standard American history. Religious history [4] would include the history of the major religions, plus religious movements such as the Reformation. As I read about the culture wars I’m amazed how little background the participants have in the historical development of religious thought. The next two [5,6] are standard European areas. The next four [7,8,9,10] are specific regions in which we as Americans need greater understanding as the world becomes more global. I think we made a terrible strategic blunder in the 1950s and 1960s by not understanding the 1000 years of war and animosity between Vietnam and Chine. That animosity remains. As far as I know these two countries are the only communist countries to have gone to war with each other. Ancient and medieval history [11] because so much of what we are as a Western nation comes has it roots here. Cultural history [12] is the history of minority struggles. It’s focus should be world wide and not just on struggles in the US. Look minority struggles in Islamic countries, Asians countries, in Africa (in this case it would be majority struggles against minority rule). The Philosophy of History [13] historian should bring a focus on the nature of the study of history. This would be a look at the profession as a focus of inquiry. I would want someone with a strong philosophy background in addition to a history background. The pre-19th-century military historian [14] should be able to provide a cross-cultural perspective of the development of war. Look at not only the ‘Western way of war’ but also the Chinese way of war, the Indian way of war, the Japanese way of war, the early Egyptian way of war, etc. The idea is to expose the students to other methods of waging war than just the Western method. In Vietnam, many our guys were traumatized by how both the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese fought. They fought by a completely different set of norms and values. This grew out of a vary different military tradition. Finally a military historian is needed to teach modern and asymmetrical warfare. We are engaged in war today. And, we need to understand it better.
As you notice, I suggest two military history positions. I believe war is a central aspect of living in our age. Now more than ever, we need to understand war: why it begins, how it is conducted, how it effects aspects of our lives, and how our social and cultural values and norms effects the waging of war.
I left out World History. This seems to be a survey course rather than a chair in the department.
I also left out women history. I’m not convinced that women view societal and cultural issues much differently than men do. In a sense, I see all historical studies as aspects of social and cultural values and norms. Of course, I would not object to an endowed chair for women’s history.
And yes, I have thick eyebrow protrusions; knuckles drag on the ground; I’m covered with hair.
Rich
Mark,
No flame expected, it was a flippant comment.
To clarify, what I meant was that positions 8-11 could, for example, be covered be a French Medievalist, a British Early Modernist, and a German and Russian Modernist, with one of them being a Gender historian. The point being, of course, that more than one bird could be killed by each stone. I was not that precise for precisely the reason you brought up – the more precise one gets, the smaller the chance of a good applicant pool. It would be a matter of leaving all the possibilities open and attempting to hire the mix of candidates who provided the best coverage. (Same for 12-15.)
Cheers,
Mike Davidson
Mike – Thanks for the clarification.
Rich – Just a point of clarification on my part. Although the “Populate a History Department” post is written at the same time that we’re discussing the Ambrose-Hesseltine endowed chair at Wisconsin, I did not mean to suggest that the faculty slots at my notional history department would be endowed chairs. Just the reverse: I’m asking what faculty positions one would create if there were no endowed chairs has one had to use the college’s internal revenue stream.
That’s the case with most college and university faculty positions: they are paid for by student tuition, state taxes, or a combination of both. The best, or at least most savvy, colleges and universities have aggressive development campaigns that generate millions of dollars in private endowment funds. Ohio State, where I teach, is one of a handful of schools whose development campaigns have yielded over a billion dollars. (The last I looked, it stood at a bit over $2 billion.)
Money from the college or university’s general endowment, however, does not create endowed chairs, but rather supports new construction, general operating expenses, etc.
Endowed chairs are faculty positions that are entirely (or nearly so) supported by endowment revenue specifically earmarked for that position and that position only. These are comparatively plentiful at places like Harvard and Princeton but are otherwise unusual. Thus my department, which has well over 60 faculty members if one includes both regional and main campuses, has only four or five endowed chairs. An example would be the Raymond E. Mason Chair in American Military History, whose $1.5 million dollar endowment is dedicated specifically to a senior faculty position in, obviously, American Military History.
With that clarification established, let me say that you’ve created an interesting set of faculty positions. Having two military historians in a department of only fifteen is especially generous to my field. My sense would be that in such a small department, one is the most that could be justified, though nothing would hinder another faculty member from occasionally teaching (for instance) a course in World War II or the Vietnam War, just as I myself occasionally teach courses in non-military history. As, come to think of it, do most of my colleagues in the Ohio State military history program.
I forgot Heather was there! It’s always fun to see people you know via other people’s blogs. But again … in response to Rich’s post above .. Ancient — one post, Medieval, another post. Of course, my ideal department would have a real Ancient/Classics person, Somebody who did Late Antique/Early Medieval (perhaps with an emphasis in Islam), and one person who did the high and late MA. In a small (and not as small as my department, which consists of three Americanists and me) department, I’d cover it with one true Ancient person, one true medievalist, but whose second field was Ancient and whose own research was pre-1200, and an Early Modernist whose second field was Late Medieval. Frankly, I think you could get great coverage and complementary teaching if the World person was Early Modern in emphasis. By making sure that the Europeanists have distinct specialties and also strong overlaps, you end up with the ability to get the non-western people onto the roster. I’m wondering what their second fields would be, though. If the norm these days is for, say, East Asia + World, Sub-Saharan Africa + World, you could end up with a very strong department.
Argh — I meant a sub-field in Islam. In that set-up, the LA/EM person should be primarily a Europeanist. OF course, an Islamist would be nice.
I will adopt what a few others have done and go mainly for time periods and geographic specialties. It strikes me that hiring for specific approaches (Women, cultural, social, etc.) puts the cart before the horse. You should be able to fill most over the 15 positions.
1. Colonial/Revolutionary America
2. 19th Century America
3. 20th Century America
4. 20th Century America
5. U.S. Military History
6. American, period open
7. Latin America
8. Asia
9. Africa/African-American
10. Middle East
11. Ancient/Medieval
12. Early Modern Europe
13. Modern Europe
14. World
Last is an exception because he/she would require some specific technical knowledge.
15. Public History (almost certainly U.S.)
Why 7 Americanists out of 15? This is an *undergraduate* liberal arts program, not a graduate program. U.S. History courses are, from my experience, the most in demand.
My department, in a school just about the size of the hypothetical, has 14 FTE faculty, 7 of whom are non-Americanists. Many of our non-American historians struggle nearly every semester to get enough students to avoid cancellation of their classes for low enrollment. The U.S. courses, on the other hand, quickly max out.
“Many of our non-American historians struggle nearly every semester to get enough students to avoid cancellation of their classes for low enrollment. The U.S. courses, on the other hand, quickly max out.”
That is a great reason to have at least one military historian. Their classes will overflow with students and serve as a gateway to introduce people into aspects of history. And now for a lighter note:
http://web.reed.edu/cis/wss/arcane_sciences/index.html
Interesting discussion going on here. Always nice to fantasize about your ideal department. Since it’s not very big, I’ve chosen to select a large number of specializations without tying them to an era or geographical limits.
1) Ancient History (-500 AD)
Gender history
2) Medieval History (500-1500)
3) Early modern western history (1500-1870)
4) Modern history (1870-)
5) Social-economic history and demography
6) Cultural history and the history of ideas
7) Theory of history
9) History of religion
10) History of Colonization and decolonization
11) Asian History
12) African History
13) US History Pre-1800
14) US History Post-1800
15) Military History
This has the advantage of being able to teach courses together. (Not sure that’s done in American universities, but here in the Netherlands it happens a lot). Besides, if this department is supposed to teach to undergraduates, they will benefit by getting different perspectives on historical eras and problems.
For example, parts of a course on early American history could be taught by more than half of this staff:
13: sets the general outline of what is going on
3: elaborates on European developments behind exploration and discovery
10: outlines general history of colonization
6 & 9: discuss religion, culture and intellectual developments in America
5: talks of demography and the trade triangle Europe-Africa-America
8: lectures on the American family, men and women
12: explores the slave trade and its consequences
15: French & Indian Wars, Revolutionary wars.
Sounds like an interesting course to me, I’d sign up! But then, I’ve never had any specific American history at all…
mark, the endowed chair was tongue-in-cheek. As for two military historians, I suppose I could drop that position and have one ancient and one medievel historian. However, both need a background in military history. The subject is far to large for it to rest on one historian.
Rich
Tongue in cheek? And I wrote you practically a whole book of explanation? Oh well.
I also left out women history. I’m not convinced that women view societal and cultural issues much differently than men do.
To begin with, I don’t agree with the statement. But more importantly, the lack of access by women to the formal levers of power, the very different social and cultural roles expected of women, etc., suggest that one cannot take the experience of men as normative in human history. And as far as it goes, we can’t keep writing the sort of history that persistently overlooks the fact that men also possess gender — that they are carriers of masculine traits and values (as defined by the societies they inhabit)just as women are carriers of feminine traits and values (as defined by societies). In short, I think having a women’s historian, or a historian of gender, is imperative even in small departments.
I do agree with you that just as military historians are expected to have a grasp of the political, social and cultural context of the period they study, so too historians in other fields should have some familarity with military history. War dominates too much of history to ignore it or treat it in “black box” fashion; i.e., addressing only causes and outcomes but ignoring the process of war.
That may be true, but two military historians out of fifteen seems a bit too many. Again, with the “it’s too much” — one person to cover all of Ancient and Medieval? Even if one leaves out the ancient Near East … that’s one person to deal with almost three thousand years of political, institutional, intellectual, religious, economic, and gender history AND try to keep up with their own research. And since the Greek part has, well, the Persian Wars, Peloponnesian Wars, and Alexander; the Roman part has, well, almost constant war; the MA — more war; and because the people going to war and the changes in the makeup of the military are deeply entwined with social and political change, there is no way those of us who teach A/M can teach it without teaching some parts of military history, even if we don’t go into specific battles and strategies. And you know (and yes, I know I’m whining here), I just get kind of tired of the notion many people have that a lone pre-modern person is sufficient. Look around the blogosphere, and you’ll see a lot of us medievalists who are our departments’ utility players. Despite the fact that there is just as much out there for us to study as for anyone else, we (and I personally feel its strongest for the A/M people) are expected to provide breadth and depth that arguably no other subfield is asked to provide. And we do. Day in and day out, in departments — and often on campuses — where we are the only people who do what we do, the only people who work in Latin and/or Greek, the lone voices to stand up and say, “no, sorry, really, please trust me on this, but there really wasn’t such a thing as a feudal system …”
Like it or not, these fields — and the ways in which people appropriate and misappropriate them — are essential to modern political thought. It’s important to have people on the roster who can provide a reality check …
Couldn’t agree more! But then, I am an ancient historian, so probably biased.
First, I’m an Engineer who was just shy of a history minor in ’03. So I look at the history department(s) a little different. I do remember in 400 level History (English from 1500-1650) class that I was the only Engineer, but there were only 2 or 3 History majors in a class of 20. That said, the hypothetical “Liberal arts” school is something I would discard in favor of a university setting, with more general classes needed, and fewer high level classes, by percentage.
Second, being an engineer, I try to maximize what I’ve been given. So, I might split one of the seats and have a couple 2 year Post-doc research positions where teaching one class (DIRECTLY related to field of study) is required, and use some of the money saved to work with the engineering department (you had to see it coming) to work on a history of technology. And if money is short one year, don’t hire a post doc for that year.
Third: I would make additional assumptions:
1. There is a worthwhile Art History department
2. There is a Law curriculum/department.
3. There is a College of Engineering
4. There is a graduate program.
So, the list:
1. Early US/colonial History 1500-1800
2. Middle US History 1800-1918
3. Late US History 1918-present
4. World War Specialist (need not be US)
5. Classical 1 (must be Rome or Greece)
6. Classical 2 (any location other than 1, any time before 600 AD, though for outside the Med/Europe, I’d relax dates.)
7. European/Middle East Medievalist (the idea being that a Saracen specialist can probably get by teaching a broad medieval course)
8. Early modern European (1400-1650)
9. European (1650-1900)
10. European (1800-present, though a European colonial might convince me for the job.)
11. Asian Historian
12. Indian or African History
13. Local interest (Here in PA, might be history of Amish)
14. Technology
15/6. Special 2 yr Post-Doc, preferences for recent Mid East, Russia, Latin America, or a traditional topic that our school is missing, like Rome or the Crusades.
Note:
Additionally, the following specializations must be covered with the above chairs:
Minority History Women’s History, Military History, and Religious History.
Note that 1,2 and 3 are separated, I would make a requirement that one of them be “specialized” (by that I mean Women’s Military, or Religious). The same would hold true for 4-6, 7-10 and 11-15. I would probably require teaching the more basic/survey classes for those without the aforementioned specializations.
–Kurt
ADM, I certainly feel your pain on the ‘utility player’ issue. In my first job I was in a Department of three. There was an American historian, a modern European history, and myself. I was not only responsible for everything pre-1500 but also everything which was not American or European.
Cheers,
Mike Davidson
Manual trackback: http://airminded.org/2006/10/08/populate-an-australian-history-department/
Thanks Brett. I really ought to enable trackbacks someday. And for the rest of you, Brett has a neat post. Go have a look.
Just as a thought experiment, what if we chucked out the national/geographical criteria? Like Jasper’s idea but taken to the extreme:
1. Theory of History (or as I like to call it, The History of History)
2. Gender History
3. History of Science
4. History of Philosophy
5. History of Religion
6. Economic History
7. History of Communications/Information
8. Military History
9. Environmental History
10. Political History
When you think about it, it’s really a Philosophy of History department.
Oh, I’d probably swap in or add a Public Historian. Because somebody ought to be addressing the topic of addressing the laymen.
Re Public Historians — that’s a particularly good idea because a number of PhDs go into public history.
Would a class on Terrorism be appropriate? I think it would. Also, I want to file a grievance: I logged on tonight to do something on my site (which no one visits) and as usual yours calls to me and now it’s 15 minutes later… I demand an apology.
1. Colonial/Revolutionary US History
2. Civil War/Reconstruction US history
3. Modern U.S. History
4. Early Modern Europe
5. 20th Century
6. Middle East
7. Terrorism
8. African American history
9. US Women’s history
19. East Asian history
11. Latin American history
12. Ancient history
13. Medieval History
14. World History