Class time: Thursday 3:30–6 PM

Location: UH 950

Office hrs.: Wednesday, 11 am–noon; Thursday 11 am–3 pm, and by appointment, 1001 UH

Contact: mmogilne@uic.edu

This course is an introduction to the discipline of history, the genealogy of its current debates, methods, “schools,” and “turns.” Historians can study different geographical areas, specialize in different subfields, and adhere to different methods. Besides formal affiliation and education, what makes us members of one professional community is our ability to speak in a metalanguage shared by all members of this community. Our metalanguage is methodology. It allows us to explain our professional self-positioning, the selection of our sources, the way we pose our research questions, and the intellectual genealogy that informs our approaches to those working in other geographical areas and historical subfields. Our metalanguage is also historically conditioned. It is rooted in the history of our field; it reflects continuities and radical philosophical and ideological intrusions from other spheres of knowledge and other disciplines. It thus enables a self-reflective stance on the part of the community of historians.

In this course, we will master the metalanguage of professional history by reading classical works and critically inquiring into the evolutions and revolutions of historical approaches and research agendas.

Ultimately, we should arrive at a better understanding of where the history profession is now and how it has gotten there. How does the history profession reflect political, ideological, and social changes happening in the “real” world and how does it absorb and/or resist current intellectual fashions within academia? How do we, historians, understand the relationships between the present historical moment and our self-positioning vis-à-vis the past that we study? In short, in this class we will learn to reflect on HOW historians think and write—in order to become self-reflective members of our professional community.

However sophisticated and at times specialized the production of historical knowledge has become, history can still be described, in Marc Bloch’s words, as the study of humans (yep, he used “men”) in time. How do our contemporary, much less exclusive understanding of “humans” and our much more complex and globalized idea of “times” change the nature of historical investigation? This question will guide our inquiry into the past and present of the discipline of history.

Assignments: Your main assignment consists of careful reading of the assigned literature and active participation in the class discussions.

You are expected to turn in brief weekly analytical reflections (2 pp. or more) by email each Wednesday by noon. A weekly reflection should summarize the main argument of each author, the specifics of his or her method, and the main theoretical claims he or she advances. Try to give a general assessment of a methodological “turn” or a historical subfield represented by the week’s readings. Include your own critical considerations and/or questions for the discussion. You may skip two weekly reflections without consequences. Please send me a note one day before a regular class meeting if you are going to skip a weekly response.

September 29 is your first deadline: you should write a personal “manifesto” presenting your view of history as a profession, explaining your reasons for choosing history and reflecting on how your personal life and intellectual experiences have influenced your choice and continue to inform your expectations, intentions, and interests (4–5 pp.). Please build on the reading (and discussions) for Weeks 1 and 2.

I will ask you to revisit these “manifestos” at the end of the course, as a part of your final assignment. You thus will receive a chance to revise your understanding of the historical profession and your place in it in the light of what you will learn in the course.

October 24 is, roughly, the midpoint of the course and thus the right time to start thinking about your final project. Please review the syllabus carefully to determine a subfield or a methodological approach that inspires you the most. Then please identify a monograph published after 2000 that relates to your sphere of interests and that, in your view, develops an approach that resonates with your own preferences or falls into a subfield in which you see yourself working. You will be asked to write a review of this monograph, stressing HOW (it is conceptualized, positioned historiographically, written, researched, etc.) over WHAT (is in it). Your final assignment will be an analytical review of this monograph (7–10 pp.). This schedule gives you enough time to find your book and consult with me on any aspect of the process.

December 4 please email me the title of your monograph for review together with the final weekly reflection. Feel free to send drafts for my feedback after our class meetings are formally over.

December 12 is the deadline for the final assignments. Your final assignment is twofold:

First, you should revise your personal “manifesto” so that it reflects your learning process in this class—that is, the changes in your understanding of the history profession and your personal preferences and stakes in it. Please aim to write 4–5 pages. The first draft, the revision process, and the final version are all integral parts of the assignment and the grade will reflect it.

The second part of the final assignment is an analytical review of a selected monograph (7–10 pp.). I expect you to build a context for the review using the course literature and referencing conversations we had during the semester. In particular, you should incorporate the readings for the week dedicated to a “turn” or a subfield that your monograph represents, contests, or develops. You can find viable models for these analytical reviews in the leading historical journals in your field, such as Reviews in American History, American Historical Review (featured reviews), Ab Imperio, and others.

A quick citation guide is available at the Chicago Manual of Style website (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html).

Assessment

Weekly reflections 20%

“Manifesto” 25%

Review 35%

Participation 20%

Readings

Required books can be purchased at the UIC bookstore or on Amazon. Please note that our library has hard- and e-copies of some of the books, and I will post required pages from others on the course Blackboard for your convenience. Most of the books included in the syllabus represent historiographic classics or continue to define contemporary debates in the field. In other words, your investment in these books will pay off: ideally they should be in the personal libraries of every professional historian.

Bloch, Marc. The Historian’s Craft: Reflections on the Nature and Uses of History and the Techniques and Methods of Those Who Write It (Vintage, 1964). Burbank, Jane, and Frederick Cooper. Empires in World History: Power and Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, 2010). Conrad, Sebastian. What Is Global History? (Princeton University Press, 2016). Eley, Geoff. A Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the History of Society (University of Michigan Press, 2005). Ginzburg, Carlo. Clues, Myths and the Historical Method (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). Hunt, Lynn. Writing History in the Global Era (W. W. Norton, 2014) Immerwahr, Daniel. How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2019), 3–20. Koselleck, Reinhart. The Practice of Conceptual History (Stanford University Press, 2002). Ringer, Fritz K. The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Harvard University Press, 1969). Smith, Bonnie. The Gender of History: Men, Women, and Historical Practice (Harvard University Press, 1998) Spencer, Philip, and Howard Wollman, eds., Nations and Nationalism: A Reader (Rutgers University Press, 2005). Wang, Q. Edward, and Georg G. Iggersm, eds., Marxist Historiographies: A Global Perspective (Routledge, 2016). White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973). Zelizer, Julian. Governing America: The Revival of Political History (Princeton University Press, 2012).

Plagiarism Statement: Plagiarism is a serious violation of university codes on academic integrity. Plagiarizing material from the web, printed sources, other students’ work, or any other source constitutes grounds for failure in this course. Incidents of plagiarism may also be brought before the university judiciary board resulting in further disciplinary action. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for plagiarism.

Students with disabilities who require accommodations for access and participation in this course must be registered with the Office of Disability Services. Please call 312/413-2103 (voice) or 312/413-0123 (TTY).