HISTORIOGRAPHY. The following is a chronological outline of the major approaches to intellectual history in the United States. The early portions are based on J. Higham, "Rise of American Intellectual History," Am. Hist. Rev. 56 (1951), 453-71; R. Skotheim, "The Writing of Am. Histories of Ideas," J. Hist. I 25 (1964), 257; and R. Skotheim, American Intellectual History and Historians (1966). The latter draws on a symposium "Intellectual History in the Age of Cultural Studies, Intellectual History Newsletter 18 (1996) (cited as IHN). The class will review the early stages (I-V) very briefly to establish different assumptions and methods of "internal" and "external," and then focus on current debates over "intellectual" and "cultural" history.

*general considerations

1. Internal versus external: stated simply historians of ideas/culture can be positioned across this spectrum

a. "external" tends

i. to see ideas/culture as expressions of such external forces as economic interests (individual or class); social power etc.

ii. to prefer "popular" over "elite" and hence non-written over written texts
iii. to be socially activist, i.e. using history as an instrument of social change

b. "internal tends

i. to stress the autonomy of ideas, and hence their influence apart from material interests
ii. to stress "high" culture and the writings of elites
iii. to be less "radical" or even "conservative".

2. Like all approaches to history, intellectual/cultural history reflects changing social agendas. Roughly speaking, these have been

i.. struggles over "science and religion" in mid to late 19th century
ii. role of the state in response of industrialization, immigration etc. 1890s-1930s
iii. rise of fascism and defense of "democracy" 1940s-50s
iv. social fragmentation related to consumerism, globalization, new technologies of communication etc. since 1960s.

Note: competition between int hist (internal) and cultural studies (ext) is latest round in this ongoing struggle.


I. "External" Approaches: 1900-1940

A. Progressive and post-Progressive

*the theory behind the progressive version of American intellectual history is discussed in J. Higham, "American Intellectual History," American Quarterly,13 (1961); and John Higham, History (1965), ch. 3

1. The "New History"
Turner, "Significance of the Frontier"
Beard Economic Interpretation of Constitution (1913)
Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence (1922)
Vernon Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (3 vols. 1927-30)

2. The "Sociology of Knowledge"

Although primarily a movement among sociologists, this approach attempted to bring greater rigor to the environmentalism of the progressives. The theory is discussed in Warner Stark, The Sociology of Knowledge (1958). American examples include Thorstein Veblen, The Higher Learning (1918), William F. Ogburn, Social Change (1922), and Bernard Barber, Science and the Social Order (1952)

3. The Progressive Tradition through 1950

Curti, Merle, The Growth of American Thought (1942)
Commager, H.S. The American Mind (1950)
Wish, Harvey, Society and Thought in Modern America (2nd edition, 1962)

4. Post-Progressive: "Consensus" and the "End of Ideology"

Boorstin, Daniel, The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson (1947); The Genius of American Politics (1953)
Hartz, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America (1955)
Hofstadter, Richard, Social Darwinism (1944); The Age of Reform (1955)
Noble, David W. ,The Paradox of Progressive Thought
White, Morton, Social Thought in America (1947); Science and Sentiment (1972)


II. "Internal" Approaches: 1930-1960

A. "Intellectual History"

*the concept of a "climate of opinion" is discussed in F. Baumer, "Intellectual History and Its Problems," J. Mod. History 21 (1949), 191-203. On Miller see James Hoopes, "Art as History," American Quarterly, 34 (1982); and F.T. Butts, "The Myth of Perry Miller,"American Historical Review, 87(1982).

Conkin, Puritans and Pragmatists (1968)
Gabriel, R., The Course of American Democratic Thought (1940)
Miller, Perry, The New England Mind (2 vols. 1929, 1953);
Errand into the Wilderness (1956); The Life of the
Mind in America (1965)

Note: the close analysis of the structure of ideas continues to characterize most writing of intellectual history through the 1960s, whether or not guided by the models of Gabriel and Baumer. A useful series, now unfortunately out of print, was published by Rand McNally . Titles include:

Alexander, Charles. Nationalism in American Thought, 1930-45 (1971)
Boller. Paul. American Thought in Transition (1969)
Cowing, Cedric, The Great Awakening and the American Revolution (1971)
Lora, Ronald, Conservative Minds in America (1970)
Nash, Roderick, The Nervous Generation, 1917-30 (1970)
Noble, David W., The Progressive Mind (1970)

B. The "History of Ideas"

*the theory is discussed in A. Lovejoy, "Reflections on the History of Ideas," J. Hist. Ideas 1 (Jan. 1940), 3- and T. Bredsdorff, "Lovejoy's Idea of Idea," New Lit. Hist. 8 (W. '77), 195-211

Ekirch, A., The Idea of Progress in America 1815-60 (1944)
Gossett, Thomas, Race (1965)
Weinberg, A. K., Manifest Destiny (1935)

III. Myths and Symbols (the "American Studies "school)

Intellectual history version of "consensus" history. The virtues of this approach are described in R. Welter, "The History of Ideas in America," J. Am. History 51 (1965), 599-614; its shortcomings in B. Kuklick, "Myth and Symbol in American Studies," Am. Q 24 (Oct. 72), 435-50

Marx, Leo, The Machine in the Garden (1964)
Meyers, Marvin , The Jacksonian Persuasion (1957)
Smith, Henry N., Virgin Land (1950)
Taylor, William ,Cavalier and Yankee (1957)
Ward, John W., Jackson: Symbol for and Age (1955)


IV. Radical Critiques

*rooted in the experience of the 1960s, the following rather arbitrary designations identify approaches or concepts that continue to shape the writing of intellectual history. They themselves do not constitute coherent "schools" in the same sense as others listed, however, and typically belong more strictly to social than to intellectual history.

A. "Social Control"

Katz, Michael, The Irony of Early School Reform (1968)
Lasch, Christopher, The New Radicalism in America (1965); Haven in a Heartless World (1977)
Rothman, David, The Discovery of the Asylum (1971)
Tyack, David, The 'One Best System' (1974)

B. Marcusean Analysis. Like social control theory generally, this approach straddles the boundaries between intellectual and social history. The approach finds its basis in Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man (1964).

Bleich, "Eros and Bellamy," American Quarterly 16 (1964)
C. Corporatism

Gilbert, James , Designing the Industrial State
Noble, David F. America by Design (1979)

D. Hegemony. Based on the work of Antonio Gramsci, this concept is different from "social control," although the two are sometimes confused. For a useful discussion of this concept with reference to historical writing see R. Jackson Lears, "The Concept of Cultural Hegemony," AHR 90 (1985), 567-93.

Rhys Issac, Transformation of Virginia
R. Jackson, Lears, No Place of Grace (1981)
Alan Trachtenberg, The Incorporation of America
IV. New Directions in the 1970s and 1980s

*see L. Krieger, "Intellectual History," JHI, 34 (1973), 499-516; G. Wise, "The Contemporary Crisis in Intellectual History Studies," Clio 5 (1975); J. Higham and P. Conkin, eds., New Directions in American Intellectual History (1979); and D. Hollinger, "American Intellectual History," Reviews in American History, 10 (Dec.1980). The search for new methods reflects (1) the flowering of social-institutional history which was one of the most dramatic movements in American historiography in the late 1960s and early 1970s; and (2) altered cultural conditions, specifically (a) the shrinking of historical branches of discrete disciplines bordering on intellectual history, thus widening its potential subject matter; and (b) a destructive belief in discontinuity that threatened to undermine fundamental assumptions of all intellectual history. Attempting to combine the "internal" and "external," all validate intellectual history by assuming the autonomy of ideas in human affairs, and attempt to locate continuities within discontinuity. Although the approaches are ordered in terms of their emphasis from "internal" to "external" the end result during the 1970s was a breaking down of the external-internal distinction, which then reemerges in arguments of cultural studies and intellectual history duringm the 1980s and 1990s.
INTERNALISTS

1. "Intentionists." Quentin Skinner and his followers insist that the "meaning" of an idea may be assessed only in relation to the "intention" of the individual articulating the idea. See Q. Skinner, "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas," History and Theory, 8 (1969), 3-53; Skinner, "Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action, Political Theory 2 (1974). Skinner attacks "textualism" for its ungrounded assumptions about "traditions," "influences" "group mind " etc. Also faults "contextualists" for reducing ideas to material circumstances in which the arise.



2. Socio-ideologists. Posit ideas and behavioral circumstances as two autonomous levels, and use variety of techniques to relate the two.

a. Psychohistory. Relates to institutional setting via use of psychological, and particularly psychoanalytical concepts. Related to "intentionists" (above ) in that intentionist techniques may be used to distinguish "rational" from "irrational" beliefs. See G. Izenberg, "Psychohistory and Intellectual History," History and Theory 14 (1975), 139. Looser form of psychological analysis is work on the gendering of thought
Forgie, George B., Patricide in the House Divided (New York, 1979). Dubbert, Joe I. A Man's Place: Masculinity in Transition (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1979).
Richard H. King, A Southern Renaissance: the Cultural Awakening of the American South 1930-1955 ( 1980), ch. 2


b. "Transactionists." Attempt to relate internal and external approaches by examining the differential impact of clusters of ideas on different groups within concrete institutional settings. Intellectual history consists, not of autonomous ideas, but the intellectual "transactions" among different groups in society. Examples are Darrett Rutman, American Puritanism; and David Hollinger, "The Problem of Pragmatism," Journal of American History 67 (1980), 88-107 and his "Historians and the Discourse of Intellectuals," in New Directions, ed. Conkin and Higham. See also Gene Wise, "Crisis" for discussion. Hollinger describes intellectual history as the "discourse of intellectuals," an approach that stresses "questions" shared rather than answers or underlying assumptions.


c. The "organization of knowledge" and "professionalization." See chapters in Higham and Conkin, op. cit.; A. Oleson and Brown, The Pursuit of Knowledge (1976); and J. Voss and A.Oleson, The Organization of Knowledge (1979). A good discussion of the limits of the "professionalization" approach is H. Kuklick, "Boundary Maintenance," J. Hist. Behavioral Sciences (1980)

NOTE: Most of the above continue in tradition of "internalist" intellectual history in focusing on works, often written works, of elites. But they show a tendency during the 1970s toward a narrowing, thus avoiding the universalizing narratives of earlier studies of "the American mind." Thus we see focus on "texts"" (Skinner), "questions" (Hollinger" and "audiences (Kuklick).
EXTERNALISTS

3. Structuralism. An extreme attempt to get back to careful analysis of texts and "myths" and to reestablish universal patterns. Based on work of Ferdinand Saussure. For examples see John Blair, "Structuralism and the Humanities," American Quarterly 30: 3 (1978), and David Pace, "Structuralism in History," Ibid., 282-97.

4. Post-structuralism. According to one proponent, "post-structuralism" appeared in the late 1960s as an attempt to replace Saussure's grounded, stable, and closed linguistic system with an ungrounded, open, and protean concept of language." See David Harlan, "Intellectual History and the Return of Literature," AHR 94 (June 1989), 581-609.

*note: although later two stress "texts" they are closer to externalist historically, especially as manifested in "cultural studies" in that many non-verbals, non-written artifacts may serve as "texts".

V. Intellectual History and Cultural Studies

*by the 1990s, the maturing of a number of tendencies often lumped together as "postmodernist" has produced a series of debates between those self-identified as "intellectual historians" (see Hollinger, American Intellectual Tradition) and those working in cultural studies. Although both attempt to mediate the "external" "internal' divide," cultural studies shows more affinities with the former (external) while "intellectual history," is closer to the tradition of the internalists.

1. "Intellectual History. To understand the approach of the anthology see Hollinger, David, "Historians and the Discourse of Intellectuals," in New Directions, ed. Conkin and Higham

2. Cultural Studies

*the following sketchy overview is based on Simon During, ed. The Cultural Studies Reader (1993); Inglis, Fred., Cultural studies (1993.[ S McCabe Honors Phil 123: ; and Cultural studies / edited, and with an introduction, by Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A. Treichler, with Linda Baughman and assistance from John Macgregor Wise.(New York : Routledge, 1992.[ S McCabe GN357 .C844] and Symposium "Intellectual History in an Age of Cultural Studies, Intellectual History Newsletter, 1997

**not clearly defined. List provided by Daniel Rodgers in INH, p. 22 gives idea of range: slaves and slave purchasers, citizens part in criminal executions, Asian Americans in Chicago sociology, anthropologists scrambling in the wake of US army in Philippines, antibigamy crusaders in Utah, maverick radio operators in pre-regulatory era, socialists and movie moguls expanding first amendment, and intellectual combats of Sidney Hook.

a. history of (essentially of British cultural studies)

i founding texts: Hoggart, Uses of Literacy (1957) and Raymond Williams, Culture and Society 1958) . Developed out of these working class students ambivalent reading of Leavis emphasis on "great tradition." That is, shared Leavis's sense that a "great tradition " Alexander Pope,. George Eliot etc.) was richer than popular culture, but did not like ignoring working class culture. Thus set us working class (preindustrial" culture as antidote to "mass culture"

ii. but as modern commercial culture eroded traditional working class, become difficult to sustain this emphasis, so turned in several different directions

a. culture as organized from afar: the "culture industry" (movies , schools, TV)

b. political of culture. As working class culture eroded also could not see it as locus of radical sensibility, as in Thompson Making of the English Working Class. Thus look at the way administered "culture" served political purposes.

* hegemonic effects: "culturalist" (Trachtenberg an example?)

* structuralist, emphasizing language and way meanings are encoded and recoded which broke down "culture" into discrete message, "signifying practices etc. (e.g. Malborough man as connoting masculine strength, independence etc. (here guides are Louis Altusser and Jacques Lacan)

iii. Wolin (Texas) sees as the "sublimated politics" of the New Left/antiwar radicals once Vietnam over. As Todd Gitlin said: while the Republicans were busy taking over the country.. .the academic left was busy taking over English department course syllabi" . McClay ibid. P 13 notes that CS "appears to stand in roughly the same relation to postmodernism that the established disciplines in the humanities and the social sciences have stood to modernism and "the Enlightenment project."

iv. Late 1970s came under influence of new French thought of Pierre Bourdieu, Certeau, and Foucault.: result was separation from traditional democratic politics. Attack on metanarratives found curious parallel in Thatcher/Reagan assault on overarching state

v. in mid-80s, further fragmentation introduced

* concept of "identities" and turned c.s. toward exploration of different marginalized groups .
* global production of culture
* celebration of popular culture (cultural populism)

v. Cultural policy studies.


b. basic tenets distinguish from "int. history" [as characterized both by proponents and critics]

i emphasis on "subjectivity, " that is "meaning" of ideas to different individuals (During, p. 1), premised on impossibility of provided an "objective" account of the "meaning" of an "idea"

ii. draws more explicitly on poststructuralist, anthropological, and other postmodernist traditions. Examines ideas from perspective of "power" and conflicting group interests.

iii. socially engaged. By definition a critique of current state of affairs. Much of the argument in the Int. Hist Newsletter centers on the political differences between cultural studies and intellectual history. :"It is doubtful that a conservative, or even a liberal, could walk comfortably in the land of cultural studies. (George Cotkin, ibid. p. 12)

iv. not a "discipline." Revels in looseness, variety of perspectives etc. Not so much cross-disciplinary as anti-disciplinary.
.


3. Intellectual History in an age of Cultural Studies: the argument for intellectual history (from Int. Hist. Newsletter, symposium)

a. Although the "discourse" of intellectuals is not the sum of human thought, it has a reality just as much as history of "labor", etc. A number of indivudals, many in postions of power and influence, realte to each other and society though "ideas."


b. Othe justifications derive from alleged weakness of cultural studies

i.can't explain change or "agency" (Appleby IHN, p. 5)

ii. although CS assume that "discourses distribute power," the link between origin and outcome is not explored. That is, do those who articulate ideas directly benefit? What about contestations among those who generate knowledge? )Appleby, p 5).

ii. whereas CS tends to shoehorn all texts into "an overweening context of domination," int. history approaches texts more cautiously, even reverentially, leaving open the possibility of discovering meanings which CS misses (Cotkin, IHN, p. 12)

iii. Whereas CS sometimes engages in false populism by equating products of commercial mass production with voice of people (entertainments, ads etc.) , int. history avoids this pitfall (see Lears, INH,p.

iv. By asking different sorts of questions int. hist thus would historicize "cultural studies" itself, especially the use of the term "culture," a concept that CS largely leaves unexamined (MacClay INH, p. 14, and Wolin, ibid. p. 16).

Written by Robert Bannister, 1/4/98. May be reproduced in whole or part for educational purposes, but not copied or distributed for profit.