1.

What approaches to historical study does each historian advocate

for? What produces the best kind of history, according to
Himmelfarb? What produces the best kind of history, according to
Scott?

In her article “Some Reflections on the New History” Gertrude

Himmelfarb notes that the ambiguity brought by the New History as
an approach to historical research leaves the subject too open to
interpretation, which constantly calls for a revival of narrative. After
my close reading of the article, I was left with the lingering
impression that Himmelfarb is rather a critic of all modern
approaches to history, be it social, cultural, quantitative, etc. and all
their subcategories. Himmelfarb advocates a traditional historical
approach noting that, with the new history and its varieties, “what is
being “deprivileged” and deconstructed is not only history as
traditional historians have understood it but the past as
contemporaries knew it” (Himmelfarb, 667). Himmelfarb’s
interpretation of history seems to be more agreeable to what
traditional historians have presented. She refers to new history as a
kind of history that leaves us “with a history that is “disjointed and
incoherent,” that lacks “central themes or a framework,” and that
does not try to answer any “significant questions” of the kind raised
by previous historians” (Himmelfarb, 664). After watching this video,
I was able to better understand Himmelfarb views; she is a
conservative historian quite concerned with the demoralization of
society and ultra-focused on Victorian values. It seems fitting that
she would oppose most postmodern academic approach.

In her article, “History in Crisis? The Others’ Side of the

Story,” Joan Scott argues that social history allows for a broadened
understanding of History as a subject. Scott notes that “By “history,” I
mean not what happened, not what "truth" there is "out there" to be
discovered and transmitted, but what we know about the past, what
the rules and conventions are that govern the production and
acceptance of the knowledge we designate as history” (Scott, 681).
According to Scott, what produces the “best kind” of history is an
“engagement in a democratized historical practice” meaning the
acceptance of the facts that “there will always be a plurality of
stories, that telling them involves contests about power and
knowledge, and that the historian's mastery is necessarily partial”
(Scott, 691). Here is a video that shows not only the academic
achievements of Joan Scott but also her legacy. I hope you enjoy it.

2. How does Himmelfarb critique Scott, and vice-versa?

Gertrude Himmelfarb criticizes Joan Scott’s work “Gender and
the Politics of History” noting that “Social historians devoted to the
study of the working class are being criticized by feminist historians
for being insufficiently attentive to gender” (Himmelfarb, 662). It
could be argued that Himmelfarb’s comment reflects her
neoconservative views on Gender history itself. Himmelfarb further
notes that Joan Scott “denies the parity of the terms in the "class,
race, gender" trinity, suggesting that race and gender are more
primary than class (Himmelfarb, 665), which to me deals with a much
broader struggle to define American identity in the 1990s, (when
both articles were written). In turn, Joan Scott notes that “Gertrude
Himmelfarb's book title poses the "old" history-the "traditional" way
history has presumably always been done- against the subversive
and illegitimate new” (Scott, 684). Scott explains that Himmelfarb's
arguments claim that there is “only one way to conceive history and
only one standpoint for the historian” (Scott, 684), which reinforce an
elitist approach to historical research.

3. Do you think that history should remain holistic even if

exclusionary, or is history better in a deconstructed version that is
more diverse?

I believe that a historical approach that seeks to define a new

path beyond the existing understanding of traditional history is the
best approach. For example, Scott points out that most of the
modern era featured social structures that were defined from a
certain point of view. However, taking the traditional historical view
as a default lens for interpretation implies that the history laid down
by the majority is an inherently correct or superior version of history
(Scott 685). The claim of the old history as the one and true
narrative is belied by the fact that history, even the old history, by
any definition of that term, has always changed over time. As Scott
points out, the historians who cling to old history and denounce
evolutions in the field are themselves practitioners of a new history
relative to what was the old history at one time (Scott, 686). The
irony of the authors this week advocating questioning of (or, in the
case of Himmelfarb, defending) the traditional political history in
favor of post-modernism or deconstructuralism is that the authors
are all women. Thus, they are of a class whose perspective is
traditionally vacant from the historical record of the “old history” as
Himmelfarb calls it. However, the fact that women are now, in these
modern times, advocating for or discussing changes in the historical
field in terms of interpretation and direction of the discipline proves
Scott’s point that power structures (political history) change over
time. Much of the history seen as the old history from Himmelfarb’s
piece refers to a time when female historians were relatively rare and
their perspective was, therefore, missing from the record. Thus,
alternate methods such as deconstruction and postmodernism are
helpful and getting at the hidden power structures that exist beyond
and in nuance with the broad, visible strokes of traditional power or
political history.

References:

Himmelfarb, Gertrude. “Some Reflections on the New

History.” American Historical Review, Vol. 94(3) June 1989, pp 661-
670. https://www-jstor-
org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/stable/pdf/1873752.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%
3A10cd1e6a55332b14ad17950785f27bc9
Scott, Joan W. “The Others’ Side of the Story.” American Historical
Review, Vol. 94(3), June 1989, pp 680-692. https://www-jstor-
org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/stable/pdf/1873754.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%
3A654a8053024c876cc53cc1f84046bc5d
"Gertrude Himmelfarb – Victorian Virtues to Modern Values."
Uploaded by Tradarchives via YouTube. Accessed 02/26/19.
Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiH_RxJfcaM&t=75s
“Joan Scott – On Free Speech and Academic Freedom.” Uploaded by
American Academy of Arts and Sciences via YouTube. September 18,
2017. Accessed
02/26/19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOwuL-X8ZLE