History's Babel: Jack of all trades...or master of none?

For its intended audience -- those within or interested in the historical enterprise -- Townsend's book, History's Babel, is useful, particularly for those, like myself, who are new to the field and need a better understanding of how the disparate pieces of the enterprise can best be meshed together to strengthen the cumulative quality and impact of the historical professions.  This retrospective knowledge helps us analyze the origins, pros and cons of the current construct of the historical enterprise, and the points of debate from which they arose; an understanding that enables us to work more effectively within the existing system while also keeping an eye toward the future "health" of the enterprise and help to navigate the recurring trends and challenges that Townsend reveals in this book.

I agree with other reviews that Townsend did a good job making what is naturally a bit of dry topic quite readable.  He also did a very sound job organizing the material in a logical fashion, both topically and chronologically.  While I wouldn't consider this a "must read" as a literary piece of work, as an aspiring historian and academic, the book will find a prominent place on my professional reading shelf.

Taken in the time and context where this story begins -- the late 19th century when the field of history was small and focused on a few, quite narrow areas of study and activity -- it is understandable that the notion of a unified historical enterprise was perceived as both desirable and achievable.  I agree with Towsend that, "It is too late to try to reconstruct a unified vision of the historical enterprise."  But even if we could, I don't necessarily believe that we should.

Townsend tends to present a rather negative perspective of the "fragmentation" resulting from specialization and professionalization.  However, when one considers the substantial size, scope, methods and uses of the history enterprise today, I find it hard to accept a scenario where any one-size-fits-all approach like that envisioned in the 1890's would contribute to the production of the best and most valuable historiographical products; the development and integration of cutting edge methodologies enabled by new technology; or the proliferation of interesting and relevant curriculum, let alone the properly trained teachers to present them.

Fragmentation does not mean that the individual parts are less substantial, in fact, quite the opposite, as historiography is both an art and a science, where the careful orchestration and combination of the distinct parts can ultimately create a more holistic and complete history, the sum of which is greater than its parts.  The challenge for today's historical enterprise is to always keep an eye toward fostering an environment of collaboration and teamwork to ensure that the strengths of specialization and professionalization are easily able to break free of the enterprises necessary organizational constructs.