Townsend's History of History

I found Townsend’s approach to writing the history of the discipline and profession of history interesting, even though his prose was somewhat dry. I have never read a history of a discipline before, so am not sure what I expected, but the project of tracing the development of three areas within the “historical enterprise” through periods of time, and then writing in such a way that the book can be read start to finish or laterally by thematic chunks was interesting. 

Towsend's approach to organizing his presentation of information struck me as a subtle yet poignant piece of evidence that the historical disciplines are indeed divided, despite their historic connections. The fact that one can read a nearly coherent narrative of each discipline separately from the others reinforces Townsend’s point that it is too late for the unity of the historical enterprise, but not to late for collaboration (pp 186).

Townsend’s project is also interesting because it seems to evolve throughout the book. He begins with identifying two questions: first, why is the historical enterprise so divided, and second, how has the study of history become/evolved/emerged as a profession? By the end of the book, Townsend asserts that the “twin forces” of specialization and professionalization have divided history. It would seem, then, that one of his research questions—tracing the professionalization of history—merged with his other research question—examining why the historical enterprise is so divided.

Finally, Townsend’s use of sources—primarily primary source documents such as letters, meeting records, and committee reports—reflects the method of establishing a framework for the scientific study of history, which he argues was largely influenced by the emergence of Darwin’s work, that he discusses throughout the book. For instance, Townsend traces the use of the word “profession,” or “professional” throughout his primary source documents to gain a sense of the changing ways that members of the historical enterprise have perceived themselves over time. Additionally, Townsend uses numeric comparisons of numbers of PhD’s awarded in history to trace the growth or decline of the profession.