The readings done for this class
are my very first introduction into Marxist historians and the Annals school. I
have never heard of either and the fact that social history didn’t exist until
the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s completely blows my mind. Looking back on my studies
it makes complete sense, however it goes to show my complete lack of knowledge
in such subjects. Until now that is.
I found E.P. Thompsons readings for
this week to be nothing short of captivating. Reading with a friend, I couldn’t
help but share Thompsons thoughts and ideas on “the mob/crowd” and his interpretations
on civil unrest and the impact capitalism had on the societal conception of
time. I couldn’t help but feel like such work is not only captivating and
important for the discipline, but it is also evident that such ideas and notion
laid the groundwork for our modern conception of history. These Annals and
Marxist historians flung wide the gates of historical scholarship, methodology,
and the enterprise itself. Paradoxically, J. H. Hexter quotes Herbert Heaton
and mentions that:
“‘Big ideas in history have a half-life of about five years’…we
may note that with varying lengths the popularity curves what, when they
emerge, get called generative or seminal ideas in history have similar shapes:
a rapid rise, around the peak a slow leveling of rate of ascent and beginning
of descent, a more rapid falling off, and finally a fast downward plunge toward
oblivion” (Hexter, 498).
Perhaps this is true, but one has also has to admit the
foundations of discipline do change, ever so slowly. Our very foundation of
modern scholarship, in my opinion, is heavily based out of the Marxist style.
We are driven and invigorated, as mentioned last class, by our
materialistic-based understanding of the past.
It is interesting to consider how
our modern schools of thought for the Historical discipline will be labeled by
future generations. How in the works we have read in their grammatical conventions
throw quotes onto “scientific” historians yet we get the impression that
perhaps (social) historians should require parentheses. I mention this only
insofar as to illustrate our dissention of the “scientific” framework of history,
yet we assume that the modern discipline consists of social historians. Following
somewhat sexist comments on Thompson’s behalf comparing women’s work to
pre-industrialized society, he brings up a point more relevant today than in
1960.
“If we are to have enlarged leisure, in an automated future,
the problem is NOT ‘how are men going to be able to consume all these
additional time-units of leisure?’ but ‘what will be the capacity for
experience of the men who have this undirected time to live?’…re-learn some of
the arts of living lost in the industrial revolution: how to fill the
interstices of their days with enriched, more leisurely, personal and social relations;
how to break down once more the barriers between work and life” (Thompson, 95)
I find this to be a most
invigorating notion that I spent a good half-hour discussing with my friend
about Generation Y’s work ethic and the implications of Thompson’s work. I find
we are moving away from wage-orientation perhaps back towards a pseudo
task-orientation. Maybe better put a synergy of both. Perhaps a “fourth
generation” could be inserted into Thompson’s generational paradigm (Thompson,
86) in which we are beginning to resist the current barriers between life and
work. Given his interests and work, this is a point he surely would have found
fascinating.
No comments:
Post a Comment