about    search    site map    editors    donate    contact    help

>>> Item number 109, dated 96/01/30 19:44:06 -- ALL

Date:         Tue, 30 Jan 1996 19:44:06 EST
From:         Gregory Scott Rogers <grogers@indiana.edu>
Subject:      State of the Profession

I would be interested in hearing some candid comments from the various Habsburg members concerning their visions of the future for the teaching of East European history in the United States at the university level. Over the past couple of years the reports that I have heard have not been encouraging with regard to the availability of jobs for qualified applicants leaving the university with their degree. Supposedly, the situation will only get worse. Does anyone concur with this bleak prognosis? Or does someone have some good news to report?

Greg Rogers

>>> Item number 117, dated 96/02/05 17:50:39 -- ALL

Date:         Mon, 5 Feb 1996 17:50:39 EST
From:         lijpn@pegasus.acs.ttu.edu
Subject:      Re: State of the Profession

Greg Rogers <grogers@indiana.edu> posed this question to our group on January 30:

"I would be interested in hearing some candid comments from the various Habsburg members concerning their visions of the future for the teaching of East European history in the United States at the university level. Over the past couple of years the reports that I have heard have not been encouraging with regard to the availability of jobs for qualified applicants leaving the university with their degree. Supposedly, the situation will only get worse. Does anyone concur with this bleak prognosis? Or does someone have some good news to report?"

There were several interesting responses to his similar post to H-Russia with concerning the teaching of Russian history. The end of the Cold War has caused many funding sources and much media attention to dry up. The implication is that teaching positions and enrollments are finding less support. Is the situation similar with regard to our "visions of the future for the teaching of East European history." ?

In the new era many are calling the reality of "Eastern Europe" into question. Larry Wolff's _Inventing Eastern Europe_ argues, though, that this region came to have a separate identity in western perception as early as the Enlightenment (see Tom Hegarty's excellent review of the book in our gopher:

<http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=14604867249910>. The "return to Europe," desired by most Czechs, Hungarians, and Poles, seems to be best served by the elimination of East European backwardness or other special problems. This "return" will likely be bad news for those of us who are banking on the separate identity of the region.

The final plenary session of the Fifth World Congress of the International Council of Central and East European Studies in Warsaw August 11, 1995 bore the title: "New Challenges for Central and East European Studies." Political scientist Ronald Hill of Trinity College, Dublin remarked on Eastern Europe's increasing similarity to Western Europe (this is a rough paraphrase of what I heard): "We became interested in the region because it was different. If we wanted to count votes and figure out why coalitions fell apart, we would have chosen a country like Italy which has a better climate and is easier to get to."

Perhaps more heartening, and closer to the interests of our group, Istvan Deak of Columbia observed in the same session what he perceived as a revival of historical regions such as the territory of the former Ottoman Empire and the former Habsburg Monarchy. While the historical regions were somewhat obscured in the communist era, he suggested, they were now more relevant than "the Cold War concept of Eastern Europe."

I hope my rendition of Istvan Deak's words is more or less accurate. The implication is that the teaching of Habsburg history is becoming more important rather than less so. This has pedagogical and curricular implications, because it is easier to teach the history of a political reality of several centuries' standing than of a region that existed primarily as a projection of outsiders' perceptions and power. Eastern Europe, and nation states, are two imported visions that will continue to cause mischief that is worth studying, and teaching. Witness the abiding interest in East European nationalism and in Bosnia -- topics of six HABSBURG reviews to date, and of several more in the coming weeks. But the visions of indigenous origin also deserve attention. Balkans, Eastern Europe, "Habsburg orbit" -- however defined, the field has marketability, albeit less well endowed than in the past. Trying to define our field is much of the fun.

Jim Niessen, Texas Tech University <lijpn@pegasus.acs.ttu.edu>

>>> Item number 118, dated 96/02/07 09:16:29 -- ALL

Date:         Wed, 7 Feb 1996 09:16:29 EST
From:         GSHAN@MCM.ACU.EDU
Subject:      Re: State of the Profession

Another thought on the state of the profession, from my local experience:

I've taught at McMurry University in Abilene, Texas, for the last 15 years. We have about a thousand students and a history faculty of three; I'm the Europeanist. While my background is Central Europe, I've taught just about every subject except that one in those 15 years: the world civ survey, Germany, Russia, 19-20th century Europe, European international relations, etc. Only with the fall of the Wall did the Powers that Be think a course on Eastern Europe would generate enough interest among our students to make. I've now taught a brief E. Europe survey twice -- one semester for everything from the Arpads to Havel, with lots of Habsburgs in between. From my local perspective, then, Eastern Europe is attracting more attention than it has in the last decade and a half. Whether that interest can be sustained remains to be seen.

A second impression: Job listings in the AHA Perspectives used to list E. Europe with Russia/USSR. Since 1989, I've noticed more listings with the linked field (if there was one) being Germany rather than Russia. It seems to me that that sort of pairing opens more possibilities for Habsburg specialists than the Russia one. Again, the future will tell if this is a real trend or just a temporary aberation.

Gary Shanafelt

>>> Item number 119, dated 96/02/07 10:37:54 -- ALL

Date:         Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:37:54 EST
From:         "Ingrao, Charles W." <INGRAO@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>

Gary Shanafelt's response to the discussion of the state of the profession parallels my more limited experience. When I was job searching five years ago, most of the positions I thought I was competitive for were either "Germany/ Central Europe" or "Russia/Eastern Europe." In the event, I was hired at UNLV for a 20th-Century European position, with diplomatic history as one of my teaching fields. The upper-level courses I have taught in addition to 20th-century Europe and diplomatic history include Eastern Europe in the 20th century and East European Jewry until 1914.

Student response to my course offerings has been very good; most undergraduates are interested in the "other" Europe, to which they now have access! My biggest problem has not been filling classes, but explaining to students that to do graduate work in this region, they need foreign languages. Lots of them!

I, too, have recently noticed more job listings that are specifically for us: Habsburg and Eastern European historians. I would, however, encourage ABDs, if they aren't already doing so, to apply for the positions more generally described, ie, "19th-Century Europe" or "20th-Century Europe," since they now have at least as good a shot at these positions as anyone else.

Nancy Wingfield
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

>>> Item number 120, dated 96/02/07 13:37:21 -- ALL

Date:         Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:37:21 EST
From:         PADRAIC KENNEY <kenneyp@spot.Colorado.EDU>
Subject:      Re: State of the Profession

In-Reply-To: <199602071419.HAA05210@spot.Colorado.EDU>

I'd like to add a note of optimism to the discussion of the field -- though I'm aware some will think I have got it completely backwards. It seems to me that the way the EE field survives is as we reach out, theoretically and comparatively, to other fields in history. We cannot assume that anyone hiring (or publishing one's books and articles) will agree that -- to take a random example from a lecture I have in half an hour -- knowing about Count Bethlen's economic policies is essential to the broader historical profession, or even to Europeanists. It may be unfair, but an East Europeanist who would be hired or published must be more ambitious theoretically than a Russianist or French historian. Sure, even then it may still be the case that, having waxed eloquent about James Scott, Teodor Shanin, etc. while talking about Polish peasants, you will still lose the European job to a more "safe" French historian -- but not, I think, always. We are as susceptible to parochialism as anyone - but we cannot afford it.

Hm - does that seem optimistic? I think so. Here at Colorado, I may never have a PhD advisee in Eastern Europe. But I do have one advisee - a US labor student, writing on lumberworkers in Arizona and Oregon. My department believes that I can help him write an ambitiously comparative thesis. In other words, being an Eastern Europeanist, if it means more than just doing East European history, can be a lot of fun, and a great challenge.

Padraic Kenney
Department of History
University of Colorado, Boulder
kenneyp@spot.colorado.edu

>>> Item number 214, dated 96/04/05 11:24:29 -- ALL

Date:         Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:24:29 -0600
Reply-To:     "HABSBURG (lands & peoples),
              an H-Net list ed. by C. Ingrao & J. Niessen"
              <HABSBURG@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Sender:       "HABSBURG (lands & peoples),
              an H-Net list ed. by C. Ingrao & J. Niessen"
              <HABSBURG@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
From:         lijpn@pegasus.acs.ttu.edu
Subject:      Recent attacks on "Eurocentrism" (xH-GERMAN)

Several weeks ago there was a discussion on HABSBURG about the "State of the Profession," i.e. prospects for the teaching of East Central European history. Here's a contribution on a related theme from H-GERMAN.---JPN

Submitted by: D. A. Jeremy Telman <TELMAND@cofc.edu>

List members who are historians may already have seen recent articles in the American Historical Association's Newsletter, "Perspectives" by Carolyn Walker Bynum and John Gillis addressing the future of European history.

These two essays represent a very unsettling trend in the historical profession; a trend that I believe merits discussion on this and other scholarly lists.

I will not here try to summarize Bynum's and Gillis's essays. Rather I would like to comment on the threat their essays pose to young European historians who have been treading water professionally and to Europeanists struggling with colleagues and administrators to maintain or improve programs in an era of universally shrinking resources. I encourage list members to read their articles for themselves and respond as they fit. Below are what seem to me to be important points to raise:

1. Gillis acknowledges that the "Eurocentric model" has not been replaced with a coherent alternative. While I do not accept that the American historical profession has really been Eurocentric in the past, I think it ought to be clear that Europe needs to have an important place in historical teaching in the years to come. With Europe moving towards unity and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe is as important as it ever was from a global perspective.
2. Bynum and Gillis both encourage Europeanists to become more broadly trained and to do more comparative work. This is undoubtedly a worthy goal, but as Europeanists we should also stress that we are _already_ incredibly broadly trained. A colleague of mine in medieval studies forwarded to me from another discussion group a list of books "every medievalist should have read." The list was extraordinarily lengthy and included works in a half a dozen languages (at least). Meanwhile in my department, some of our American historians had a snit because we recommended that faculty members participating in our exchange program with the University of Versailles learn a little French. It is absurd to demand that Europeanists become more broadly trained when the breadth of their training is already dizzying.
3. American historians of Europe have made extraordinary and singular contributions to our understanding of European history. Except for the English, I think no historical profession can claim to have had such an impact on the study of the history of other countries. We should be proud of our accomplishments and encourage the growth of this field.
4. Europe and European historians continue to lead the way in methodological innovation in historical studies.
5. Gillis, by my count, names at least five very exciting new avenues of research into European history. Indeed, with the transformations currently taking place in European society, this is a very exciting time to be a European historian, and the profession will suffer if young scholars are not encouraged to pursue their scholarly interests in Europe.
6. While I am sympathetic to the aims of multi-cultural education in this country, I am flabbergasted that people are now seriously arguing that there has been too much of a stress on European influences on American society. Our political, economic, religious, military, and --less completely -- cultural institutions have European origins, and Europe continues to be an important point of reference for understanding America and an underutilized source of ideas for the reform of our society.
7. Carolyn Bynum engaged in some irresponsible generalizations about "the German character." William Hagen took her to task for this and she defended herself in the letters column of the most recent "Perspectives." He is right; she is wrong. You can read it for yourselves.
8. It is especially depressing to see such excellent European historians abandoning the field when they are so well-positioned to defend it. Gillis and Bynum represent the best aspects of the American historical profession
   • not because they are Europeanists, but certainly not in spite of the fact that they are Europeanists!

Best,

Jeremy

TELMAND@COFC.EDU (D.A. JEREMY TELMAN)
COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON
HISTORY DEPARTMENT
CHARLESTON, SC 29424 803-953-8102

Return to HABSBURG Home Page.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]