| As
a historiographic experiment in synthesis, this seminar proposes to
construct a umbrella field called the "history of American
capitalism."
In the 1960s and 1970s, the old
"economic history" -- best embodied in the nine-volume series The
Economic History of the United States (1945-1961) -- fractured into a
multiplicity of new "fields" of history, each exploring the
history of the American economy from its distinctive vantage point.
Prominent among them are business history, labor history, the history of
technology, the so-called new economic history (largely econometric in
approach), and agricultural history. Meanwhile, sub-literatures
focusing on aspects of the American economy also emerged in a handful of
other fields--for example, legal history, African-American history,
women's history, environmental history.
As valuable as this efflorescence of fields
has been, its fruits have come at a considerable -- and escalating --
price: the fragmentation of knowledge. In an effort to carve
out professional "space" for the new fields of history, their
practitioners constructed lines of demarcation -- inscribed, above all, in
professional societies and journals -- designed to encourage scholarly
conversation within the fields. These fault lines of professional
identity served their purpose admirably but also raised high barriers to
cross-field communication.
Inspired by the exciting scholarship of
individuals who have ventured across the fault lines in the last decade,
this seminar attempts to construct the "history of American
capitalism" as a coherent field -- one as capacious and synthetic as
the old economic history, yet deeply inflected by the new
histories.
The semester
schedule has three parts. We begin with a week of reading that
provides conceptual tools for thinking about the history of
capitalism. This includes brief surveys of the thought of the grand
old men of capitalism (Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Max Weber) as well as of
more recent thinkers. Over the next eight weeks, we will read
historical works that deal with nineteenth-century American capitalism
from a variety of perspectives (the "transition" debate,
slavery, technology, labor, the frontier, and so on). During the
final weeks of the semester, the seminar members will report on their
final-papers-in-progress (see below).
Written work.
From the eight works of historical scholarship, each seminar member must
choose four on which to write a brief analytical essay (max. 5 pp.).
These are due in seminar on the respective days that we discuss the works
(except that those who lead discussion may submit them a week
later). In these essays, please summarize very briefly the scope,
argument, and methodology of the books under review but focus your energy
on the more interesting and challenging task of relating them to the
previous readings -- putting them "in conversation," so to
speak, with the preceding conceptual and historical readings. Aim
for coherence as well as creative synthesis.
The goal of the final papers, due at the
end of the semester, is to define a subfield in the history of American
capitalism around a topic that particularly interests you. (More
advanced students may do a research paper instead -- see me as soon as
possible, if this is your preference.) These should be 25-30 pp. in
length and should aim both to delineate the history of your chosen
subfield and to survey the recent scholarship. Also, take care to
integrate the seminar reading where appropriate. Periodically we
will take a few minutes in seminar to talk about the final papers, and I
will meet individually with all students in the week before Thanksgiving,
but feel free to arrange an earlier meeting if you wish.
Leading
discussion. During the eight weeks in which we discuss
historical works, the students will work in teams of two or three
(depending on enrollment) to lead discussion. The point here is not
to script the seminar discussion but to launch it an interesting direction
and to stand ready to intervene if it seems headed into a
cul-de-sac. Two tips: 1) open-ended questions are generally
more productive than closed questions (i.e., those merely elicit facts or
call for yes-no responses); 2) have the patience to wait for your
colleagues to respond -- resist the urge to fill space-time with more
questions. If you chose to write a brief analytical essay for the
week that you will be leading discussion, you may submit the essay one
week later.
Grades.
These will be based on the four short essays (10% each), on discussion
leadership (10%), and on the final paper (50%).
|
