Report on Attending a History Lecture
Posted On Friday, March 14, 2008 at at 1:51 PM by Dan
Jim O'Brien was here a month or so ago scouting locations for the Historians Against the War conference. I attended the lecture and got something out of it. I'll also be at the conference. I don't have much hope for conferences anymore, but I'll be happy with a good conversation.
JIM O’BRIEN LECTURE
On January 17, 2008, historian Jim O’Brien gave a lecture at
O’Brien named some key influences in his life. Both Eugene Genovese and Jesse Lemish were noted. However, he named Staughton Lynd as a mentor. It was from Lynd that O’Brien learned about “social history,” a wider version historical scholarship done in service to a community. Social history is also known as history from below since it focuses on less on prominent individuals and more on the mass of people behind trends. From Lynd, O’Brien learned that “nameless poor people are important to history.”
During the lecture section, O’Brien told stories of student involvement in the modern civil rights movement as well as the anti-war movement of the time. What I found most interesting, however, was when he talked about later years. Beginning in 1973, a recession hit the country hard. This economic realignment affected the social movement of the time, of course, but also deeply affected young scholars looking to have a career. The recession exposed the tension trying to do academic history work while also being part of a social movement. History from below is not usually popular with the establishment. O’Brien talked about the difficulties of finding a job for himself and others in his class. He also talked about the difficulties faced by Lynd when he refused to compromise his scholarship or his outspoken activism. Eventually, Lynd gave up on academia and became an organizer and then a labor lawyer.
This type of tension is much more bearable when a social movement backs one up. However, by the mid-1970s the character of the movement in the
Before this lecture, I had never heard the term social history before, even though I was familiar with the idea of grassroots history. When I decided to return to school, I also decided my goal was to be a lighter-skinned Robyn Kelley or a darker-skinned Howard Zinn. Although I meant the statement to be funny, it does communicate that I want my focus on history to serve the organizing I have always done. Knowing there is a term and a body of knowledge on how to make this happen is quite a relief. I don’t feel like I have to reinvent the wheel. Instead, I can focus on trying to fit the wheel to my particular vehicle. I know how to be an organizer who uses history. I don’t know how to be a historian helping organizing.
One of the questions that came up during the discussion was how can one be accountable to community in the absence of a movement. Personally, I don’t like the question. One doesn’t need a movement to be accountable to a community, one needs a community. Movements come and go, but the community is still there. Rather, I think the question is how one’s scholarship should be geared. I do not underestimate the ability of workers to understand anything. In fact, I count on it. However, I do think that modern scholarship focuses on other scholars rather than the public. I refer to this as writing for the scholar vs. writing for the worker. What I’ve come away with from O’Brien’s talk is a clearer understanding of what I will be learning over the next couple of years. I already know how to write for workers, but I will be learning how to write for scholars. My challenge is to learn these skills while not forgetting my old ones. I want to be a good scholar, but I already am a good organizer. The challenge is learning to be both.
