Considering that he is a Marxist, aren't there better choices? Complete eterminism has pretty much fallen out of favor, and I think Marxism is pretty much out of the mainstream for good, isn't it?
Ahh..The "new Biography" thing...sorry,. missed that in the rest. In answer, rimmy, sort of. One thing about NBH I don't necessarily asribe to is the idea of forethought in the inceptor...the idea tha they created their persona for history, in a sense. There are some of whom see it's application, but as an overall view of history it is appealing but not comprehensive. But, yeah...in comparison with socialist/Marxist history, it is a refreshing change from the growing stodgy view of history as inexorable waves of social movements, and I find it's merit to be greater in what it represents than in it's specifics.
M.A. in US History here... We never had to read Zinn's book's for class (too pedestrian for us high-minded academics), but having done so, I think he has two strengths: 1. He writes well and at a level that doesn't require a high score on the verbal portion of the GRE. 2. He does a good job of mining monographs and other scholarly studies and, by virtue of his style, makes that information available to a more general reader. In other words, he includes a lot of facts that most folks don't usually get or don't want to think about. By so doing, he often challenges and undermines the popular understanding of history. I wouldn't consider his writing to be socialist propaganda though you can pick up a few socialist influences... it's more a good general history that if significantly biased in any way is biased against the mythology of American History.
But that is not really the thesis. It is not creating an "identity" for history, but for their own time. Further, through such a creation, we are supposed to glean insight into the society as a whole (that for which the identity is being constructed and the subsequent reaction to the identity/performance). That is why the feminists have embraced it to such a degree. True, it is a little fresh air for history. I don't think it is enough and, as I said before, it is behind art history (and many other of the humanities), but it is a start, I guess, and it is often the most useful for my own research, since I deal with gender performance and masquerade theory. And you can admit to being afraid of me... mr clutch, You are mistaking Marxism with Marxist history - two different things. Marxism as a methodology is still alive and kicking (although not as dominant as it oce was, as it no longer is "the new thing") remember that most Marxist historians are not Marxist/socialist in their personal life. As far as reading Zinn, it is always good to read as many methodological examinations as possible, even one as "dumbed down" as Zinn. So, no, there is not a better one, but there are certainly complementary works that should be added to such a reading in order to get a broader range.
I see what you're saying, re: own time vs. history, but i think that you misread my meaning; one follws the other, and as Berenson himself said, people who know they are changing their time know they are changing history. But we're splitting hairs...I see that we basically agree on it's impact, which is in and of itself refreshing. So, for my interest, how do you see the study evolving further? In what way do you see general history follwing in the art history path? BTW, I'm assuming you've read and agreed with Margadant? Not really my particular field of study, but it was an interesting read, and as I said refreshing... Oh, and re: your other comments...How did my 'effort' to talk art history prove painfull for you? You disagree with my fairly facile contention? And, yes, I'm afraid of you...but not for the reasons I think you suppose...
Ah, now I understand what you are saying...however, if you follow from that logic, then it is a natural conclusion. If these people are intentionally challenging their roles and creating their new identities, then they surely must understand the way in which they are separating themselves both from society at the time and the "historical narrative." Especially since this stuff starts at the beginning of the "long" nineteenth century, where the cult of personality truly forms. Honestly, I don't know. Historians are quite foreign to me. One thing I need to make clear, I don't think history will neccessarily follow art history, in that it is not needed. History is much less interpretive and creative. When I first read serious history studies I was always left with a feeling of half-finished works, wheras historians generally think we just make up fanciful stories (which is often true). I think, however, that the trend with younger historians is to go a more inter-disciplinary route, cultural history, intellectual history and art history are being seen as more valid in recent years and have led to some great works (Rappaport's Shopping for Pleasure is an example, in my opinion). Such an incorporation inevitably leads to more theory being used (or misused in some cases), but again, I don't think it will go as far as art history (which often derives from literary history). As is the case with any such compilation, Margadant was uneven, however it is always what I think of first when I hear "New Biography." There was some pure gold in that book. I think that now historians need to take it and use the same methodology for other periods and for masculinity (already being done in other fields and a little in history - see Robert Nye's big work). Mostly being mean but also because it either neglected or was wrong about various points (such as Manet, Monet, and Seurat being in thesame movement). Just being a purist. And mean. I think I know what you think I suppose and you are part right and part wrong. bob, Will have to be later...maybe I will email you. Or email me to remind me - to my nga address not the bbs one.
