Holly Genovese, University of Texas at Austin
Proposal Type
Roundtable
Seeking
- Seeking Additional Presenters
- Seeking Specific Expertise
- Seeking General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
- Public Engagement
- Reflections on the Field
- Theory
Abstract
We hope to use the new “Theses on Theory and History” by Ethan Kleinberg, Joan Wallach Scott, and Gary Wilder as a provocation to reflect on the relationship between critical theory and public history.
Description
In this roundtable, we to hope to consider…
-How can critical theory can help us challenge binary thinking about “the academy” and “the public?”
-What can critical theory (admittedly a difficult mode of discourse) contribute to contemporary conversations about more “popular” or accessible history writing?
-What are common perceptions of critical theory among historians, and how accurate are these perceptions?
-How do theoretical perspectives translate into public history projects, whether written, audiovisual, or otherwise?
-What are the political stakes of using or not using critical theory? In other words, what are the privileges that allow scholars to dismiss the scholarly tools offered by queer theory, feminist theory, postcolonial theory and critical race theory?
-Reflexivity by public historians.
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to pass along someone’s contact information confidentially, please get in contact directly: Holly Genovese, [email protected].
All feedback and offers of assistance should be submitted by July 1, 2018.If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.
I believe it to be crucial for you to attend to the definition of “reflexivity” in your preparations & pre-session communications so that participants clearly understand what is meant by this term before arriving. See my discussion of this issue in my About Critical Museology Miscellanea blog page at https://miscellaneousmuseology.wordpress.com/about-critical-museology-miscellanea/ .
My main point about this matter is located in the following Endnote:
[x] I have not yet encountered an actual definition of the term “reflexivity” in the literature on critical museology. The on-line Oxford English Dictionary does not define ‘reflexivity’ per se., but simply referring back to ‘reflexive,’ gives the following option “3. (of a method or theory in the social sciences) taking account of itself or of the effect of the personality or presence of the researcher on what is being investigated” at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reflexive . An OED example sentence includes ‘being reflexive . . . requires of us the ability to name the assumptions that guide our practice.’ The on-line Social Research Glossary provides the following among the various irrelevant meanings (focussed only on the data arising from research): “A fourth level is a more complex philosophical one, namely the idea of reflexivity as self awareness (i.e. reflecting back on oneself)” at http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/socialresearch/reflexivity.htm . All this apparently aims chiefly at elements other than the overall material conditions of the situation that I believe strongly are crucial for true “reflexivity” in critical museology. I also have a concern about the use of this term because the OED relates a meaning focussed on “action performed as a reflex, without conscious thought.” Neither metacognition nor necessary “reflexivity” in critical museology can happen without conscious intentional thought.
Given the theme of the conference it would be interesting to consider what a “reparative reading” looks like in public history and to include some thinkers on public history/queer theory in that connection. It might be helpful to focus the session a bit in that way (or another) because theory broadly speaking is rather an abstract topic for public history practitioners, who tend to favor seeing a way the topics play out in practical terms,
Of your several big proposed queries, the fourth one strikes me as the most productive for a public history audience. The others are very broad and vague and/or already extensively debated over the years, and while that’s not to say they’re not worth revisiting, I think you’d want to make sure to frame them in a way that public historians would find new and engaging. (For a previous discussion of how public historians tend to use and relate to critical theory, you might have a look at this blog post from 2014). I also wonder if Kleinberg, Scott, and Wilder’s manifesto is the right provocation here, as they’re making a rather puzzling accusation that the contemporary historical discipline has reverted to a “just the facts, ma’am” approach to understanding the past. I don’t think that’s true for most academic historians, and it’s certainly not true for public historians, who have always been deeply aware of being engaged in acts of interpretation and selection (here’s a series of blog posts devoted to precisely this topic). So crafting this panel as a discussion of how, why, and where theory does inform (or perhaps sneak into) public historical work might work best here, with a session title that is less about “theorizing the public” (which isn’t really what you’re proposing to do) and more about the perceived breach, but perhaps actual complementarity, of good public history and critical theory.
I like how this proposal concentrates on “the public” and challenges binary thinking about “the academy” and “public.