Women's Studies... good idea/bad idea?

[Dava]

What you just described as social history IS history, period.

I sense some confusion here. Social history is a type of historiography.

Names and dates isn't history, it's chronology. Names and dates are irrelevant unless they are in a context. Knowing D-Day was June 6, 1944 doesn't mean anything unless it's made known that it was important because it was the day the Western Front in Europe was successful in killing enough German troops and breaking enough German things that the Russians were able to launch a counter-offensive strong enough to reach Berlin.

Historiography is all about interpretation. Some historiographers would argue that D-Day isn't terribly important. It all depends on specialization, really.

I also didn't state that names-and-dates was history. I said that was the common perception of history.

Sure the history of France is more than a list of kings (which, again, isn't history, but record keeping), but levels of importance also matter (and the average French peasant didn't effect much change - at least until the Revolution).

Again, this is a matter of interpretation. We determine after the fact that a king was important. But was he? If we go back to Medieval Europe and ask a random peasant who his king is, will he know? Who determines how "important" a person is or was?

The reason historiographers have focused so heavily on heads of state is because they leave so many written records, and written records are the stuff of historiography. But this does not mean average people are unimportant. They are the ones who trade and build towns and develop customs. And, without a people to rule, there is no king. "Levels of importance" are very much a matter of point of view. With developments in archeology and anthropology, historians now have more material to draw from than just the written record.

Historiography too often seems to willfully ignore the powerful and influential because they had power and influence, in keeping with the school of thought that common people are better people.

Ah... no. Historiography, for the most part, still focuses on the powerful and influential. But an historian feels safe overlooking Napoleon because he knows the man is well-studied and there are plenty of others who will write about him. Many historians are simply shifting their focus to these other areas of history because they are new or overlooked. It's an opportunity to write something new instead of rehashing the same old topics.

Now, I don't think there is a single thing wrong with branching out the study of history. It adds to the body of knowledge. Concerning the OT, women's studies encourages scholars to look at records which have previously been overlooked or brushed aside. This can only add to the depth of our understanding of history.

 

[Skeptic]

Ah... no. Historiography, for the most part, still focuses on the powerful and influential. But an historian feels safe overlooking Napoleon because he knows the man is well-studied and there are plenty of others who will write about him. Many historians are simply shifting their focus to these other areas of history because they are new or overlooked. It's an opportunity to write something new instead of rehashing the same old topics.

Now, I don't think there is a single thing wrong with branching out the study of history. It adds to the body of knowledge. Concerning the OT, women's studies encourages scholars to look at records which have previously been overlooked or brushed aside. This can only add to the depth of our understanding of history.

You're correct about the fact that historians are branching into fields of history (such as the history of private life) that were previously neglected, the philosophers are looking at (say) African philosophy more seriously, and so on.

You're wrong, however, if you think that this is due to the influence of "women studies" or "black studies" department. Historians, philosophers, social scientists, and so on were branching out in this direction for over a century (at least), long before the establishment of such departments.

In practice if not in theory, any real work in the history of, say, peasant women in 17th century England is done in the history department--and has been done for decades at least, witout the least help from "women studies" department.

In practice, for the most part, "Women's Studies" departments content themselves with "encouraging" historians to do what they've already done anyway by whining incessantly how ignored and unheard of peasant women in the 17th century are in the history department, no doubt due to the evil classist racist phallocentric bias of dead white male historians.

 

[Dava]

You're wrong, however, if you think that this is due to the influence of "women studies" or "black studies" department. Historians, philosophers, social scientists, and so on were branching out in this direction for over a century (at least), long before the establishment of such departments.

I never suggested any such thing. I'm actually suggesting the reverse, that women studies (or black studies) are the result of this branching out, not the cause.

Don't put words in my mouth--they taste funny!

 

[drkitten]

Concerning the OT, women's studies encourages scholars to look at records which have previously been overlooked or brushed aside. This can only add to the depth of our understanding of history.

I disagree here, for several reasons.

First of all, scholars need little "encouragement" to look at records which have previously been overlooked or brushed aside. Any graduate student needs to find something new to make the subject of her Ph.D. Any assistant professor needs to find something new to make the subject of her tenure book. Any associate professor needs to find something new to make the subject of her promotion book. The idea that there's this huge cultural imperative -- or male-dominated conspiracy -- to make some subjects off-limits for scholarship is somewhat silly. Modern scholarship is dominated by a desperate search for novelty, almost precisely because the fields are so picked over (and because there are more graduate students and junior faculty now than there have ever been in the past.)

As an aside, that's one of the reasons for the semi-recent domance of post-modernism and "theory" in the various literature/humanities disciplines. In broad terms, it gave scholars licence to MAKE STUFF UP and pass it off as novelty and the results of scholarly inquiry. Essentially, one could develop an alternative (if strained) reading and publish it. Here is a good example of that at work, where a scholar decides to reinterpret The Great Gatsby as being about race. It's ludicrous, but as a noted scholar says in the article, ""It may get the chap tenure, and it may get him a promotion. Anybody in academia trying to get ahead deserves sympathy. It's a mug's game, an occupation in which the odds are against the people engaged in it. His idea is absurd, but I don't want to take the bread out of someone's mouth."

The problem is that this quest comes at the expense of the future of the discipline -- the students who are being exposed to this nonsense, and the future researchers who have to drink from the wells poisoned by this swill. From the same source : "Scribner, an editor at the Scribner imprint of Simon & Schuster, nevertheless sees an upside to the notion. 'I suppose if it entices people to read this classic, it's all for the best. Look, this is bad history but it's not bad pedagogy. He can use the analogy to approach some of the themes of 'Gatsby' -- of the outsider trying to be an insider, of the self-invented man. But please don't claim that Fitzgerald intended this as the factual basis of his book.'" Or, more bluntly, "This kind of thing is bad for literature, bad for Fitzgerald, bad for 'The Great Gatsby' and bad for students who get exposed to this kind of guessing game."

The problem with "women's studies" is that this kind of gibberish is endemic to the discipilne. Competent historians who want to study the history of women (or the history of any specific woman) have no problem publishing and working out of traditional mainstream departments; similarly, English majors who want to focus on George Elliot or Barbara Cartland can work from the same coffee pot as the Baconians. In practice, "women's studies" are defined by a rejection of traditional scholarship, which in turn means that they are indeed making it up as they go along, largely uninfluenced by traditional scholarly standards.

And it shows. And part of the original reason for the development of "women's studies" as a separate discipline was to provide a haven for the pseudoscholars who couldn't hack the rigours of a traditional department (and who would have been denied tenure or not granted degrees in the first place). So in this sense, bad scholarship is the very reason for "women's studies" to exist....

 

[slingblade]

As an aside, that's one of the reasons for the semi-recent domance of post-modernism and "theory" in the various literature/humanities disciplines. In broad terms, it gave scholars licence to MAKE STUFF UP and pass it off as novelty and the results of scholarly inquiry. Essentially, one could develop an alternative (if strained) reading and publish it. Here is a good example of that at work, where a scholar decides to reinterpret The Great Gatsby as being about race. It's ludicrous, but as a noted scholar says in the article, ""It may get the chap tenure, and it may get him a promotion. Anybody in academia trying to get ahead deserves sympathy. It's a mug's game, an occupation in which the odds are against the people engaged in it. His idea is absurd, but I don't want to take the bread out of someone's mouth."

If I had ever, if anyone in my classes had ever, tried to do this kind of analysis, we'd have been roasted slowly over a fire. That sort of analysis (the Whole Cloth of Your Imagination School) was what Prof meant by his "Moby Dick isn't about your aunt in N.J." speech.

The problem with "women's studies" is that this kind of gibberish is endemic to the discipilne. Competent historians who want to study the history of women (or the history of any specific woman) have no problem publishing and working out of traditional mainstream departments; similarly, English majors who want to focus on George Elliot or Barbara Cartland can work from the same coffee pot as the Baconians. In practice, "women's studies" are defined by a rejection of traditional scholarship, which in turn means that they are indeed making it up as they go along, largely uninfluenced by traditional scholarly standards.

And it shows. And part of the original reason for the development of "women's studies" as a separate discipline was to provide a haven for the pseudoscholars who couldn't hack the rigours of a traditional department (and who would have been denied tenure or not granted degrees in the first place). So in this sense, bad scholarship is the very reason for "women's studies" to exist....

Then I was speaking about an anomaly, unaware. My school doesn't teach the subject the way you describe. It teaches women's studies as a focused literary/historical/sociological area of study, allowing students to devote more time to authors of works not normally presented in regular literature, history, or sociology classes.

 

[drkitten]

If I had ever, if anyone in my classes had ever, tried to do this kind of analysis, we'd have been roasted slowly over a fire. That sort of analysis (the Whole Cloth of Your Imagination School) was what Prof meant by his "Moby Dick isn't about your aunt in N.J." speech.

Er,.... good? I mean, I don't ordinarily approve of wanton and capricious cruelty to students, but my principles are somewhat flexible and I'm willing to make certain well-justified exceptions.

Then I was speaking about an anomaly, unaware. My school doesn't teach the subject the way you describe. It teaches women's studies as a focused literary/historical/sociological area of study, allowing students to devote more time to authors of works not normally presented in regular literature, history, or sociology classes.

Yeah. I think we're more in agreement than perhaps we seemed initially. There's nothing wrong with a specialist course offering a specialist knowledge of lesser-known women's writings (and what can be learned from them), any more than there's something wrong with a specialist course on "seafaring narrative" that teaches Two Years Before the Mast, Moby Dick, and The Caine Mutiny.

The problem is when people start to define what they don't do. Saying that you study seafaring novels doesn't mean that everything else is "landlubber's writings" or something like that.

 

[Dava]

Concerning the OT, women's studies encourages scholars to look at records which have previously been overlooked or brushed aside. This can only add to the depth of our understanding of history.

I disagree here, for several reasons.

First of all, scholars need little "encouragement" to look at records which have previously been overlooked or brushed aside. Any graduate student needs to find something new to make the subject of her Ph.D. Any assistant professor needs to find something new to make the subject of her tenure book. Any associate professor needs to find something new to make the subject of her promotion book. The idea that there's this huge cultural imperative -- or male-dominated conspiracy -- to make some subjects off-limits for scholarship is somewhat silly. Modern scholarship is dominated by a desperate search for novelty, almost precisely because the fields are so picked over (and because there are more graduate students and junior faculty now than there have ever been in the past.)

First, I should probably clarify my statement. For undergrads, women's studies (as a set of courses) encourages them to look beyond the sources they usually reference. For academics, specialization in women's studies necessitates this broader approach. This is true of any history specialization which does not rely solely on historical documents.

I do not suggest any male-dominated conspiracy for previous oversights into women's history. And I agree that broader approaches are being taken because so many areas are picked over, which I stated earlier. So perhaps we're in agreement.

The problem with "women's studies" is that this kind of gibberish is endemic to the discipilne. Competent historians who want to study the history of women (or the history of any specific woman) have no problem publishing and working out of traditional mainstream departments; similarly, English majors who want to focus on George Elliot or Barbara Cartland can work from the same coffee pot as the Baconians. In practice, "women's studies" are defined by a rejection of traditional scholarship, which in turn means that they are indeed making it up as they go along, largely uninfluenced by traditional scholarly standards.

This hasn't been my experience. At my university, women's studies was housed within the history department. It was a specialization within history, and no degree in women's studies was offered. This was in contrast to Asian Studies, which was interdisciplinary and had extensive language, history and even art requirements. Because women's studies was housed within the history department, they conducted their research with the same rigor as those who specialized in Greek history or ecclesiastical history.

 

[Piggy]

This hasn't been my experience. At my university, women's studies was housed within the history department. It was a specialization within history, and no degree in women's studies was offered. This was in contrast to Asian Studies, which was interdisciplinary and had extensive language, history and even art requirements. Because women's studies was housed within the history department, they conducted their research with the same rigor as those who specialized in Greek history or ecclesiastical history.

This goes back to my point that complaints about WS are generally about execution. There's no reason why WS can't be a legitimate specialization within history. Unfortunately, a cozier relationship w/ lit rather than history appears to be more prevalent, as is also the case with the young pseudo-field of "whiteness studies".

 

[Skeptic]

Let's distinguish between studying women and so-called "women studies". The first is using the usual tools of the trade--logic, reasoning, looking at archives, at other evidence, etc., etc.--to study women's history or sociology. That's of course just fine.

The "women's studies" fetish, however, is to argue that there is some special "emotional" or "intuitive" way that women should do research--different than the "heirarchial" and "cold" way men learn. This view sees logic and impartial scholarship as the enemy, and argues that women should "free" themselves from them.

In effect, this is going back to the 19th century view that women are too emotional, unstable, and illogical to do real science (or history, or literary criticism, etc.) in a rigorous way, only adding at the end "but that's a GOOD thing!". Well, it isn't.

 

[Almo]

It's a pendulum thing. It went too far one way (ignoring women's contributions), so now it has to swing too far the other way for a while.

 

[slingblade]

....the young pseudo-field of "whiteness studies".

I took one of those, too. Just one. Only one ever offered on my campus, only one ever likely to be offered. But I found it fascinating and eye-opening, and I'm glad I was there the one time they had it.

 

[Dava]

Let's distinguish between studying women and so-called "women studies". The first is using the usual tools of the trade--logic, reasoning, looking at archives, at other evidence, etc., etc.--to study women's history or sociology. That's of course just fine.

Good idea!

The "women's studies" fetish, however, is to argue that there is some special "emotional" or "intuitive" way that women should do research--different than the "heirarchial" and "cold" way men learn. This view sees logic and impartial scholarship as the enemy, and argues that women should "free" themselves from them.

In effect, this is going back to the 19th century view that women are too emotional, unstable, and illogical to do real science (or history, or literary criticism, etc.) in a rigorous way, only adding at the end "but that's a GOOD thing!". Well, it isn't.

I think what we're looking for here is "feminist theory," and that, indeed, leads to some counterproductive ideas.

As far as I know, most universities either lump women's studies under a single discipline, like history, or it is interdisciplinary--combining women's history, women's literature, and women's health. True, some professors may delve into Feminist theory, but I'm not yet convinced that's the general rule. One certainly wouldn't get far rejecting logic and science while studying women's health!

 

[Piggy]

The "women's studies" fetish, however, is to argue that there is some special "emotional" or "intuitive" way that women should do research--different than the "heirarchial" and "cold" way men learn.

Yeah, that's the way -- in my experience -- it often pans out, but it doesn't have to be. There's nothing requiring a WS program to work that way. I have no reason to doubt if someone tells me that there are some well-run WS programs that don't fall into those traps. But my experience tells me that sloppy scholarship is the norm (as it is in my field, too, these days, I'll admit).

 

[drkitten]

As far as I know, most universities either lump women's studies under a single discipline, like history, or it is interdisciplinary--combining women's history, women's literature, and women's health. True, some professors may delve into Feminist theory, but I'm not yet convinced that's the general rule. One certainly wouldn't get far rejecting logic and science while studying women's health!

In my experience, there are three -- not two -- ways to handle "women's studies."

The first is as a subspecialization within a department. Just as you have the Chaucer specialist, or the Anglo-Saxon specialist, you have the "women's lit" specialist. Ditto for the "women's history" specialist who has the office next to the Germanist, the "gender psychologist" who has the office next to the personality theorist, &c. This is generally fine.

The second is when you have an interdisciplinary program set up, so that the women's lit specialist meets with the women's history specialist on a regular basis and see what they can find of mutual interest. This may or may not be "generally fine"; the problem that can arise is that the sort of interdisciplinary inquiry this group performs may not match the sum of the parts. Generally, the relevant departments will end up dragging all the participants up sharply if participation in this kind of exchange starts cutting into scholarly and teaching performance.

The third -- and where things go straight to hell -- is when this interdisciplinary group achieves departmental status. Since promotion, tenure, and so forth are usually granted on the basis of a departmental recommendation, this means that the "women's lit" specialist is now being judged and evaluated, not by literature specialists but by the historian and psychologist. Lacking any background in the discipline (e.g. literature), it often becomes the case that the standard of measurement is no longer scholarly, but political and social (e.g., adherence to some standard of feminist ideology or political activism). And because departments are largely self-regulating, this becomes a self-sustaining cycle. Bad professors tenure other bad professors, who train bad students who get jobs under other bad professors and are eventually tenured themselves.

As Piggy put it, "There's nothing requiring a WS program to work that way. I have no reason to doubt if someone tells me that there are some well-run WS programs that don't fall into those traps. But my experience tells me that sloppy scholarship is the norm (as it is in my field, too, these days, I'll admit)." But there's a sort of intellectual Gresham's law at work here -- bad scholarship drives out good. Once any department is established as the local haven for the second-rate, first-rate scholars tend not to apply for positions there -- and the second-rate themselves tend not to hire the first rate (they will look bad by comparison). If this is widespread throughough the discipline, then the discipline itself tends to fall into disrepute, further worsening the problem.

And unfortunately, there's no easy fix once this trend is established.

 

[a_unique_person]

WS is just a pretty new discipline. Philosophy and science were full of BS when they started. Give it time.

 

[Piggy]

WS is just a pretty new discipline. Philosophy and science were full of BS when they started. Give it time.

Philosophy is still full of BS. Science was a way out of the BS. We do not need an alternative to valid scholarship.

 

[slingblade]

Philosophy is still full of BS.

Um, not entirely.

My Intro to Logic class was a philosophy class. if it weren't for that class, I would not be here. I would still be playing Hunt the Boeing, or bragging about how well Koko can sign.

Or is it just that my school does nothing the way other schools do it?

 

[Buckaroo]

I broke up with an English professor I was dating a few years ago after an argument about Lacan.

Slightly OT, but I feel the cautionary tale is justified: That pomo stuff can wreak havok on one's love life.

 

[Piggy]

I broke up with an English professor I was dating a few years ago after an argument about Lacan.

That'll teach you to be so... so... other!

 

[Piggy]

Um, not entirely.

My Intro to Logic class was a philosophy class.

Yeah, I know.

I rant and rave about "philosophy", but I conveniently exclude logic -- I separate it from general philosophy and love it and pet it and call it George and deny it's any of that nasty ole philo stuff.

I do the same with what Gould does in "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" even though he insists that there's necessarily a philosophical component to any interdisciplinary approach to answering questions and developing theories about nature. I stick my fingers in my ears and pretend I didn't hear that.

So here I'll admit (but just for a moment) that "philosophy" and "metaphysics" can be legitimate, even necessary, tools. But now that that moment is over, I'll reassert that, as generally used, they're complete and utter BS and an excuse to build castles in the air.