A passionate answer to a tired question

The tired question: “Is history an art or a science?”

This kick-ass answer is from a revved up student (I liked it so much that I asked permission to post it):

“It IS both; the skill, the craftsmanship of the individual historian, becomes manifest, if it exists, in the blending of the two in the ‘finished’ work. The now-standard way of finding the eigentlich gewesen, the insistence on primary sources and thorough research, those things that we can directly touch, all these things are the science. The art is the assemblage and the way that the historian interjects him/herself into it, which he or she must, either hypocritically proclaiming objectivity or swimming naked in pools of subjectivity…the historian’s presence in history is an inevitability too often closeted.

I want history that is out of this closet. I want history that I can touch, breath, feel; I want history that scares me, that staggers me, that sets me back, that’s too dangerous to know, that makes me laugh and makes me cry and makes me sick, history that pulls me deeply, darkly within it and then throws me back out like my puppy spits a hidden carrot out of her kibble.

And I want it without footnotes.

* * * * * * * *

And for the record, it’s stuff like this that makes me love teaching.

Engels and patriarchy

Perhaps it’s no surprise that the man who described monogamous marriage at its best as “a wedded life of leaden boredom which is described as domestic bliss” might inspire some additional commentary. (He never formally married by the way). His cynicism about middle class marriage aside, is Engels’s broader argument about the material bases of gender inequality convincing? Or as David commented, only partly tongue in cheek, are men inherently jerks who subordinate women simply because they can? Rebecca has asked me to post the following in hopes of continuing yesterday’s conversation.

Right before the break, we discussed the impact of marriage on modern times and the role of women in past and contemporary marriage pairs. This made me think of an article I read in Ms. magazine awhile back. It discusses the role of the housewife in relation to the phenomenon of Desperate Housewives. I personally have never seen the show, but the large following ensures that I know a little about the plot. Basically, how does popular culture affect our understanding of what is acceptable in terms of marriage? A couple years ago, it was Sex and the City (another show I’ve never seen), which portrayed the ability of single women to live their own, independent lives. I know at the end, however, they all had their fairy tale ending, complete with true love and a man in the picture. Going from that supposedly independent lifestyle to Desperate Housewives seems a little backward to me. This may not seem directly related to Engels but am a fan of relating theory to present day life and how various things affect culture. Below is the link for the article in Ms.

http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/housewifewars.asp

Also, below here is Heidi Hartman’s article in Signs.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-9740%28198121%296%3A3%3C366%3ATFATLO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

About the issue of work…Engels demonstrates the division of labor as detrimental to women for several reasons. First, once men’s “work” starts being monetarily rewarded, they are given dominion over women’s “work” that is usually unpaid. Second, when men start working outside of the home, there is a clear demarcation of where supposedly valued work should be performed. Thus women get marginalized and their activities are deemed inferior. Jeanne Boydston’s Home and Work discusses this idea and analyzes the historic transformation of women’s value in the capitalistic society. I am just wondering how given this information and the ever present notion that housework is not actually “work”, how do we as supposedly enlightened people overcome this dichotomy? It’s rather depressing because still women do the majority of housework despite their increased participation in the “workforce” (which is a problematic term, but I’ll let it go for now).

Comments?