I kept meaning to put this essay up over the summer, but I, uh, got distracted. Did I say that I wasn’t kidding about the title of this blog? Anyway, this is a talk I gave at the the Research Libraries Group Programs Meeting this past summer. I was toying with rewriting it to be slightly more formal, as this was written to be spoken aloud, but I’ve decided to leave it as is.
Pages
- Photos at Flickr
- About Me
- Emergence Notes
- Last Collection Speech, Swarthmore, 2002
- Permanent Entries
- Power Can Lose
- Research Libraries Group/OCLC Programs Talk, June 2007
- Scholarly Articles
- Syllabi
- History 1L The History of Play and Leisure, Spring 2008
- History 1Y History of the Future Spring 2011
- History 61 The Production of History, Spring 2007
- History 62 The History of Reading, Spring 2007
- History 62, The History of Reading, Spring 2012
- History 80 The Whole Enchilada
- History 83 What Ifs and Might-Have-Beens, Spring 2011
- History 87 Development and Modern Africa, Spring 2007
- History 88 The Social History of Consumption, Spring 2008
- History 89 Environmental History of Africa
- History 8B History of Southern Africa, Spring 2011
- History 8B. Mfecane, Mines and Mandela: Southern Africa from 1600 to 2006, Fall 2006
- History 8C From Leopold to Kabila: The Bad Twentieth Century in Central Africa, Spring 2008
- History of the Future, Spring 2006
- The NOTES ARCHIVE
Archives
- June 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- May 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
Categories
- Academia
- Africa
- Blogging
- Books
- Cleaning Out the Augean Stables
- Consumerism, Advertising, Commodities
- Defining "Liberal Arts"
- Digital Humanities
- Domestic Life
- Food
- Games and Gaming
- Generalist's Work
- Good Quote, Bad Quote
- Grasping the Nettle
- I'm Annoyed
- Information Technology and Information Literacy
- Intellectual Property
- Miscellany
- Oath for Experts
- Oh Not Again He's Going to Tell Us It's a Complex System
- Pictures from an Institution
- Politics
- Popular Culture
- Production of History
- Sheer Raw Geekery
- Swarthmore
- The Mixed-Up Bookshelves
- Uncategorized
Meta
I often feel that I detect running through a fair amount of what you write on the blog (and in this piece) an implicit equation of generalism/accessibility and comparative work. Is that an accurate impression? If so, I think it could use some explicit articulating and defending, given that there’s no automatic connection between the two.
I think that’s an interesting point. I’d agree with you that they’re not the same thing. But I do think generalism requires some degree of comparative thinking, otherwise it’s nothing more than brute-force universalism. That’s my problem with alleged generalists like Jared Diamond or E.O. Wilson, for example: they assert a universal that allows them to simply steamroll all variation and heterogeneity. A good generalist is aware of very different kinds of claims about knowledge in different areas of study and does not insist on subordinating those differences to some universal theory or argument. That’s beginning to be close to some kind of comparative method, but it’s not the same thing as one.
The piece has been duly submitted to my Seniors, one of whom is working on a digitization and archives project.
This was very interesting, stuff pinging about in _lots_ of different directions here. I think you’re a bit more optimistic about or less focused on the power struggles involved in this than I would be, and I also think the increasing commodification of everything, including the university, and information/knowledge itself, is going to shift library and archive work away from what you propose. (I don’t have this all articulated to myself, yet, so I don’t suppose this will make sense.)
And I would add that the increasing specialization and additive nature of disciplinary knowledge is crushing grad students on the one side and the job market/publishing crunch is coming at us from the other. I’m not sure that what you propose as a change will help — my department has already mandated a move for us towards more comparative/interdisciplinary/Everything Studies work _while still requiring_ the depth of knowledge as for the specialist model. And then they cut our available funding time.
My apologies to Jonathan’s seniors, the poor things.
Sisyphus, that’s very interesting, and you definitely touch on something that worries me a great deal, which is that demands for generalism will simply be additive demands, that what we will ask of future academics is that they be able to pay lip service to everything and yet somehow also be supreme experts on some very specific subject. I think that’s actually what happened with “high theory” in the 1980s and 1990s: a lot of its practicioners assumed the burden of speaking to everything indiscriminately, and if you were involved in theory-talk, you could easily be one-upped by someone asking you for your opinion of another theorist, another philosopher, and so on.
This is why I really strenuously insist that generalism isn’t just specialization-plus, why it is a subtractive form of knowing in some ways. That’s crucial: it shouldn’t be an insult to a generalist to say that they know less than specialists about a given field, just that the generalist is doing his/her job. Then the only sin the generalist can commit is assuming that a generalist understanding can do more than it ought, that it trumps the specialist on questions that reside with specialization. Which, unfortunately, is a sin that a lot of generalists commit. The generalist is built to communicate and translate from a specialization to a wider public, and to translate back to specialists the question, “So what?” Not to tell the specialist that his undersanding of social formations in late 17th Century North Wales isn’t supported by the archival evidence.
Tim – quick question. How does Saturday Morning Fever fit into the mode of specialization you chronicle? Wasn’t it written when you were untenured? How did it “matter” in your tenure review, and how might you see it fitting into your argument here?
(Sorry, that was not a quick question, but a bunch of potential lengthy inquiries…)
Saturday Morning Fever was kind of an accident, an outgrowth of some writing my brother was doing that I got drawn into. At first, I really saw it as a decidely non-academic project and one that had nothing at all to do with what I did as a scholar. But I was ultimately surprised that at least some of what I was thinking through during the writing had an effect on the way I thought about expressive culture in general, in Africa and elsewhere. My impression is that it didn’t matter at all in my tenure review, negatively or positively, but I could be wrong. In the end, it still wasn’t that scholarly a project–Heather Hendershot’s book is the truly thorough version of some of the arguments we made more sloppily.
I think the take-away lesson for me of that project was to be less frightened of whimsy and opportunity in how I managed my intellectual universe. In some ways, it gave me permission to remember all the things that had interested me before about the third year of graduate school, and to start being interested in them again. Which I’m very grateful for–I think when I look at some other academic bloggers who had that sense of being trapped, there are far worse ways to “break out” of the trap–into the intellectual politics of resentment and bitterness, for example. This was a much more joyful and playful experience of reinvention.
Thrilled to learn of the existence of the Journal of Late 20th Century Icelandic Haiku Studies. Think they might publish this little ditty I wrote in 1999?
Honn ert frá Kanada, menna
Honn ert ekki Gimlur
Þessa ert ókunnugur maður
Or maybe, being a specialised journal, they only publish critical studies, and not new work. Worth an email, for sure. If only my library subscribed!