Search News


Browse Archives

News

Empty Chair No More

July 2, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When conservative critics look at the field of history, one much repeated charge is that departments have obliterated fields like military history in favor of multiculturalism. And for those who have questioned the academy's commitment to military history in recent years, no institution has been more of a target than the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Wisconsin has for several years been trying to fill an endowed chair in military history and the length of the search (extended in part to raise more money) left some suspicious. "The ostensible reason for the delay is that the university wants to raise even more money, so that it can attract a top-notch senior scholar. There may be another factor as well: Wisconsin doesn’t actually want a military historian on its faculty," said a 2006 article in National Review. The piece added that "for all intents and purposes, military history in Madison is dead. It’s dead at many other top colleges and universities as well. Where it isn’t dead and buried, it’s either dying or under siege."

As of Wednesday, military history is in fact alive and well at Madison -- with John W. Hall in place as the first Ambrose-Hesseltine Professor in U.S. Military History. And as to other fears expressed in that National Review article and elsewhere, such as that leading universities were keeping military history alive only by setting loose cultural studies scholars to analyze the military, Wisconsin landed itself an Army major with an impressive combination of military and academic credentials.

Hall is a West Point graduate (who has taught there as well) and has worked most recently as a researcher in the Future Warfare Division of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. With a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he is an expert on "irregular wars" -- those involving counterinsurgencies or forces other than governmental armies. In September, Harvard University Press will be publishing his book, Uncommon Defense: Indian Allies in the Black Hawk War. And Hall is working on a second book for Harvard, about the military history of Indian removal in the United States.

In an interview, Hall noted that he grew up in Wisconsin and said that the position he is starting is a "dream job," both for the subject matter he'll teach and write about and for being at Madison. "It's the only position I would be willing to leave my Army career for."

Hall said he was "well aware of the discussion and debate about the supposed demise of military history," but he questioned the accuracy of the reports. "Since I began my graduate training in 2001, I've seen a lot more discussion about the demise of military history than actual evidence and support of that discussion," he said. "It's not as bleak as some people have made it out to be."

Data from the American Historical Association back up Hall's view that military history -- while not nearly as popular as other subfields -- has not disappeared. In 2005, only 1.9 percent of historians at four-year colleges identified themselves as military historians, down from 2.4 percent in 1975. But during that time period, the percentage of history departments at four-year colleges with at least one military historian has gone up, to 35.2 percent from 29.9 percent. (While it is true from the data that history fields associated with study of race and gender have gone up in both categories, there is no evidence that those gains came from military history -- although diplomatic history took a major hit during those decades.)

Hall also said that there are limits to focusing on whether a professor is called a military historian. "The way I wrote my book defies easy categorization," he said. He added that some of the "most insightful books about military history" in recent years have come from scholars who aren't identified as military historians. He cited as examples John Dower's War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War, Patrick Griffin's American Leviathan: Empire, Nation and Revolutionary Frontier and Jill Lepore's The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of Identity. Dower, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is known as a Japanese historian. Griffin, of the University of Notre Dame, and Lepore, of Harvard, are both identified as historians of early America.

"I view as military historians many people who don't call themselves military historians," Hall said.

And those like himself, who do call themselves military historians, in fact have long mixed military, social, political and diplomatic history in ways that defy the stereotype of only producing work "about drums and bugles."

Mark Grimsley, a military historian at Ohio State University who is currently a visiting professor at the U.S. Army War College, said that he thinks the debates over military history's status have been oversimplified. Grimsley, through his teaching, writing and blog called Blog Them Out of the Stone Age, has argued that there are problems for military history, but that they aren't as straightforward as some suggest.

Ohio State is known for its strong military history program. But Grimsley noted that although many colleges and universities don't have a program in military history, they have a single professor with an interest in the field, and such professors receive support from their colleagues. He doesn't believe that other historians are hostile to the subject matter, although some commentators like to describe the work as "besieged," he noted. The real problem is simply "an incuriosity" about military history. While many military historians feel a duty to keep up in some way with a range of their colleagues' fields, many other historians "do not feel obliged to know very much about military history."

Grimisley said that he sees Hall's hire as part of a trend in which departments are embracing military historians "whose work connects strongly with other historical fields."

And that can be very good for the scholarship, Grimsley said, provided that it is not viewed as an either/or choice on some of the "traditional concerns" of military history. "I'm known as someone trying to expand [military history], but I wouldn't be very good if I didn't know a lot about commanders, campaigns, strategic policy making and other traditional concerns. Just because they are traditional does not mean that they are unimportant."

Robert H. Berlin, executive director of the Society for Military History, said that members of the group have been watching the Wisconsin search and that many were "very excited to see it filled."

Berlin said that he has seen consistent student interest in taking courses in military history. He added that he's seeing renewed interest from graduate students as well. In part, he said, this is because the society's leaders noticed "a lot of gray hair" at its meetings and so decided to start publicizing its programs to graduate students and creating small stipends to help them attend meetings. At this year's meeting, he said about 90 of the 450 attendees were graduate students -- more than double the total of grad students just a few years ago.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Empty Chair No More

  • A typo perhaps?
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on July 2, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • Nice to see something about this topic in a place other than National Review.

  • folks are having a fit
  • Posted by Steven Clark, PhD at University of Wisconsin on July 2, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • Finally, the University of Wisconsin filled the position Stephen Ambrose gave money for. But, the Birkenstock/Subaru crowd in Mad City are apoplectic. Some in the university too. After all, it was not long ago that the UW Law school tried to ban military recruiters (who would then defend the Gitmo Gang?). It is common for PTA groups to relive the 60's and 70s when military recruiters enter the high schools.

    I was amused at Ambrose's bequest, anticipating the insanity it would reveal and I was not disappointed. In a way, I am sorry that the award didn't drag out a bit longer--would have made for more comedy.

    Steven Clark, PhD
    University of Wisconsin

  • The necessity of military history
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan Statge University on July 2, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • A knowledge of military history ought to be required, not only for a narrow band of specialists, but for all historians. The reason is simple. Military history, when done at all seriously, illuminates, as no other field, some grim truths about the dark nature of human history and of humanity, per se. That, perhaps, is why it is so off-putting to recent and more trendy styles of analyzing history. Those grew out of a political stance rooted, for the most part, in a Rousseauist view of human nature, where all our nasty instincts are taken to be mere social artifacts, and therefore remediable by a revision of the social order. Military history--which is to say, the history of a major element of the human experience--disallowes this view. It is relentlessly Hobbesian, at base, and therefore a much needed corrective to the view that all will be well with us, once racism, sexism, and Eurocentrism are duly banished from our institutions (at least the academic ones).

  • Military History's popularity
  • Posted by Fast Johnny , History at Norwich Graduate on July 2, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • It is interesting how Military History subjects in colleges always seem to be very popular classes for attendence while many of the 'multicultural' courses are not so well attended to say the least. Every class about MilHis when I was in undergrad was packed and other courses were only attended by bare minimums of students. It is the same way now. Funny, how those who are calling Mil His a dead subject can't fill thier classes. I mean be honest, would you rather take a class entitled The World in Flames: WW2 or the History of post-industrial age Labor forces in the US? Now, be honest.

    Furthermore, Mil Hist is so deeply embedded in culture, society and covers topics like the 'holy trinity, plus one": Race, Labor, Gender and Ethnicity. Military history is so ingrained and connected to all aspects of history that to drop it in favor of ill attended multicultural study courses is not only killing the fields of history, sociology, anthropology and others, it is taking away a very real and tangible part of historic studies. Sorry, it IS part of the human condition and like it or not it is worth studying. Even if it is too uncomfortable for some of those leftist, post modernists and revisionists. The cry of 'oh war is so terrible, we don't think it is a good thing to dwell on' is the wail of a watered down, mis-directed polictical correctness that will get all liberal arts and humanities in trouble. Studying Military History is very inportant to understand the effects and vice versa on cultures, societies and human existance in general. The topics in Military History have had such a impact on shaping the world of today yesterday and will tomorrow that pushing it aside for politically correct studies is doo-doo.

  • Posted by Mark Bauerlein on July 2, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • It would be good to get a comment from John Miller here. He wrote the National Review article linked to at the beginning.

    And this comment is no sign of health for the field: "The real problem is simply 'an incuriosity' about military history. While many military historians feel a duty to keep up in some way with a range of their colleagues' fields, many other historians 'do not feel obliged to know very much about military history.'" In academia, nothing is worse for a topic than incuriosity.

  • jumping to conclusions, all
  • Posted by Theron on July 2, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • I find it interesting that the posts so far all seem to jump to the conclusion that military history (and historians) somehow must glorify the subject matter, that military historians are all somehow non-thinking flag-wavers. The writers opposed to military history think this..and so do those who glorify military history.

    Both groups are wrong. Unfortunately, Stephen Ambrose at best was a great popularizer, but his history does not reflect the bulk of the discipline nor what the discipline does. I would counter his rah rah approach with Paul Fussel's THE GREAT WAR AND MODERN MEMORY or his "WARTIME." Read too, Jack Beldon's STILL TIME TO DIE." For scholars, who can beat Quincy Wright's A STUDY OF WAR. Although a political Science tome, his work is as much history as political science.

  • Military History Can Be Informative
  • Posted by George Patsourakos , Retired Administrator at Harvard University on July 2, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I believe that military history has lost its popularity at most colleges, because the U.S. no longer has a draft. Consequently, most college students feel that they do not need that course, since they will not be drafted.
    On the other hand, a military history class can be a dynamic informative elective for most college students -- especially those majoring in history, political science, or sociology.

  • "A top-notch senior scholar"?
  • Posted by Gustave on July 3, 2009 at 6:45am EDT
  • If Wisconsin-Madison was indeed waiting to grow the endowment "so that it can attract a top-notch senior scholar," Prof. Hall would not seem to fit the specification (though I have no doubt that he will do so in the fullness of time). If the story is correct that he commenced graduate work only in 2001 and has not yet published his dissertation--though it is currently in press--this would be a hire at the advanced assistant professor level. If that is what the university was looking for, there is no reason that the position could not have been filled seven years ago.

  • Posted by Wayne Hsieh , Asst. Prof. of History at U.S. Naval Academy on July 3, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • **In 2005, only 1.9 percent of historians at four-year colleges identified themselves as military historians, down from 2.4 percent in 1975.**

    Sure, I'm willing to grant that the field is by no means dead--and in some ways, military historians' ability to claim a lay readership more than many other academic fields gives its own advantages--but seriously, don't those numbers indicate that the field is *not* in great shape in the academy. Oh, great, I'm really optimistic now that I know I'm part of 1.9 percent of the academic profession! It's obvious that my anecdotal impression that military history wasn't in great shape in the academic world was just my own or National Review Online's misperceptions.

    I'm not at all making the argument that the field ever was in great shape (ah, those halcyon days of 2.4 percent!), or that some of the more politicized writing on the issue is on the mark (I also wasn't thrilled with the NRO article), but to put it bluntly, I don't think 1.9 percent and one assistant professor position being filled is something to toot one's horn about. And isn't it significant that even those historians who write about some aspect of war usually DO NOT describe themselves as military historians--where does that put those historians interested in operational issues, where there is frequently still much work to be done?

  • Re: folks are having a fit
  • Posted by richard on July 3, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • "Steven Clark, PhD" writes: "Finally, the University of Wisconsin filled the position Stephen Ambrose gave money for. But, the Birkenstock/Subaru crowd in Mad City are apoplectic."

    Wait, what? They are? How about a link or something to support your assertion?

    By the way, Birkenstocks are out of fashion now--everyone here wears Merrills.

  • All the elements of Seinfeld,
  • Posted by Michael Chamberlain , Assoc Prof, History at UW-Madison on July 7, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • how people got so worked up over this. As a member of the department I can't get into specifics of course, but the explanation for why it took so long to fill this position is even simpler than NRO's fantasies led many to believe .

    First, the endowment was small at the time of Ambrose's death, too small to establish even a "named assistant professorship". It made sense to allow it to grow. Second, few who took part in the failed search two years ago would characterize its outcome as a victory for the RCG ""Rousseauians" as argued above. Most members of the department took the search seriously, hoped it would succeed, and deliberated in good faith.

    The same attitude carried over this year to the decision to invite a new member to the department, one whom we're delighted has agreed to join us. I'm particularly pleased that he need not worry about the lingering peevishness that truly contentious searches can leave in their wake. This happy outcome should put to rest any worries inspired by NRO's application of a general concern to a particular situation about which it knew nothing. As a department we're too shameless to be chastened: the long road to this year's success was marked by fair-minded people trying to do the right thing.

  • Posted by War Bride on July 8, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • The article's claim that military history is no longer as popular as it once was is based on the percentage of professors identifying themselves as military historians at colleges. May I suggest the article should examine how popular those courses are? At my institution, military history courses consistently, pardon the coloquialism, "put bums in seats", helping to maintain enrollment figures for our entire history department. It is the other fields that generally struggle. I am not a military historian, but I benefit from the fact that we have a strong military history program at my institution. I think the field is still very popular.