First, there is little cultural or experiential sympatico with things military. Few academics at major universities know anyone in the armed services; fewer still have served themselves. Most, especially those of the Boomer generation, originally cut their teeth in opposition to anything military; many, through sympathy or an unwillingness to challenge PC norms, have essentially barred a military presence from campus. ROTC programs have disappeared from most “prestige” campuses, although the reasons keep changing–at first born of the anti-war movement, the rationale later shifted to claims of discrimination against homosexuals. One suspects that if the military changed its policy on enlisting avowed homosexuals, ban would remain although the reasons would change once again.

Second, there are few prospects for professional advancement in studying military history. Most of the social sciences have become captive to the hermeneutics of so-called post-modernism–the deconstruction of texts using mind-numbing jargon and often intersecting with obsessions about gender, race, sexual preference and social class. And the ORs’ after action reports, soldier letters and memoirs, and contemporary newspaper accounts offer little “wiggle room” for the kind of interpretive fantasies typical of a Derrida or Foucault. For example, by 5 July 1863, one army remained on Gettysburg’s field and one army withdrew. That is indisputable–there is little “thesis room” to apply current PC preoccupations to the issue. Most academics perceive military history as devoid of platforms to advance current notions of social justice, and hence, unworthy of study.

Third, given the foregoing, if one wanted to do graduate work in military history at Harvard, Yale or Princeton (to name three), who would serve as a thesis adviser? Harvard’s answer to Civil War history is the dreadful Drew Gilpin Faust, a “feminist” historian who couldn’t explain the difference between a battalion and a brigade. Princeton does much, much better with James McPherson, but even there, the emphasis is a balance between military and social history. Boston University offers another feminist historian in the person of Nina Silber. Columbia’s answer is Marxist Eric Foner, who recently disavowed his own excellent and award-winning history of Reconstruction as insufficiently PC!

This will change someday, but only by the workings of the actuarial curve. When the current Boomers are forced to let go of departmental and tenure control, a thousand flowers may one day bloom again, including a special rose for military history. Until then, Eric, the public must look outside of academy to find those with an interest in remembering.

You’re welcome. It’s a good and useful dialogue. I can only help that others find it interesting, too. 🙂

Eric

Thanks for taking the time to respond and for clarifying some of your points. I want to respond to a few points, but for now all I will say is that it seems we’ve done an excellent job utilizing this new blogging format to engage one another and others. I feel really good about that.

Kevin