Here are some more highlights from Saturday, March 28 at the Organization of American Historians’ annual meeting in Seattle. (In case you missed it, Part I of my wrap-up is here.) As I was pulling myself together for my 8:30 a.m. session, I ran into Tenured Radical, who confessed that she was feeling a mite queasy. (Was she ever! Poor thing.) But, the show must go on, and I was looking forward to hearing Mary P. Ryan’s comments at the women’s lunch at noon. My next post will cover Ryan’s comments at lunch–please allow me to indulge in some in-depth reporting on the “State of the Field” roundtable I was on, as I think some of the issues raised there may be of interest to many of you, because we’ve chewed over some of these questions here before.
State of the Field: Gender and Sexuality in Early American History featured Carol Karlsen, Jennifer Spear, Todd Romero, Historiann, and Susan Juster serving as chair and moderator. Kirsten Fischer organized this panel, and it was co-sponsored by the Steven J. Schochet Endowment for GLBT Studies and Campus Life, although she was unable to be with us because she is on leave this year and out of the country.
- Karlsen offered what she called “the long view” of these topics and said there wasn’t much historiography to speak of until the mid-1990s, but that what has appeared since then has revolutionized our view of early American history with insights about the intersectionality of race and gender, the idea that urban environments are spaces for negotiation, the importance of masculinity as well as examining women’s gender roles, and the notion that the sexual conquest of women of color was central to the colonization of the Americas. Continue reading
Head on over to Notorious, Ph.D., Girl Scholar today to read Judith Bennett’s comments about our discussion of her book this month. She really disagrees with my generational analysis, claiming that’s not what she meant at all, and she wants us to talk more about her concept of “patriarchal equilibrium,” which she sees as the fundamental contribution of the book. Continue reading
(See Part II of the wrap-up here.)
Historiann coming at you again from the High Plains Desert. I had planned to update the blog more frequently but was unable to do so, for reasons which will become apparent in the following wrap-up. It was a (mostly) great trip and all of the panels I saw were really interesting and useful. Here are some of the highlights (and a dramatic lowlight!):
- Thursday morning’s “State of the Field: Borderlands History in Early America,” featuring Juliana Barr, Jane Merritt, and Alan Taylor, with Susan Sleeper-Smith serving as chair. Merritt provided a detailed overview of post-Turnerian borderlands history, Barr’s comments focused on the problematic fact that “borders” still usually means fictitious borders on maps drawn in Paris, Madrid, and London instead of equally contested Native American geographies, and Taylor sounded the alarm that borderlands might become the next “Atlantic World”–a concept that loses its focus or explanatory power because everyone claims to be doing it. Sleeper-Smith’s summary comments noted the power of studies on gender and sexuality to illuminate connections between geographically and culturally different borderlands spaces, and she also confided to Historiann after the panel re: Taylor’s concern that “borderlands” is on its way to being the next “Atlantic World”: “It’s already happened.” Given that the theme of the conference was “History Without Boundaries,” that seems very likely!
- A longshoreman’s lunch of beer and oysters with Tenured Radical Thursday afternoon, at a tavern with an excellent view of Puget Sound and the Olympic Range.
- An private insider’s tour of Seattle fashion shopping with Stephanie M. H. Camp, late of the University of Washington and now at Rice University. She got a fab DvF wrap dress, and I got a fun spring/summer caftan-style dress and a spring raincoat. (We don’t see many raincoats for sale around these arid parts!) Continue reading
Hi all–Historiann here, coming at you from weakly sunny downtown Seattle, because the Organization of American Historians’ Annual Conference starts in a few hours. Pull up a chair and have a cup of coffee! Only, I won’t be here long to pour–I’ve got meetings, meet-ups, and fun planned all week, so posting will probably be light since I have the opportunity to meet and talk to historians in Real Life and not on-blog. I’m not entirely sure what I’m doing here, since I feel less like an American historian every day–and this is very much a modern (and even recent) U.S. History conference. It seems like the OAH is getting with the transnational program, since the theme this year is “History Without Boundaries.” Don’t fence me in, babies!
As for Seattle: I visited a few times in the mid- to late-90s, back when it was the cool place to be, and had an epic hiking and camping trip on the Olympic Peninsula back in the day. But–Kurt Cobain’s been dead for nearly fifteen years now. Oh well–whatever. Nevermind.
A very merry un-interviewday to you!
In the spirit of letting it all hang out from the point of view of the academic job interviewee, Associate Professor Alice survived her interview at Blunderland University–just barely. Regrets? She’s got a few:
I just had to write you in solidarity with Freddie from Ft. Lauderdale. I don’t care what you call me–just don’t call me unprepared for a job interview, unlike the department that interviewed me for a senior appointment in January. Since I’m complaining to you–spoiler alert!–you probably have figured out that I didn’t get the job.
The whole search was marred from start to finish by the search chair’s truly breathtaking a$$hattery. Either he’s suffering from an undiagnosed medical condition, or he deliberately sabotaged the search–I can’t decide which scenario is more plausible. Maybe your readers can help. From the first day he called me on the phone, he was like the stereotype of an abusive boyfriend: he sounded reasonably personable and interested in my application, but then started immediately demanding a commitment: how serious are you about this job? Because we’re very serious about you. Are you in a position to relocate? Continue reading
Fast Freddie hits the "Nope" button
As you regular readers know, we get letters. As an almost-Ph.D. interviewing this year for the first time (not in History, nor any of the humanities), Freddie from Ft. Lauderdale has asked for equal time here at Historiann.com to balance out those posts a few months ago that mocked job candidates (like this one, this one, oh, and that one, too.) Freddie has some (unfortunately) hard-won advice for hiring departments and search committees who may want to hire some new blood eventually. So, take it away, Freddie!
I recently went on a campus interview that left me with a sour feeling toward the search committee in particular and the university in general. It only took a couple of hours for me to determine that there was no way I would accept a job offer from the department that interviewed me: the entire visit felt like a bad blind date. I tried to smile and to put my best foot forward, but I knew that if she/he went in for a kiss, I would deflect it by turning my head and redirecting it into a completely fake hug. (You know, the kind with lots of insincere back-patting.) Since you seem to be big on throwing around advice to job candidates over here, I decided to put together a list of “dos and don’ts” for hiring departments and search committees in case they may actually want to hire someone someday:
- When you meet a candidate at the airport and she/he is carrying a briefcase, carry-on bag, and jacket, do not hand out a revised itinerary to read through while walking to the car. (Tips for toads: perhaps revising the itinerary the day of the visit should be avoided altogether? Just sayin’.)
- Do not stop by Taco Bell on the way to campus (I guess that was “lunch” on the slapped-together “itinerary”) and proceed to ask your candidate about her/his plan for the next five years while slurping up your Mountain Dew and downing your bean burrito. Continue reading
It’s another Monday in March: are you ready to rumble? Head on over to Blogenspiel where Another Damned Medievalist hosts this week’s discussion of Judith Bennett’s History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism. As an early medieval Europeanist, ADM wonders if there is a place and time where an emphasis on the continuity of women’s lives is not so useful. She writes, “[p]atriarchal equalibrium feels like it exists. It looks like it exists. It explains so damned much. But I think Bennett shows enough evidence that it’s an equalibrium made up of different factors in different times and places that it’s … hard to get a grip on.” Click here to read the rest!
In case you missed all of the excitement so far, you can see part I here, part II here, and part III here. Next week, we’ll all head back to Notorious Ph.D., Girl Scholar for a fifth post by Judith Bennett herself!
Remember, folks: keep it clean and above all on topic! See you over at Blogenspiel.