View the h-women Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-women's August 1996 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-women's August 1996 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-women home page.
Perhaps the following will begin a gender discussion on the "gendering" of history. KL ************************************************************************** Editor's note: HABSBURGer Claire A. Nolte is the author of the article "Every Czech a Sokol!: Feminism and Nationalism in the Czech Sokol Movement", which appeared in volume 24 (1993) of the _Austrian History Yearbook_. She sends us this commentary on women's history and gender studies: Saurer, Edith. "Women's History in Austria: A Critical Assessment," _Austrian History Yearbook_, Volume 26 (1996): 261- 287. A review article. "Gendering the History Survey Course: Three Views," in _Perspectives: American Historical Association Newsletter_, Vol., 34, No. 5 (May/June 1996), comprising Kathi L. Kern, "To Feel a Part of History: Rethinking the U.S. History Survey" (7-8); Tracey Rizzo, "Written about the Body: Gendering the Western Civilization Survey" (9-10); Judith P. Zinsser, "And Now for Something Completely Different: Gendering the World History Survey" (11-12); and Peter N. Stearns, "Comment on Gendering the Survey Forum" (13). As the articles cited above indicate, the challenge of gender studies has come to the field of history. In their attempt to assess the impact of this trend on teaching and research, the authors do not doubt the correctness, political and otherwise, of the new approaches. Edith Sauer's informative and detailed analysis of the state of research into women's history in Austria contains much valuable documentation but is confusing in places, especially when terms such as "women's history," "gender history," and "feminist history," are used interchangeably. As the older, interdisciplinary "women's studies" has branched out into specialized fields, it has become necessary to define the relationship between gender studies and the traditional disciplines. The author believes that, in the area of history, the traditional hierarchy of events that created categories such as "general" history or "microhistory" are inadequate for women's and gender historians, for whom gender relations are always "substantial." For this reason, gender historians largely reject traditional branches of history because "of past disappointments and outrage, of understanding silence and distortion, and of rejecting a history whose hierarchy of values left no place for women or for reflections on the role of gender as a social category." (267) Authors of "general history," described as "largely blind to the power of gender" (261), come in for special scorn. She argues that it would be futile for women's and gender historians to attempt to rewrite general history, since "'General' history will continue to exclude women (and not just women.)" (263). Social history appears a more promising field, with its emphasis on family and private life and its close connection with the anthropological approaches that have inspired much of the "gender-based" movement. Ultimately, however, the author believes that feminist historical research must distance itself from all traditional approaches because: A traditional history of events cannot be the goal of women's and gender history, even if it were to take account of women....Making women visible in history, as well as analyzing gender relations and structures based on gender, requires a critical and exact eye; it engenders an interest in detail as a medium of reconstruction and clarity, in the 'peripheral' history of one's own culture, and in deconstruction and comparison. (267) The second part of the article moves beyond theory to examine actual research in the field. Despite the call for gender-based studies, most of the work in the field has dealt with quite traditional topics, especially institutional and political history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. (The author understands "Austria" to include only the German- speaking populations. There are no references to women's history from other national groups in the empire.) The author lists five categories of research, some seemingly selected at random. She states that the category entitled "Women's Movements" is the most popular subject for research, while the topics "Work" and "Education" still have many areas to be explored. The catchall topic "Sexuality, Forms of Cohabitation, Exclusion, and Criminality," while most popular with feminist theorists, has yielded few results in terms of actual research. (Research on "criminality" appears only in regard to witch trials.) The last topic, "National Socialism, Resistance, and What Followed" lists several interesting new studies derived from oral history research. The articles on teaching that appeared in the AHA newsletter, _Perspectives_, echo many of the premises of Sauer's article, including its impatience with older forms of history. Kathi Kern argues for the creation of a new "feminist pedagogy" to replace the discredited "narrative" which, she argues, makes up the American history survey course.(8) As an example, she shows how to splinter "the unitary view of Reconstruction that many students had inherited from popular culture" in order to get students to "confront...the analytical challenge of competing historical narratives." (8) (Many "traditional" historians will counter that they also attempt to teach the complexity of historical phenomena in survey courses.) Tracey Rizzo, in her piece on restructuring the European history survey course, echoes the call for a new pedagogy, declaring that "integrating women into the Western civilization survey is not the same as gendering it." (9) She suggests using debates, role playing, and small group discussions as pedagogical tools. Following this theme, Judith Zinsser declares in her discussion of the world history survey that a radical new approach is necessary in order to honor both men and women in history: I do not believe that the standard narrative organization for world, European, or U.S. history makes that possible....in order to gender the survey one must rethink history in terms of actions, interactions, and reactions, by women and men, between women and men, by women, and by men. (11) She gives examples of techniques she uses to achieve her goals, including using terms such as "peasant men and women" in place of "peasants," and the grammatically-suspect "men and women slave owners" in place of "slave owners." All three authors agree that in order to "gender" the surveys, inclusivity, or in Kathi Kern's words the "tyranny of coverage," must be abandoned in survey courses. Judith Zinsser notes: "I gave up the idea that there was a fixed body of information to be covered. I decided that vivid encounters with a few cultures were more important than learning names and dates from many cultures." (12) Peter N. Stearns, in generally laudatory comments on these presentations, nonetheless warns that "...it is clear that gender issues are much more pressing, much more contested, at some points than at others." (13) Clearly, we are living through one of those "contested" times and it remains to be seen whether, as Edith Sauer concludes, "[a] new consciousness has engendered a new history" (287), or whether gender history will prove to be one of the passing historical styles, like cliometrics or psychohistory, that have occasionally adorned Clio's body. Claire Nolte History Department Manhattan College Riverdale, NY 10471 <Cnolte@manhattan.edu>
|