Your Committee 2012/13

Hello everyone,

Following the History Society's AGM, May 8th 2012, your new committee for the academic year 2012/13 is as follows:

President - Simon Harvey
Treasurer - Jennifer Burgum
Secretary - Elissa Rowe
Social Secretary - Sammie Farrell

There have been some amendments to our constitution, so if you would like more details then please feel free to email the society at udsuhistory@gmail.com

Thank you for supporting your society, and we look forward to another successful year with you and our new members.

The Value of Great Men

The Value of Great Men

The idea of Great Men imprinting their desires and wishes on History is one that prevails and inspires in our world. However Thomas Carlyle’s assertion that ‘The History of the World is but the Biography of Great Men’ might be overstepping the mark. There is value in studying the ‘Great Men’ of History, it is inspiring to think what one person can accomplish, and we shouldn’t play down the effect some people have had on the course of history. However we must examine the potential problems of ‘Great Men’ History;

Great Women?

The Great Women branch of history is somewhat more unknown, to put it mildly. I might bet that when asked to think of 10 Great Men of History the list would conjure up many candidates, but that of Great Women might have more difficulty. The fact that many of the ‘top ten’ lists of Great Women are particularly inconsistent, and sometimes contain women who are often wives of Great Men should tell us something of a Historical bias.

Surprisingly the Great Men approach of history marginalises women. But hopefully points to the patriarchal nature of society, or history, or both? I wonder what Amazonian historiography would have looked like? Consider also the marital status of Great Women such as Elizabeth I, the virgin queen, or Catherine the Great, who had to suffer the accusation of having sex with a horse for her greatness. Another Great Woman, Florence Nightingale, opens up the charge of having her greatness constructed around her – which brings me to my next problem...

Can we trust ‘Great Men’ ?

Many Great men have been built up by others, many have taken steps to cover themselves. Churchill was keen to write his own version of history which, perhaps unsurprising to cynics, has been widely influential on Second World War Historiography. Many dictators and despots clearly controlled much of what was written about them through force. It is difficult to ascertain how much of a Great Man is mythical or reality. But on the other hand, Great Men in the spotlight often have official documents and public papers showcasing all of their actions, therefore allowing for a more objective route of inquiry. How certain people, perhaps fans of the Great Men or Great Men themselves, use this evidence is another matter.

How much agency can be ascribed to Great men?

It was Herbert Spencer who criticised the Great Man theory in his The Study of Sociology; he believed that the idea of Great Men shaping history was in principle unscientific, and that Great men are products of their society. “You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown.”

How much control do men and women have over history? Anyone who has studied a Great Man has seen the limitations of imposing their will. Marx has been invoked to both criticise and champion the cause of individual actions in History; “Men make their own history, but not of their own free will; not under circumstances they themselves have chosen but given and inherited circumstances with which they are directly confronted.”

The Greatness of Great Men and Women can be seen as their ability to interact with the limitations and opportunities that fall upon them. Fundamentally though, I agree with Herbert Spencer on the Great Man, that “before he can remake his society, his society must make him.”

Kit Buchanan, 01/04/2012

The Value of Marxist Theory

The Value of Marxist History

You may be surprised to learn that in a BBC online poll in 2009, Karl Marx topped the list of the millennium’s greatest thinkers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/461545.stm). Marx remains, as Matt Perry puts in his book Marxism and History, “the best hated man of his times,” for many “his ideas are either bankrupt or immanently relevant.”Marxism is associated with criticism of capitalism, but what Marxism can also do is give us a relevant framework of how capitalism functions.

It must first be said that Marxist history need not necessarily inform Marxist or Socialist politics of revolution – although it often does. The focus here is on the Marxist conception of history, not on the politics or desires of Marxists. The key difference is that historians have used Marxist theory to view society without agreeing with Marxist politics, people may refer to themselves in this instance as (lower case m) marxist historians or marxian historians.

A fundamental idea of Marxism is that labour sets humans apart from the animal kingdom. In that we do not hunt and gather what we need but organise society into ordered sections that produce a surplus.  The term surplus means production that exceeds the needs of society – so storing excess food and materials, or the accumulation of capital. For Marx the accumulation of surplus means exploitation, this is because the wage of the labour is kept as low as possible so that the employer may make a surplus. This is part of the dynamics of capitalism, because the employer is encouraged to do this in order to be competitive. So the term exploitation refers not to excessively poor wages or situations, but to the relationship between labour and employer and is a fundamental part of society.

Exploitation is considered an ongoing struggle between those who try to exploit and those who no longer accept the exploitation. This is the infamous class struggle, which is supposed to drive, and unite, society and history. Marxist history does not say that exploitation developed with capitalism, for example it can be applied to the phenomenon called the agricultural revolution – when humans began to farm the land and produce a surplus of food. Those with the power over this surplus become the exploiters and those without power who must offer their labour for a share in this power become the exploited.

So Marxism at its most basic splits society into (at least) two sections, the dominant exploiting class, and the dominated exploited class. As History develops and becomes more complicated, the number of differing relationships and modes of production require further development into the many theories and interpretations of class that exist today. The basic premise of Marxism then, is that society is propelled by a struggle between different opposing interests, and that a key insight into these interests is through a person’s relationship to the way things are produced.

Kit Buchanan

Rule Britannia

I shall refrain- as I sit outside in 29-degree weather in Indianapolis- from rambling on in some academic Freudian slip, like this was just another mindless, ‘deadline approaching’, ‘I better actually do this’ piece of coursework. As, well that’s just dull. No, this is not remotely academic…… Per se.

I thought I’d share how ‘History’ is taught here in the comfort of our transatlantic colonial cousins. Or if you will: ‘ those republican (small ‘r’ in part), federal, gun loving colonial commoners’, (sure that’ll give Simon a few laughs).

From the go things are dramatically contrasting to the academic norms to which I am now accustomed to at Derby. Take for example; a class I find myself in Monday’s and Wednesday afternoons enabled ‘From Prohibition to Pearl Harbor- America from 1917-1945’. “Monday’s and Wednesday’s”, I hear you say? Yes. Here at IU it is the practice to have a class split over two days. Two blocks of two hours, resulting in a total of 4-hour class time (good to see my math[s] is still in check). This split - whilst a surprise at first - really does work. It allows for a greater degree of debate and the eluded ‘discussion’ in class, we often are lectured to on a Monday, and those topics are debated and discussed on a Wednesday. Whilst this discussion and debate is far from academically and historically in depth, grandiose, opulent and rollicking as it often is at Kedleston Road it is however insightful to witness just how our cousins - as gun loving and Rick Santorum loving as they are - perform compared to the folk back in Ol’ Blighty, when wielding their historical arsenal.  As this class requires on average an entire book a week, - which cannot be avoided as we are required to submit reading reflections, and our ‘tests’ are based directly to the text - in class often the historiography of a topic is lost, and replaced with analytical book review talk.  Sigh.  I fear this is the danger of ‘over emphasizing the need to study excessive text’ week - in week - out by a Professor, oh sorry; I meant ‘lecturer’ - saying that, the texts are wonderful.  We used ‘Grapes of Wrath’ as a set-text for our debate on the ‘Great Depression’, which is just an incredible, illustrious and overly glorified commentary on ‘The American Dream’.  I’ll refrain for now from trailing off in to just how oxymoronically developed that statement is in 2012….. For now.

Whilst the debate and discussion of the average History Major class is a divergence from its Monarchial governed counterpart, and whilst I personally find the system and atmosphere of debate in ‘Derbados’ to suffice greater, things aren’t all that bad. What is wonderful here in the US are Humanities Students (or ‘Liberal Art’ students here) political positions, and political expressionism. Twice now I have been branded a ‘socialist’ by fellow classmates. Simply for expressing support for entities such as universal healthcare, and state funded and governed education! Yes, the US is still so retrogressive in certain social and socioeconomic practices, but that really is another story. The political atmosphere of debates here in US in classes is due to the politicization of education. From a young, ‘Elementary School’ age kids are taught the systems of Government, the Constitution, and all 43 Presidents I have discovered. Oh, for the record there have been 44 Presidents in theory, but Grover Cleveland held the office twice before the 22^nd Amendment was added in 1951 to prevent this…… (#pubquizknowledge). Anyway, whilst discussions and debate is often lost in the midst of ‘book reviewing’, the political weight of discussion seems to be greater than what I have experienced at home. However, being here I have missed the glorified and sought after ‘Fascism’ module with everyone’s favorite Anglo- German since George I, Tom Neuhaus.  So I may be wrong when I comment that I have experienced greater political weight in discussions here in classes that what I have in Derby, I hope I am.

I look forward to returning to Her Majesty’s shores in terms of academic life - oh and being able to legally buy beer - and a number of other ‘home comforts’. Yet I shall ‘miss’ the craziness of US college life, just not the constant Tornado drills. Not to worry, I can always revoke their Independence; they’ve had it for long enough after all.

Rule Britannia.

Daniel Matthews

UDSU Election Results 2012

University of Derby Student Union
Election Results March 2012

Defending and Extending Your Rights as Students

Student Union President - James 'Student Voice' Beckett
VP Academic Affairs - Dom 'Students Voice' Anderson
VP Welfare and Student Rights - Hollie O'Connor
VP Student Development - Jess MacDonald
Athletic Union President - Mark Farthing


Part-Time Officers:
Black Students' Officer - Eugene
Disabled Students' Officer - Kat White
Derby Theatre Rep - Elaine Archard
Ethics and Environmental Officer - Kirby
Markeaton Street Rep - Nathe Owen
Postgraduate Students' Officer - Atojoko
Raise and Give Officer - Eddie
Societies Officer - Christopher Dean
Sports Performance Officer - Kimberlee Wiliscroft
Union Council Chair - Trevor Austin
Women's Officer - Sally Dyer

On behalf of the History Society and its' members, we would like to congratulate all of those who were elected by the students of the University of Derby, and would like to wish them all a successful year.

Thank you
Sammie Farrell

The Value of Postmodernism

The Value of Postmodernism

In the words of F.R.Ankersmit “It is not easy to define the concepts of postmodernism satisfactorily.” The challenge of postmodernism is that Historiography as we know it does not refer to a tangible, objective past. The nuances of language mean that every text, whether historiography or source, can be interpreted differently. Nietzsche argued that the “being” of the world is essentially different from every perspective, that it is only from a perspective that a world can be seen – and so we must make do with what is relative. The most extreme postmodern position is that objective knowledge is impossible– and that nothing exists outside of the language we use to signify the past.

How can this benefit history without straying into a philosophic discussion about knowledge? Well, postmodernism is often applied as criticism of the Modernist ideologies. For example the perceived failure of Marxist premonitions (where is Socialism/Communism?) and the perceived dominance of Liberal democracy (the ‘End of History?’) are ideas which postmodernism are most appropriately applied to. The point is three fold;

First; that overarching meta-narratives (like that of Marxist history, and Whiggish Liberalism) are usually wrong, or at the least skew the possible interpretations of events disproportionately.

Second; that narrative as a way of writing history also focuses on the author’s bias, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Third; that words have relative and evolving meanings that different people will interpret differently. Often the use of a word requires discussion as to what it actually is, or what it actually means in the mind of the reader (and writer).

A particular example is ‘woman,’ which many postmodernists argue contains oppressive connotations and images in the same way that ‘man’ comes loaded with its own characteristics we immediately imagine. Just try to apply this in real everyday life- when does one go from being a boy/girl to becoming a man/woman? Or what is the difference between a woman and a lady? This is what gives birth to deconstruction; the process of showing that a term has had its positive and/or negative aspects constructed around it by society rather than being objectively true.

This is why Nietzsche’s criticism that “Historiography itself impedes our view of the past” is not unfair. Does this mean we should dismiss all historiography? Should we conclude as the postmodern position does that History is nothing but fiction? No, History can still try to reflect a past reality but the point is that it is extremely difficult.

The point of the postmodern challenge is that we should be aware of the inherent bias in every text, that history is an ongoing process, that meta-narratives are dangerous constructs that can lead us to ignore the truth or manipulate it instead of trying to discover it. In the words of F.R. Ankersmit; “Postmodernism does not reject scientific historiography, but only draws our attention to the modernists’ vicious circle which would have us believe that nothing exists outside it.”

By K. Buchanan, 11/03/2012

Presidential Blog Entry, 10/03/2012

Dear all,

I hope that you’re all well entrenched in your studies of yet another year.  For our History BA third years they are approaching the end of an era of 3 years of hard work and lasting friendships and memories.  For our second years (me included) we’re entering the busiest time we’ve known, and approaching a third year which will make that seem like child’s play, and finally for our first years the time is coming to shrug off the ‘fresher’ label and to an extent come of age in your university life.

The Union too has entered the best time in its year this week; the time that you, the students, hold those who have the honour of leading it to account, and although you might have more leaflets and flyers than your pockets can hold filled with election points and pledges, I would personally recommend that you all vote, regardless of who you vote for, to exercise your right as members of UDSU and take part in its future.

The History Society too is coming to another summer, and soon the committee will call an Annual General Meeting. This will be so that you, the members, can hold us accountable to make sure that we are going in the direction that you want us to.  This year we have undertaken our regular ghost walks, pub quizzes and academic talks but also tried to branch off and explore other possibilities like the Christmas Party and other social events.  For the future the committee is also working towards a day out in Buxton including a trip to ‘Go Ape’ to truly let our hair down at the end of another busy year.  We’re also planning on taking a trip to Kedleston Hall to have a summer BBQ in the shadow of one of Britain’s finest buildings and celebrate as well as to say arrivederci to our third years entering the wider world.

As the new blog takes a life of its own, thanks to Sammie, I thought it important that I take this opportunity to thank you most humbly in giving me this opportunity to be the History Society’s President.  I would, of course, be grateful for the opportunity to be able to take it into my third year, hoping to ensure that it continues to grow; but whoever holds the presidency next year I hope to be able to say that we as a committee have ensured that the society has many years of plain sailing ahead.

In true nautical fashion I wish you all calm seas and clear skies for your respective years.

Simon

President UDSU History Society