Lessons of social science history

Die vorliegende Ansprache des Präsidenten zum jährlichen (achtzehnten) Treffen der Social Science History Association (SSHA) rekapituliert die Geschichte dieser Vereinigung mit folgenden Schlußfolgerungen: (1) Auch Sozialhistoriker können ihre eigene Geschichte prinzipiell nicht voraussagen. Dies zeigt sich z.B. an den kühnen und optimistischen Prognosen in den 70er Jahren zur Entwicklung des eigenen Fachs. (2) Die Entwicklung der Disziplin ist von der Größe und den 'Zufälligkeiten' der jährlichen Treffen entscheidend mitgeprägt. (3) Die Wirkungen sozialgeschichtlicher Forschungen sind eher langfristig und kaum an den eher 'modischen' Schwankungen der Themenwahl und deren öffentlicher Diskussion abzulesen. (pmb)'This paper presents the presidential address to the eighteenth annual meeting of the Social Science History Association (SSHA). Three things we can learn from the characterization of the group's organizational and intellectual history. The first lesson we can learn that social science historians are completely unable to predict their own future. For example, it is now clear that the early optimism and aggressiveness as well as fears of mainstream exclusion of the 1970s were exessive if not unwarranted. Social science history quickly did become a highly respected mode of historical and social science research. The second lesson we can take from the group's history has to do with the erratic session sizes. These tiny sessions often turn out to have been intense, memorable, and significant learning experiences. The third lesson we can learn is that our narrow carefully structured interests and research have more weight and lasting ability than their immediate impact may index.' (author's abstract

New Standards for Historical Homicide Research

Historians of violence now have dozens, even hundreds, of high quality homicide rates for much of the Western world. We are now in a position which would, by custom, demand the beginning of synthesis and generalization. Such efforts are of merit and should continue, but it is time that we turn back to much more careful empirical research. Our substantive gains should give us the confidence to raise even higher the quality of our research. Simply put, if refined research efforts confirm previous work, this is comforting. On the other hand, if they change or modify findings, we should welcome the new results and rethink our big questions and analyses.Les historiens de la violence disposent dorénavant de douzaines, voire de centaines, de taux d'homicides de bonne qualité pour la plus grande partie de l'hémisphère occidental. Nous nous trouvons donc dans une situation qui, conformément à l'usage, implique d'entreprendre synthèse et généralisation. Un effort de ce type est méritoire et doit être poursuivi, mais il est temps de revenir à une recherche empirique beaucoup plus soigneuse, et les avancées significatives réalisées jusqu'ici devraient nous inciter à rehausser encore la qualité de nos recherches. Pour le dire simplement : si des recherches plus sophistiquées confirmaient les travaux antérieurs, ce serait positif. Si inversement, elles modifiaient nos résultats, nous devrions leur faire bonne figure et repenser nos grandes questions et nos analyses en conséquence

Recent Historical Studies of Crime and Crime Control in the United States

Recent Historical Studies of Crime and Crime Control in the United State

Review of \u3ci\u3e Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America\u3c/i\u3e by Richard Slotkin

This book has 660 pages of text, 102 of notes, plus a very long Bibliography and thorough index. This reviewer has read everything but the Index and some of the Bibliography. I can report that except for avid fans of Slotkin or of the genres on which he chooses to report, this is far more reading than is needed to get his principalidea. It is: a Myth (his caps) about the frontier-the violent conquest of indigenous people and landscape-has been the well spring of American national identity. The truth of this is not relevant to his book: he labors to show that the Myth really has been the cause of all sorts of bad things about the US, including racism, anti-labor violence, imperialism, and the Vietnam War