Lynn Hunt says history's in crisis -- and not just because of tight budgets

Two new developments are reshaping the way we study history. The social and cultural theories that stimulated much of our writing, from the 1950s on, have lost their vitality, creating uncertainty about how history will be written in the future. At the same time, talk of globalization has proliferated like kudzu; it coils around any attempt to determine the direction of the future or the meaning of the past. Is globalization the new theory that will reinvigorate history?

Or will it choke off all other possible contenders?

Despite the continuing popularity of biographies of famous people and books about major wars, history the discipline is in crisis—and not just because of university budgets. The nagging question, so hard to answer: "What is it good for?" Once upon a time the answer seemed clear. In the 19th century, (male) students studied ancient Greeks and Romans as models for future leaders. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, history took on the role of teacher to the nation, reinforcing, and in many cases creating, national identity.

National history is still the bread-and-butter of history teaching everywhere. While maintaining its preponderance, however, it has changed, often in controversial fashion. National narratives were already coming under fire in the 1950s; political history, in particular the study of the actions of high-ranking government officials, no longer satisfied an increasingly diverse and educated public. Social history—the study of groups outside elite circles—rose to the forefront.

But success brought its own problems. Was it enough to add the previously excluded to the national narrative, or did the narrative of the nation-state itself require dismantling? Was the role of the historian to provide a cohesive national narrative, however narrowly or broadly conceived, or to provide a critique of the defects of any such narrative? Was history even about narrative? Was there even any truth behind our narratives?...

...

Given the variety of questions that call for a historical approach, no one template is going to rule the roost. That variety is not a sign of the fragility or frivolity of history or the inherent biases and prejudices of historians. Seeing cannot take place without a standpoint. The constant evolution of the purpose of history is a sign, rather, of its vitality. Every new age looks for an understanding of its place in time, and without history it would not have one.