{"title":"Rethinking, Revising, Rewriting: An Appeal for Unfinished Scholarship","authors":"Martha Hodes","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.a910400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rethinking, Revising, Rewriting:An Appeal for Unfinished Scholarship Martha Hodes (bio) IF you're someone who published a scholarly book or article a decade or two ago, when was the last time you reread it? Occasionally, turning the pages of my own long-ago published work, I've found myself wishing I'd selected a different adjective or deleted a repetitive sentence. As historians, our most fulfilling work will alter the historiography in ways small or large. In my \"Literature of the Field\" graduate seminar on the nineteenth-century United States, I take students through the generational shifts of the scholarship, puzzling out patterns: the questions that drove the field in the 1960s, key arguments historians formulated in the 1990s, or the ways in which scholars are reconsidering well-trodden primary sources in the twenty-first century. As the years elapse, our own work may well be superseded by previously unasked questions, innovative methods, newly unearthed evidence, or novel interpretations. When that happens, how many of us return to our research notes from the past to rethink our method and argument? As Sharon Block writes, \"The academic ecosystem is set up for scholarship to be reviewed and critiqued by others, not for self-revision of our own published work.\"1 Block's \"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel\" offers a model for reinvigorating [End Page 709] our own past work, research we might have assumed we had finished and were finished with. This endeavor has the potential to add an original dimension to the study and teaching of historiography, as \"Rewriting the Rape of Rachel\" shows us a senior scholar thinking back on her own pathbreaking contributions to the field of gender and sexuality, with insights gathered from more recent scholarship across a variety of fields. Looking back to her first article, published in 1999, and her first book, published in 2006, Block identifies her necessarily defensive drive to prove the legitimacy of the study of sexuality, and in this way, she inspired me to think about my own first book, published more than twenty-five years ago. I identified with Block's description of writing a monograph built from paragraphs of topic sentences, overflowing with examples and citations. \"I did that too!\" I murmured, thinking back to the book, White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth-Century South. In one instance, I wrote about two sexual liaisons revealed in freedom lawsuits, backed up by an endnote that referenced six additional such suits. In another spot I listed thirteen \"other Maryland cases of fornication and bastardy between white women and black men,\" while elsewhere I cited twenty-one cases to back up the point that courts could reverse the rape convictions of Black men.2 Heading off critics who might have questioned the occurrence of sex between white women and Black men in the nineteenth-century South, I wrote (necessarily defensively), \"My concern is not to point out that sex between white women and black men occurred with a particular frequency. Rather, my concern is to demonstrate that when such liaisons did occur, white Southerners could react in a way that complicates modern assumptions,\" adding in the endnote (again defensively), \"In any event, the argument here does not depend upon frequency.\"3 This is not to say that the project of accumulating evidence must be jettisoned, for such compilations matter both to the broadening of historical study and to those who wish to interpret untold or fragmented stories. It is, though, to recognize that in Block's analysis, she—and I, despite my own protests—proved legitimacy by prioritizing accumulation. At the same time, Block's revisiting of her earlier scholarship comes with a clarion call for new, more expansive ways to write histories of sexuality. Wishing to explore the meaning of sexual violence for the violated, she sets out to understand Rachel Davis's trauma in a context that reaches beyond the [End Page 710] pronouncements of a local court and allows us to better understand Rachel's life as a whole. Embarking on an investigation of Rachel's life before the rape, as well as her life afterward, Block engages with the art of speculation. Her work...","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.a910400","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rethinking, Revising, Rewriting:An Appeal for Unfinished Scholarship Martha Hodes (bio) IF you're someone who published a scholarly book or article a decade or two ago, when was the last time you reread it? Occasionally, turning the pages of my own long-ago published work, I've found myself wishing I'd selected a different adjective or deleted a repetitive sentence. As historians, our most fulfilling work will alter the historiography in ways small or large. In my "Literature of the Field" graduate seminar on the nineteenth-century United States, I take students through the generational shifts of the scholarship, puzzling out patterns: the questions that drove the field in the 1960s, key arguments historians formulated in the 1990s, or the ways in which scholars are reconsidering well-trodden primary sources in the twenty-first century. As the years elapse, our own work may well be superseded by previously unasked questions, innovative methods, newly unearthed evidence, or novel interpretations. When that happens, how many of us return to our research notes from the past to rethink our method and argument? As Sharon Block writes, "The academic ecosystem is set up for scholarship to be reviewed and critiqued by others, not for self-revision of our own published work."1 Block's "Rewriting the Rape of Rachel" offers a model for reinvigorating [End Page 709] our own past work, research we might have assumed we had finished and were finished with. This endeavor has the potential to add an original dimension to the study and teaching of historiography, as "Rewriting the Rape of Rachel" shows us a senior scholar thinking back on her own pathbreaking contributions to the field of gender and sexuality, with insights gathered from more recent scholarship across a variety of fields. Looking back to her first article, published in 1999, and her first book, published in 2006, Block identifies her necessarily defensive drive to prove the legitimacy of the study of sexuality, and in this way, she inspired me to think about my own first book, published more than twenty-five years ago. I identified with Block's description of writing a monograph built from paragraphs of topic sentences, overflowing with examples and citations. "I did that too!" I murmured, thinking back to the book, White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth-Century South. In one instance, I wrote about two sexual liaisons revealed in freedom lawsuits, backed up by an endnote that referenced six additional such suits. In another spot I listed thirteen "other Maryland cases of fornication and bastardy between white women and black men," while elsewhere I cited twenty-one cases to back up the point that courts could reverse the rape convictions of Black men.2 Heading off critics who might have questioned the occurrence of sex between white women and Black men in the nineteenth-century South, I wrote (necessarily defensively), "My concern is not to point out that sex between white women and black men occurred with a particular frequency. Rather, my concern is to demonstrate that when such liaisons did occur, white Southerners could react in a way that complicates modern assumptions," adding in the endnote (again defensively), "In any event, the argument here does not depend upon frequency."3 This is not to say that the project of accumulating evidence must be jettisoned, for such compilations matter both to the broadening of historical study and to those who wish to interpret untold or fragmented stories. It is, though, to recognize that in Block's analysis, she—and I, despite my own protests—proved legitimacy by prioritizing accumulation. At the same time, Block's revisiting of her earlier scholarship comes with a clarion call for new, more expansive ways to write histories of sexuality. Wishing to explore the meaning of sexual violence for the violated, she sets out to understand Rachel Davis's trauma in a context that reaches beyond the [End Page 710] pronouncements of a local court and allows us to better understand Rachel's life as a whole. Embarking on an investigation of Rachel's life before the rape, as well as her life afterward, Block engages with the art of speculation. Her work...
重新思考,修改,重写:对未完成的奖学金的呼吁Martha Hodes(生物)如果你是一个在十年或二十年前出版了一本学术书籍或文章的人,你最后一次重读它是什么时候?偶尔,当我翻看自己很久以前出版的作品时,我发现自己希望自己选择了一个不同的形容词,或者删除了一个重复的句子。作为历史学家,我们最有意义的工作将或多或少地改变史学。在我关于19世纪美国的“田野文学”研究生研讨会上,我带领学生们经历了学术的代际变迁,弄清楚了模式:在20世纪60年代推动该领域发展的问题,历史学家在20世纪90年代形成的关键论点,或者学者们在21世纪重新考虑久经沙场的原始资料的方式。随着时间的流逝,我们自己的工作可能会被以前未被提出的问题、创新的方法、新发现的证据或新的解释所取代。当这种情况发生时,我们中有多少人会回到过去的研究笔记中,重新思考我们的方法和论点?正如莎朗•布洛克(Sharon Block)所写:“学术生态系统的建立是为了让别人对学术进行审查和批评,而不是为了自我修改自己发表的作品。”布洛克的《重写蕾切尔的强奸》(rewrite the Rape of Rachel)为我们自己过去的工作、研究提供了一个重新焕发活力的模式,我们可能以为自己已经完成了,也已经完成了。这一努力有可能为史学的研究和教学增加一个原创的维度,因为“重写蕾切尔的强奸”向我们展示了一位资深学者回顾她自己在性别和性领域的开创性贡献,并从各个领域的最新学术中收集了见解。回顾她1999年发表的第一篇文章和2006年出版的第一本书,布洛克认为她有必要为自己辩护,以证明性研究的合法性。通过这种方式,她启发了我去思考我自己25年前出版的第一本书。我认同布洛克的描述,即写一本由主题句组成的专著,其中充满了例子和引用。“那也是我干的!”我喃喃自语,回想起那本书,《白人女人,黑人男人:19世纪南方的非法性行为》。在一个例子中,我写了两起在自由诉讼中被揭露的性关系,并在尾注中提到了另外六起此类诉讼。在另一个地方,我列举了13个“马里兰州白人妇女和黑人男子之间的通奸和私生子的其他案例”,而在其他地方,我列举了21个案例来支持法院可以推翻对黑人男子的强奸定罪的观点为了避开那些可能质疑19世纪南方白人女性和黑人男性之间发生性行为的批评者,我写道(必然是防御性的),“我关心的不是指出白人女性和黑人男性之间发生性行为的频率特别高。相反,我关心的是,当这种联系确实发生时,南方白人可能会以一种使现代假设复杂化的方式作出反应,”在尾注中(再次为自己辩护)补充说,“无论如何,这里的论点与频率无关。这并不是说必须放弃收集证据的计划,因为这样的汇编对扩大历史研究和那些希望解释不为人知或支离破碎的故事的人都很重要。不过,我们要认识到,在布洛克的分析中,她——还有我,尽管我自己也提出了抗议——通过优先考虑积累来证明其合法性。与此同时,布洛克在回顾她早期的学术研究的同时,大声呼吁用新的、更广泛的方式来书写性史。为了探索性暴力对被侵犯者的意义,她开始在一个超越当地法院判决的背景下理解蕾切尔·戴维斯的创伤,让我们更好地理解蕾切尔的整个生活。布洛克着手调查蕾切尔被强奸前的生活,以及她被强奸后的生活,布洛克运用了猜测的艺术。她的工作…