tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219969431452309260.post4210964894981861056..comments2022-07-09T08:56:16.661-04:00Comments on Everyday History: Tina Loo on Unfinished HistoryChristopher Dummitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05063266631046047675noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219969431452309260.post-76908968780103445082012-10-26T10:05:17.974-04:002012-10-26T10:05:17.974-04:00Thanks for the comment Sean. I suppose what bother...Thanks for the comment Sean. I suppose what bothers me is more the idea that the structure/agency paradigm as you put it is the main thing we ought to be doing. Personally, I'm bored stiff with learning, yet again, that someone exercised agency (or didn't) and in what exact combination. I could write the argument for so many articles/books before I ever see them. <br /><br />And I'm not sure that just opening this up to more people is really the solution. Imagine a scenario where a Conservative party approach to economic history was all we had. We always talked about wealth creators and the great job they did, occasionally mentioning these hangers-on (folks like academics, welfare bums, all public servants and the like) and the way they constrained the economy. Then someone suggests that occasionally the hangers-on do in fact create wealth, that they too can play the role we want them to play. Well, jolly good, you might say. Now we really have an inclusive history. <br /><br />Maybe. <br /><br />But maybe the paradigm itself is a teensy bit limited. Now personally I've more invested in the first paradigm. But all paradigms/theories/'ways of seeing' are essentially metaphors. The first time you hear them, if they are really good, they take your breath away. But after a while, dissertation after book after article, even the best metaphor becomes a cliche.<br /><br />But I'm glad you'd be interested in Conservatives in the 50s. I was going through the letters of Arthur Meighen and Eugene Forsey (and other letters to Meighen). Fun stuff. It wasn't really about Conservatives (I wanted to know what they were saying about Mackenzie King) but we do learn a lot in our research that isn't related to what we think we should be studying. In fact, as you likely find yourself, that's often where we get the best stuff.<br /><br /><br />Christopher Dummitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063266631046047675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3219969431452309260.post-17899727095762118312012-10-25T16:04:15.843-04:002012-10-25T16:04:15.843-04:00Chris:
This is a really good response. I'm fa...Chris:<br /><br />This is a really good response. I'm fascinated by this picture of Meighen and the research you're doing. I think it speaks directly to something Tina mentioned in her Active History article. Building upon Viv Nelles's remarks at the recent Directions West Conference, she noted that "[i]f we still think it’s important to understand how power is exercised, then we need to be attentive to how the dynamics of structure and agency constrained and enabled social workers and Indian Agents as well as their “clients.”" It sounds like your work is addressing this concern, to some extent.<br /><br />On a similar point, I can think of a couple of books in Canadian social history that examined the dynamics and structures of power among middle and upper class Canadians. These include:<br /><br />McDonald, Robert A.J. Making Vancouver: Class, Status, and Social Boundaries, 1863-1913<br /><br />Holman, Andrew, A Sense of Their Duty: Middle-Class Formation in Victorian Ontario Towns<br /><br />Finally, I think the anxieties of Conservatives in Canada in the early 1950s as a research topic is very interesting stuff, but perhaps I'm just easily excited.Sean Kherajhttp://seankheraj.comnoreply@blogger.com