Cambridge History Students and Applicants

Ah, I had a discussion group on that with a modern political historian who was arguing that political history includes things like the politics of the family (and was almost sociological in viewpoint). I didn't quite agree, and had a fairly interesting debate for an hour with someone who had clearly thought a lot more about what they were going to say than I did. That was a bit of a struggle to get through, but could potentially give me something to write for that question. I need to spend a bit of time working out which would be best to answer. I read through them all once and couldn't really find one I wanted to answer...

Have you had any HAP classes in your college yet?

Oooh...this is new...
Hi everyone, just thought I'd introduce myself. I've just got an offer for History this October, Queens' College. Really looking forward to it! Are you all mainly enjoying the Cambridge History experience so far, or is it living hell ? Do you know any Queens' historians by any chance?

I don't personally think politics of the family is political history. But political history has to look outside of the social elites because you have things like riots which involve the peasantry and lower classes. Also it's very difficult to qualify who are the social elites obviously definitions shift chronologically and geographically. also the expansion of the franchise pretty much puts an end to elite driven political history in the western world, and also you can look at political thought which expands it widely as well. It's a decent question.

Ah, I think I probably hold a similar view to you. I don't agree that it's necessarily the study of social elites alone - your example of riots, and things like that, and grass-roots politics are a big part of it. I just didn't hold the post-post-modern view of the Dr taking the class, which saw politics (and political history) in everything - and seriously everything, from the inter-family relationship of power, to the social mores of why a doctor has more respect. I really could not get on board with his view and stuck to my guns a bit.

Oooh...this is new...
Hi everyone, just thought I'd introduce myself. I've just got an offer for History this October, Queens' College. Really looking forward to it! Are you all mainly enjoying the Cambridge History experience so far, or is it living hell ? Do you know any Queens' historians by any chance?

Mine either. I always seem to root my views on HAP in the practicalities of the profession of being a historian. I think having these barriers are useful academic tools, as it subdivides a massive profession. If you debase 'politics' to its root meaning, of power or the use of power, it is at the root of every kind of history in some way - from economic history (money is power, after all ), social history, gender history to gay history, constitutional history etc etc.

'Politics' in that sense, is in everything. I think we probably need a different term for the other side of politics which we probably all actually mean when we say 'political history', which is the institutional structures of power (government, representation etc), the culture around it (voting, popular feeling), and the events it becomes involved in/creates.

We had another seminar on counter-factuals (the act of saying 'What if...', as in: 'What if the Versailles Treaty was more lenient?') and their use in history, and we kept straying off into pseudo-philosophical discussions about creating endless versions of history for 'fun' (and people arguing that if something had already happened one way, there was no point considering alternatives). Whereas I again seemed to be rooted in the practicalities of actually using counter-factuals in writing an essay - as an evaluative tool or as a literary device in a conclusion - ie 'If so and so hadn't blah blah blahed, blah blah blahed and blah blah blahed, then maybe blah blah blah would not have happened.'

What have your classes been on so far? Any interesting ones?

Mine either. I always seem to root my views on HAP in the practicalities of the profession of being a historian. I think having these barriers are useful academic tools, as it subdivides a massive profession. If you debase 'politics' to its root meaning, of power or the use of power, it is at the root of every kind of history in some way - from economic history (money is power, after all ), social history, gender history to gay history, constitutional history etc etc.

'Politics' in that sense, is in everything. I think we probably need a different term for the other side of politics which we probably all actually mean when we say 'political history', which is the institutional structures of power (government, representation etc), the culture around it (voting, popular feeling), and the events it becomes involved in/creates.

We had another seminar on counter-factuals (the act of saying 'What if...', as in: 'What if the Versailles Treaty was more lenient?') and their use in history, and we kept straying off into pseudo-philosophical discussions about creating endless versions of history for 'fun' (and people arguing that if something had already happened one way, there was no point considering alternatives). Whereas I again seemed to be rooted in the practicalities of actually using counter-factuals in writing an essay - as an evaluative tool or as a literary device in a conclusion - ie 'If so and so hadn't blah blah blahed, blah blah blahed and blah blah blahed, then maybe blah blah blah would not have happened.'

What have your classes been on so far? Any interesting ones?

Politics can't just be about the workings of governmental institutions because this existence is artificial. What was "politics" before we had the concept of the state? It's the idea that the way groups organise themselves and the way authority and legitimacy is derived which forms what is intrinsic in politics.

One's first encounter with politics is usually through the family unit, where your parents derive authority through being physically larger than you, and legitemacy through being your parents and through supposedly being the most capable of governing your lives.

What makes politics fundamentally vital is the fact that it does transcend everything, and is indivisible with the study of almost anything else.

Politics can't just be about the workings of governmental institutions because this existence is artificial. What was "politics" before we had the concept of the state? It's the idea that the way groups organise themselves and the way authority and legitimacy is derived which forms what is intrinsic in politics.

One's first encounter with politics is usually through the family unit, where your parents derive authority through being physically larger than you, and legitemacy through being your parents and through supposedly being the most capable of governing your lives.

What makes politics fundamentally vital is the fact that it does transcend everything, and is indivisible with the study of almost anything else.

have you read some of Niall Ferguson's work on counter factualism? Is fairly interesting. I'm a bit of a utilitarian on that one, I mean it's lovely to sit around and say what if Hitler had won the war, but it's pointless in my opinion. They are only useful in that they make you consider the relative importance of factors. But i'm not a huge fan of counterfactual history, i don't find it that interesting.

I see power structures in the family as something covered by sociology, I don't see why we need to create a sub-set within the historical profession to chart the same thing.

And I suppose I see non-governmental/institutional 'politics' in the form you talk about as more social history, than political, or at least that's how I would practically define the two at that stage of development.

Yes 'politics' as a concept is in everything, but I don't see how realising that actually helps us write 'Political History' without just writing all-encompassing 'History'. If I just want to write about elections, grass-roots political movements, political views, mass protest, parliaments, governments, dictatorships, political leaders, political decisions and their impact, what kind of 'history' would we call this?

Can any of you historians at Cambridge drag some law undergrads onto the law thread so they can shed some light on the course? Btw, the Cambs History course looks amazing! I should have applied for History!!

His book/article was the set reading for our discussion group, so no. But I did get the gist of what he was saying during the group, and I didn't really agree with him - he had a very narrow criteria on the use of counterfactuals. He argued that they were only useful when there is evidence that contemporaries thought it was a possibility, and that you needed that evidence before you could pose a counter-factual. Which as someone studying medieval history last term, where evidence of any kind is scarce, is ludicrous.

But yeah, I'm with you on their limited use. Writing complete alternative histories is completely useless and is science-fiction, not history.