At the Conclusion of La Pietra

Nearly seventy historians, some from the United States and a few from abroad, arrived at 9 a.m. for the discussion of the La Pietra Report at the recent Los Angeles meeting of the OAH. Thomas Bender (New York University) introduced the panel, and explained the purpose of the project as gradualist but aiming at a serious rethinking of the most fruitful ways of framing American history, ones that better recognize the embeddedness of American history in histories larger than itself. He emphasized that the purpose was not to discredit any present historiographical models, but rather to enable the enrichment of historical understanding by widening the frame for histories of the United States. Three panelists then made brief comments, with the intention of allowing those in attendance to be participants rather than merely an audience. The panel offered different perspectives, from U.S. based historians and from a foreign perspective, from participants in the La Pietra conferences and from a nonparticipant. Using maps, the first speaker, Dirk Hoerder of the University of Bremen in Germany and a La Pietra participant, showed ways of representing American history that decentered the United States, revealing the scope of migration systems and the relation (or non-relation) of important ecological and cultural regions in North America to nation-states. Mary Dudziak, another La Pietra participant and Professor of Law at the University of Southern California, used her own experience to make the point that we often do not realize how important a transnational or international dimension might be for seemingly domestic topics. She explained how she came to understand that her work on civil rights required that she look well beyond the borders of the United States in writing Race and the Image of American Democracy (2000). The third speaker, Ramón Gutiérrez of the University of California, San Diego and not a participant in the La Pietra meetings, challenged the profession to be more imaginative in thinking about the possible ways of organizing knowledge, recognizing the resistance to any such effort. He particularly noted the Report’s suggestion that the basic organization of the history curriculum might be substantially rethought, and he offered alternative suggestions. He also emphasized the need for connections with both the K-12 history curriculum and with foreign colleagues.

With that beginning the group formed itself into a large roundtable discussion, with perhaps as many as half of those in attendance speaking, often spiritedly. It was precisely that kind of exchange that was hoped for—indeed, Mary Dudziak pointed out that while the La Pietra Report was deliberately drafted as a consensus report, one that all participants could support, the meetings themselves were marked by a number of divisions and arguments that enriched the intellectual work of the project.

Inherent in all such discussions are the relations among different subfields, often marked by worries that one or another may be advantaged or marginalized by change. The spirit of the meeting was that such a fundamental rethinking might in fact offer an opportunity to establish better relations among the various fields. There was also the inevitable issue of how "radical" new narratives might be. This issue found a focus in a lively and wide-ranging discussion of textbook writing: how does one balance the new perspectives with traditional expectations. Many different examples of possible approaches were offered, and it was suggested that a survey of present practices might in fact reveal that there are a number of models already available. But it was also pointed out that it is not easy to extend oneself beyond established historiographical boundaries nor one’s own training. This point should not be glossed, and there was a good discussion of ways of working out from strengths.

There was also some discussion of the role of foreign scholarship on the U.S., including the important matter of the difficulties that scholars abroad face in getting books and archival materials necessary to their work. Does the U.S. profession have the means to assist on that front? This query led naturally to the question of whether the Organization of American Historians might examine its own capacity to obtain some of the resources needed, whether directly or as a lobbying organization.

There were a variety of suggestions for next moves: NEH Summer Seminars or Institutes, a regular column in the OAH Newsletter, curricular suggestions and bibliographies for the OAH Magazine of History, exchanges/collaborations with foreign scholars, probably organized on the department level. Most of these refer to the OAH, but the importance of many local initiatives was stressed as well. The ambitious revision of the history curriculum at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was mentioned in this context, as well as the suggestion of Darwin Stapleton, Director of the Rockefeller Archives Center, that archivists might begin thinking about how their archives might more effectively serve a more internationalized research than they do at present.

Finally, the discussion repeatedly circled around the problem of existing "boxes" into which not only history but historians must fit. While there was a great deal of frustration expressed on this point—including some brief accounts of personal experiences—there was some suggestion that there may be a bit of loosening at present. And certainly there is some support for this notion in the development of new kinds of fields that cross old boundaries, most obviously the African Diaspora and the Atlantic World.

Thomas Bender is professor of history at New York University. The LaPietra Final Report can be found online at: <http:/www.oah.org/activities/lapietra/>.