The May 2011 issue of History of Education Quarterly (HEQ), a journal published by the History of Education Society, focuses on theory, or philosophy, in educational history. The TOC below provides a taste of the issues discussed. Tamura’s full article, “Narrative History and Theory,” may be of interest to upcoming USIH conference participants.
————————————————————
History of Education Quarterly
Volume 51, Issue 2 Pages 145 – 271, May 2011
Guest Editor’s Note: Theory in Educational History (pages 145–147)
Eileen H. Tamura
Introduction: Theory in Educational History (pages 148–149)
Eileen H. Tamura, Caroline Eick and Roland Sintos Coloma
Articles
Narrative History and Theory (pages 150–157)
Eileen H. Tamura
Oral Histories of Education and the Relevance of Theory: Claiming New Spaces in a Post-Revisionist Era (pages 158–183)
Caroline Eick
Who’s Afraid of Foucault? History, Theory, and Becoming Subjects (pages 184–210)
Roland Sintos Coloma
Responses
Probing the Deep: Theory and History (pages 211–217)
Nancy Beadie
History, Theory, and Education (pages 218–228)
John L. Rury
The Proper Place of Theory in Educational History? (pages 229–238)
Wayne J. Urban
What’s Foucault Got to Do with It? History, Theory, and Becoming Subjected (pages 239–246)
Ronald E. Butchart
“What Happens in the Historian’s Head?” (pages 247–253)
Kathleen Weiler
A Matter of Class (pages 254–263)
Kathleen A. Murphey
Reflections on History, Education, and Social Theories (pages 264–271)
V. P. Franklin
3 Thoughts on this Post
S-USIH Comment Policy
We ask that those who participate in the discussions generated in the Comments section do so with the same decorum as they would in any other academic setting or context. Since the USIH bloggers write under our real names, we would prefer that our commenters also identify themselves by their real name. As our primary goal is to stimulate and engage in fruitful and productive discussion, ad hominem attacks (personal or professional), unnecessary insults, and/or mean-spiritedness have no place in the USIH Blog’s Comments section. Therefore, we reserve the right to remove any comments that contain any of the above and/or are not intended to further the discussion of the topic of the post. We welcome suggestions for corrections to any of our posts. As the official blog of the Society of US Intellectual History, we hope to foster a diverse community of scholars and readers who engage with one another in discussions of US intellectual history, broadly understood.
In Beadie’s response to Tamura’s essay, Hayden White is described as an “analytic philosopher.” I can’t tell whether that is Tamura’s formulation or Beadie’s. But I have to ask, in what universe is Hayden White an analytic philosopher? I mean, really? Someone needs to learn something about analytic philosophy.
Varad: Good question. Is the bar so low on analytic thinking these days that anyone who writes or thinks in a fashion that resembles a syllogism is graduated to the rank of “analytic philosopher”? Or, since when have good writers and historians been confused with symbolic logic? …Maybe it’s just a mistake. …- TL
Tim: It’s a real head-scratcher. My acquaintance with White is mainly by reputation (although I hope to delve into his writing at some point). But from what I know, one could argue strongly that he is a philosopher of history. That hardly makes him an “analytic” philosopher, though. It probably is a mistake, the kind which embarrasses those who know better, and ought to embarrass those who don’t (and should).