U.S. Intellectual History Blog

Panel Construction Assistance for the 2018 S-USIH Conference

The Warwick-Allerton Hotel, circa 2017 (from the south along Michigan Ave).

For all 2018 Panel Seekers,

Please use the comment space under this post to solicit like-minded presenters for your panel idea(s).

Reminder: Submissions are due May 1, 2018.

– TL

19 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.

  1. Hey everyone! I am interested in proposing a panel that examines the 1890s, Populist thought, 1896 election, and/or thought in social movements more generally. If you are interested in putting together a panel on these topics (or any combination of them) please email me at [email protected].

    Thanks!

    • Carl I wrote my dissertation on conspiracy in the 1790s and did a post on here about the relationship between working class whites and conspiracies a few months back. Would love to put something together if interested.

    • If you are still interested and still looking for panel members, I might be of assistance- I can offer a case study in conspiracy theory and politics as present in 1925 Boston.

  2. I’m interested in putting together a panel for the conference. My paper examines the Columbian Catholic Congress at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. It’s the 125th anniversary of the fair this year, and it took place in Chicago – perfect timing and location for the conference!

    I’ll be looking particularly at either Catholic women’s contributions at the congress or participants’ expressions of nationalism.

    I’m open to suggestions for a panel theme. Possibilities might include women and intellectual history, religion, world’s fairs, nationalism, Chicago or Midwestern history, and the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

    If interested in forming a panel, please contact me on Twitter @WilliamCossen or at my website, which is linked to my name above this post.

  3. Hi all — I am interested in crafting a panel to further how sports as site of battleground in the culture wars that peddle various cultural and political ideas. This would be a timely panel given then attention placed on sports during the last year as Colin Kaepernick has been blackballed by the NFL, Trump has attacked Black athletes, coaches and players have made more overtly political statements, and the #MeToo movement and Nassar-MSU investigations have shone a light on the toxic-authoritarian masculinity that frames much of big-time college and professional sport. Amidst these stories we also have journalists and fans pushing back against the so-called politicization and feminist attack on sports.

    In my paper, I’m hoping to build on my post on the USIH blog last year (see: https://s-usih.org/2017/01/the-intellectual-coach/ ) that looks at how coaches act as public intellectual or anti-intellectuals. While I am interested in coaches, other papers could address a variety of topics that explore the intellectual histories embedded in sport.

    If interested, please contact me at [email protected]. I will also routinely check for replies in this space.

  4. Hi folks, in keeping with this year’s theme, I’d be interested in presenting a paper on Margaret Mead’s inclusion of parapsychology in the American Association for the Advancement of Science while she was president of the organization. Was this move brazenly anti-intellectual, the equivalent of adding “potions” to a chemistry curriculum, or are there other ways to understand it? I could envision a panel with papers about defining the boundary between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism, reason and unreason, facts and “alternative facts,” perhaps with more specific focus on religion, the social sciences, or the 1960s.

    Mead is relevant to a number of other discussions as well, including but not limited to sex and gender, public intellectuals, scholarly partnerships, globalization, and environmentalism. If panels on any of those topics might be able to use a paper on Mead, please let me know! [email protected]

  5. Hi All, I’m interested in creating or joining a panel on anti-intellectualism in the 1970s/1980s. My work focuses on conservative women and their rhetoric to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. I would be especially interested to join up with others who study conservatism during this time period, but I’m excited to hear from anyone else who thinks their work might connect well with mine. Please email me at [email protected]. Thanks!

      • Are the two of you looking for a third panelist? If so, I could work up something that focuses on Nixon’s anti-intellectualism

  6. Hi everyone,

    I’m hoping to find a panel on post-1945 public intellectuals which would fit in with my paper on intellectuals and their engagement with the concept of totalitarianism – primarily with a focus on the use of this concept outside of the traditional Cold War framework. Some key figures I’m interested in are Norman Mailer, Eldridge Cleaver, Christopher Hitchens and Paul Berman. Please email me at [email protected]

  7. Hi everyone,

    I am interested in organizing a panel on anti-intellectualism and social science intellectuals. I would like to present a paper that focuses on the forced resignation of Prof. W. I. Thomas from the University of Chicago in 1918 for alleged violation of the Mann Act. In keeping with the conference’s theme of anti-intellectualism, I intend to link the takedown of Thomas with the anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism of the early WWI era. I will explore the harmful effects of this action on Thomas personally as well as on the development of sociology at Chicago. I would like to find or organize a panel organized around the social history of intellectuals, particularly American social scientists from the 1910s-1960s. If interested in working together on this type of panel, please email me at [email protected].

  8. Hi all!

    I’m interested in creating or joining a panel that explores anti-intellectualism and professionalism at mid-century. In particular, I’m interested in a literary prejudice against social science that is present among a wide range of American novelists in the 1950s and 1960s.

    My paper explores the widespread fear among fiction writers of this period that the novel has been drained of its cultural authority and is slowly becoming replaced by emerging modes of social scientific expertise. Many mid-century novels (by O’Connor, Ellison, Salinger, Roth, Yates, Bellow, Nabokov, McCarthy) feature fictional episodes that display a resentment towards the authority of academic expertise (sociologists, psychoanalysts, statisticians, field workers). In the eyes of these novelists, such credentialed knowledge workers seemed to be taking over the epistemic ground once occupied by fiction writers. I argue that this literary resistance can be located not simply through these authors’ negative portrayal of social scientific experts in fiction, but also through narrative structure of those books–that the _form_ of these novels attempts to validate their author’s epistemic authority. Novelists wanted to protect their traditional turf–as privileged interpreters of American culture, as experts in American manners, as possessing insight into how the ordinary American men and women thought and behaved. Yet this claim–that fiction writers had a certain kind of epistemic advantage over scientists about the nature of interior life–seemed to be threatened by the quantifying and ethnographic urges displayed in mid-century books like _The Organization Man_, _The Lonely Crowd_, and _The Kinsey Report_.

    I’d be open to working with scholars whose expertise touch on any aspect of mid-century literary history, the history of social science, and/or the intellectual history of disciplines and professions.

    Patrick Redding
    [email protected]

    • Oh Patrick, I didn’t read your full comment before posting mine. Let’s talk—I was thinking something more on why’s and how’s of disciplinary history, but might be able to contribute something that would work with your panel if you still need. I will shoot you an email.

  9. Is anyone interested in a panel on anti-intellectualism in tax policy/reform? I’m thinking post-Carter but it really could extend back to the origin of the income tax, also.

    Thanks!

    • Id be interested to do something on Prop 13 and the tax revolts in California. My work focuses on suburban “quality of life” rhetoric and really dives deep on its intersection with tax policy (and the intellectual dissonance involved). If thats sounds like something that may fit let me know.

      Dan Elkin
      [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.