The October issue includes five articles—an eclectic mix, illustrating the diverse approaches and topics that characterize contemporary historical writing at the professional level. The subjects of the pieces range from polygamy in early North America to serfdom in imperial Russia, medicine and mass culture in the United States in the interwar period, "modernity" in Africa, and decolonization in the post–World War II era. There are also five featured reviews, followed by our usual extensive book review section. "In Back Issues" draws attention to articles and features in the AHR from one hundred, seventy-five, and fifty years ago.
In “‘Having Many Wives’ in Two American Rebellions: The Politics of Households and the Radically Conservative,” Sarah M. S. Pearsall examines households, and in particular plural unions, in the context of two rebellions in the far north of New Spain: the Guale Rebellion of 1597 and the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. Before exploring these familial and sexual arrangements in the two rebellions, she considers the novel meanings of polygamy in Old and New Spain. For many Spaniards, polygamy represented resistance to Christianity, apostasy, desecration, political subversion, and violence among the indigenous population. For many Native Americans, however, it indicated masculine status and authority, as well as positive notions of labor organization, hierarchy, and political confederation. Revisiting textual evidence in conjunction with archaeological findings, Pearsall explores how and why transformations of households and gender roles occurred. Too often, she argues, scholars have been beguiled by calls for tradition, such as those heard in the Pueblo Revolt, and have thus failed to appreciate the transformative possibilities inherent in such appeals. Far from implying a return to precolonial ways, the rebels' schemes had the potential to effect a profound alteration in existing Pueblo cultures, especially in terms of gender. It is possible to trace how in some contexts, both men and women made “radically conservative” choices, connecting themselves consciously to the past in innovative ways.
In “Freed Serfs without Free People: Manumission in Imperial Russia,” Alison K. Smith examines an understudied topic in the history of unfree labor. Her discussion of manumission practices in late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth century Russia illuminates the many different meanings of freedom and authority in imperial Russia. “Freedom” was more than an abstract principle; it had multiple, practical meanings, everything from a lack of responsibilities to others, personal autonomy, and the freedom to act as one wished, to vagrancy and idleness. These meanings played out differently among three different sets of actors—serf owners, serfs themselves, and the state—but all were in some ways constrained or otherwise altered by the legal social statuses that structured imperial Russian society. The article concludes with the suggestion that manumission, which has generally been linked to discussions of the quality of serfdom in given societies, may have more to say about the quality of freedom.
In the interwar period, a host of physicians in both Europe and the United States claimed that an array of simple procedures vasectomies, organ grafts, or the application of x-rays) could prolong life and renew a person's energy by stimulating the production of the body's hormones. In “Becoming Glandular: Endocrinology, Mass Culture, and Experimental Lives in the Interwar Age,” Michael Pettit looks at this phenomenon primarily in the United States. There were in fact two cultures of rejuvenation therapy: one evoked the nation's agricultural heritage, trafficking in populist politics; while the second prevailed in urban centers and looked for inspiration to the cosmopolitan culture of Vienna. In the U.S., the reception of endocrinology was refracted through both eugenics and a consumer culture oriented around self-improvement as both a civic obligation and a personal goal. Endocrinology thus functioned as a modernist technology of self, as people were encouraged to think of their minds and bodies as governed by invisible chemicals that were open to manipulation and experimentation. Focusing on how knowledge about these treatments traveled through circuits of mass culture brings to the fore a host of new actors in the history of endocrinology. In addition to clinicians and laboratory scientists, publishers, journalists, novelists, and, most importantly, their readers were central to the multiple looping effects that helped build self-talk around the glands of internal secretion.
In “Drive-In Socialism: Debating Modernities and Development in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,” Laura Fair uses an element of popular entertainment to uncover competing visions of modernity, socialism, and independence held by a range of Tanzanian government officials, party bureaucrats, and citizens in the 1960s and 1970s. While a drive-in cinema might seem like an odd investment for a socialist state, her article demonstrates the unlikely ways this enterprise embodied some of the central tenets of African socialism, from economic self-sufficiency to familyhood and the creation of a multiracial, intergenerational, cross-class public sphere. It illustrates that state socialism was far from monolithic, and that many stalwarts and citizens alike found great pleasure in evenings at the show.
In the final article in this issue, “International Socialism and Decolonization during the 1950s: Competing Rights and the Postcolonial Order,” Talbot C. Imlay looks at discussions between European and Asian socialists during the 1950s regarding the vexed issue of decolonization. These discussions were framed in terms of competing rights: national rights, minority rights, and human rights, thus providing an interesting perspective on the stakes involved in decolonization. Whereas Asian socialists insisted on the primacy of national rights, European socialists raised the issue of minority rights, arguing that most colonies were multiethnic societies in which minority groups needed to be protected. By the end of the 1950s, the leading European socialist parties had come around to endorsing national rights for colonial peoples, chiefly because the defense of minority rights became identified with the defense of colonialism. Unease with the abandonment of minority rights, however, fueled a growing interest in human rights, which European socialists seized upon in the hope of providing some protection to minorities in postcolonial states. The discussions between socialists draw attention not only to the interconnected histories of minority rights, human rights, and decolonization after 1945, but also to some of the consequences of the triumph of national rights.
December's issue will include articles on Huguenot refugees in North America, the invention of “Latin” America, changes in global conceptions of time and timekeeping, and art and education in twentieth-century South Africa. There will also be an AHR Conversation, “How Size Matters: The Question of Scale in History.”
With this issue we say goodbye and thanks to four members of the Board of Editors who have worked hard in service to this journal for the last several years: Philip Ethington, Jochen Hellbeck, Dagmar Herzog, and Sumathi Ramaswamy. And we welcome their successors: Herman Bennett, Belinda Davis, Prasannan Parthasarathi, Jan Plamper, and Judith Tucker. It should be noted that we have added a thirteenth position to the Board, having divided the Asian field into East Asia and South Asia.
|NEWS:||In the October issue...||Impact of the AHR...|