Discontent in the historical profession

Abstract

I n April, 1998, a group of historians held a press conference in Washington, D.C. to announce the formation of "a new and genuinely 'diverse' organization" to reshape the profession. Dubbed "The Historical Society," it was intended as an alternative forum to the two existing umbrella organizations of historians in the United States, the Organization of American Historians (OAH)---comprised of those who study the history of the United States--and the American Historical Associa t ion ( A H A ) w h i c h includes American historians of all parts of the world, including the United States. Why did discontent within the AHA and OAH lead to a search for more promising alternatives? Some of the reasons lay in the seeming rejection of the norms of scholarly objectivity, universality and pluralism within those organizations. This trend has its roots in the late 1960s, but only transformed the official institutions of the profession some decades later as historians steeped in an activist conception of professional activity came to dominate historical organizations and departments.