Gift Horses: Influence, Insurgence, Interdisciplinarity in Western Studies

Abstract

T h e F a r S i d e b y G a r y L a r s o n G i f t H o r s e s : In f l u e n c e , In s u r g e n c e , In t e r d i s c i p l i n a r i t y in W e s t e r n S t u d i e s S u s a n L e e J o h n s o n We should talk. That is the most urgent message I have taken away from the award-winning special issue of Arizona Quarterly enti­ tled The New Western History: An Assessment, edited by Forrest G. Robinson. Now that the journal issue has been published in book form by the University of Arizona Press under the title The New Western History: The Territory Ahead, it will reach an even broader S u s a n L e e J o h n s o n audience. Before we devolve into rival camps of historians who study western places and peoples, on the one hand, and western studies scholars trained in literary criticism, cultural studies, and postmod­ ern theory, on the other, we ought to convene in a spirit of intellec­ tual generosity and explore together the possibilities of interdiscipli­ nary engagement and, ultimately, of political coalition. This is a crucial moment at which to fortify alliances. In the western states, where many of us live and work, we watch as Affirmative Action programs are dismantled; as violence is perpetrated against people of color and against gay, lesbian, and transgender people; and as global forces of capital wreak havoc on our local environments and espe­ cially on the poor and working-class people who reside there. As Krista Comer, one of the authors in this volume, puts it, “This is no time . . . to squander political allies” (126).1 If we are to converse constructively, we must all do our home­ work. Historians, particularly those of us who were trained and who work in history departments rather than American studies or other interdisciplinary programs, must be ready to receive the gifts that scholars trained in literary criticism, cultural studies, and postmod­ ern theory have to offer us. Our first assignment, then, is to read the essays in Arizona Quarterly or in the book version of the collection, which is identical to the journal issue, except that the book includes a helpful index and features a chilling cover illustration of a faceless western-looking character who appears as a target awaiting her/his fate. Reading these articles could make some of us feel as if we are that character on the cover, as if the words we read are a barrage of bullets aimed at both head and heart. The essays in this volume raise crucial critiques of what the authors understand as the “New Western History,” represented by the work of historians William Cronon, Patricia Nelson Limerick, Richard White, and Donald Worster. Whatever the drawbacks of canonizing the scholarship of this socalled Gang of Four— and the drawbacks are substantial— the arti­ cles in the Arizona Quarterly issue nonetheless advance insights that all of us who study western places and peoples ignore, not only at our peril, but at the peril of progressive politics both within and beyond academia. Historians of western places and peoples have much to gain from a careful reading of these essays. Here I should explain why I often use the cumbersome phrase “historians of western places and peo­ ples” rather than the more economical term “western historians.” For years, intellectual and political tensions have erupted between those W A L 34(1) S p r in g 1999 who identify first and foremost as historians of the North American West and those who identify primarily, for example, as ethnic, envi­ ronmental, or cultural historians but whose work focuses on western places or peoples. In using the more cumbersome phrase, I mean to honor the resistance mounted by some ethnic studies scholars to what they have described as the colonizing gesture of self...