Actuality. Management as a phenomenon of culture and an exclusively unique object of scientific knowledge occupies a special place in the life of society. As historical development of mankind is complicated as organizational structures, as well as the culture of management and a set of theories that describe them. However, modern science does not take into account that radical changes in organizational reality occur not continuously, but during the bifurcation of civilization. A specific culture that arose precisely in such conditions is mechanistic management, the study of which is devoted to this article. Purpose and methods. The purpose of the article is a theoretical and historical analysis of the culture of mechanistic management, the identification of the basic determinants of the genesis of this management culture and the formation of the main directions of its development in conditions of industrialism. The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical principle of cognition, systemic, civilization, historical approaches to the study of social phenomena and processes, and the fundamental provisions of the theory of management. Results. The objective preconditions of the formation of a culture of mechanistic management are determined: European science and mechanism arising from the Newtonian picture of the world – the presentation of organizational reality as a machine, as well as atomism, rationalism and social Darwinism as a "natural law" about inter-species struggle; Protestant ethics as a justification of profit; political economy, which introduced the economy in the form of a machine operating under the laws of Newtonian mechanics; great scientific and technical discoveries, demanding new forms of organization of production. The essence of the article is given, comparative characteristics are given and prospects of further application of the main directions of culture of mechanistic management: scientific organization of labor and management are outlined; administrative management; the bureaucracy. Conclusions and discussion. Scientific novelty of the obtained results consists in identifying the key determinants of the genesis of the culture of mechanistic management and generalization of the peculiarities of the independent trends of this culture, and practical significance is seen in expanding the perceptions of the theory and history of world culture, including in them previously practically not explored in the cultural-historical context ideas, thoughts, views and concepts of mechanistic management. ; Актуальность. Менеджмент как феномен культуры и исключительно уникальный объект научного познания занимает особенное место в жизнедеятельности общества. По мере исторического развития человечества усложняются как организационные структуры, так и культура менеджмента и набор теорий, которые их описывают. Однако современная наука не учитывает того, что кардинальные изменения организационной реальности происходят не постоянно, а во время бифуркации цивилизации. Специфической культурой, возникшей именно в таких условиях, является механистический менеджмент, исследованию которого посвящена эта статья. Цель и методы. Цель статьи – теоретико-исторический анализ культуры механистического менеджмента, выявление базовых детерминант генезиса этой культуры управления и формирование основных направлений ее развития в условиях индустриализма. Методологической основой исследования являются диалектический принцип познания, системный, цивилизационный, исторический подходы к изучению общественных явлений и процессов и фундаментальные положения теории менеджмента. Результаты. Определены объективные предпосылки становления культуры механистического менеджмента: европейская наука и механицизм, вытекающий из ньютоновской картины мира – представление организационной реальности как машины, а также атомизм, рационализм и социальный дарвинизм как «естественный закон» о межвидовой борьбе; протестантская этика как оправдание наживы; политэкономия, представившая хозяйство в виде машины, действующей по законам ньютоновской механики; великие научно-технические открытия, потребовавшие новых форм организации производства. Раскрыта сущность, предоставлены сравнительные характеристики и очерчены перспективы последующего применения основных направлений культуры механистического менеджмента: научной организации труда и управления; административного менеджмента; бюрократии. Выводы и обсуждение. Научная новизна полученных результатов заключается в выявлении ключевых детерминант генезиса культуры механистического менеджмента и обобщении особенностей самостоятельных направлений этой культуры, а практическое значение усматривается в расширении представлений о теории и истории мировой культуры, включив в них ранее практически не исследуемые в культурно-историческом контексте идеи, мысли, взгляды и концепции механистического менеджмента. ; Актуальність. Менеджмент як феномен культури й виключно унікальний об'єкт наукового пізнання займає особливе місце в життєдіяльності суспільства. У міру історичного розвитку людства ускладнюються як організаційні структури, так і культура менеджменту та набір теорій, які їх описують. Проте сучасна наука не враховує того, що кардинальні зміни організаційної реальності відбуваються не постійно, а під час біфуркації цивілізації. Специфічною культурою, яка виникла саме в таких умовах, є механістичний менеджмент, дослідженню якого присвячена ця стаття. Мета і методи. Мета статті – теоретико-історичний аналіз культури механістичного менеджменту, виявлення базових детермінант генезису цієї культури управління та формування основних напрямів її розвитку в умовах індустріалізму. Методологічною основою дослідження є діалектичний принцип пізнання, системний, цивілізаційний, історичний підходи до вивчення суспільних явищ і процесів та фундаментальні положення теорії менеджменту. Результати. Визначено об'єктивні передумови становлення культури механістичного менеджменту: європейська наука і механіцизм, що випливає із ньютонівської картини світу – уявлення організаційної реальності як машини, а також атомізм, раціоналізм і соціальний дарвінізм як «природний закон» про міжвидову боротьбу; протестантська етика як виправдання наживи; політекономія, яка представила господарство у вигляді машини, що діє за законами ньютонівської механіки; великі науково-технічні відкриття, що вимагали нових форм організації виробництва. Розкрито сутність, надано порівняльні характеристики й окреслено перспективи подальшого застосування основних напрямів культури механістичного менеджменту: наукової організації праці та управління; адміністративного менеджменту; бюрократії. Висновки та обговорення. Наукова новизна одержаних результатів полягає у виявленні ключових детермінант генезису культури механістичного менеджменту й узагальненні особливостей самостійних напрямів цієї культури, а практичне значення вбачається у розширенні уявлень про теорію та історію світової культури, включивши в них раніше практично не досліджувані в культурно-історичному контексті ідеї, думки, погляди й концепції механістичного менеджменту
Actuality. Management as a phenomenon of culture and an exclusively unique object of scientific knowledge occupies a special place in the life of society. As historical development of mankind is complicated as organizational structures, as well as the culture of management and a set of theories that describe them. However, modern science does not take into account that radical changes in organizational reality occur not continuously, but during the bifurcation of civilization. A specific culture that arose precisely in such conditions is mechanistic management, the study of which is devoted to this article. Purpose and methods. The purpose of the article is a theoretical and historical analysis of the culture of mechanistic management, the identification of the basic determinants of the genesis of this management culture and the formation of the main directions of its development in conditions of industrialism. The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical principle of cognition, systemic, civilization, historical approaches to the study of social phenomena and processes, and the fundamental provisions of the theory of management. Results. The objective preconditions of the formation of a culture of mechanistic management are determined: European science and mechanism arising from the Newtonian picture of the world – the presentation of organizational reality as a machine, as well as atomism, rationalism and social Darwinism as a "natural law" about inter-species struggle; Protestant ethics as a justification of profit; political economy, which introduced the economy in the form of a machine operating under the laws of Newtonian mechanics; great scientific and technical discoveries, demanding new forms of organization of production. The essence of the article is given, comparative characteristics are given and prospects of further application of the main directions of culture of mechanistic management: scientific organization of labor and management are outlined; administrative management; the bureaucracy. Conclusions and discussion. Scientific novelty of the obtained results consists in identifying the key determinants of the genesis of the culture of mechanistic management and generalization of the peculiarities of the independent trends of this culture, and practical significance is seen in expanding the perceptions of the theory and history of world culture, including in them previously practically not explored in the cultural-historical context ideas, thoughts, views and concepts of mechanistic management. ; Актуальность. Менеджмент как феномен культуры и исключительно уникальный объект научного познания занимает особенное место в жизнедеятельности общества. По мере исторического развития человечества усложняются как организационные структуры, так и культура менеджмента и набор теорий, которые их описывают. Однако современная наука не учитывает того, что кардинальные изменения организационной реальности происходят не постоянно, а во время бифуркации цивилизации. Специфической культурой, возникшей именно в таких условиях, является механистический менеджмент, исследованию которого посвящена эта статья. Цель и методы. Цель статьи – теоретико-исторический анализ культуры механистического менеджмента, выявление базовых детерминант генезиса этой культуры управления и формирование основных направлений ее развития в условиях индустриализма. Методологической основой исследования являются диалектический принцип познания, системный, цивилизационный, исторический подходы к изучению общественных явлений и процессов и фундаментальные положения теории менеджмента. Результаты. Определены объективные предпосылки становления культуры механистического менеджмента: европейская наука и механицизм, вытекающий из ньютоновской картины мира – представление организационной реальности как машины, а также атомизм, рационализм и социальный дарвинизм как «естественный закон» о межвидовой борьбе; протестантская этика как оправдание наживы; политэкономия, представившая хозяйство в виде машины, действующей по законам ньютоновской механики; великие научно-технические открытия, потребовавшие новых форм организации производства. Раскрыта сущность, предоставлены сравнительные характеристики и очерчены перспективы последующего применения основных направлений культуры механистического менеджмента: научной организации труда и управления; административного менеджмента; бюрократии. Выводы и обсуждение. Научная новизна полученных результатов заключается в выявлении ключевых детерминант генезиса культуры механистического менеджмента и обобщении особенностей самостоятельных направлений этой культуры, а практическое значение усматривается в расширении представлений о теории и истории мировой культуры, включив в них ранее практически не исследуемые в культурно-историческом контексте идеи, мысли, взгляды и концепции механистического менеджмента. ; Актуальність. Менеджмент як феномен культури й виключно унікальний об'єкт наукового пізнання займає особливе місце в життєдіяльності суспільства. У міру історичного розвитку людства ускладнюються як організаційні структури, так і культура менеджменту та набір теорій, які їх описують. Проте сучасна наука не враховує того, що кардинальні зміни організаційної реальності відбуваються не постійно, а під час біфуркації цивілізації. Специфічною культурою, яка виникла саме в таких умовах, є механістичний менеджмент, дослідженню якого присвячена ця стаття. Мета і методи. Мета статті – теоретико-історичний аналіз культури механістичного менеджменту, виявлення базових детермінант генезису цієї культури управління та формування основних напрямів її розвитку в умовах індустріалізму. Методологічною основою дослідження є діалектичний принцип пізнання, системний, цивілізаційний, історичний підходи до вивчення суспільних явищ і процесів та фундаментальні положення теорії менеджменту. Результати. Визначено об'єктивні передумови становлення культури механістичного менеджменту: європейська наука і механіцизм, що випливає із ньютонівської картини світу – уявлення організаційної реальності як машини, а також атомізм, раціоналізм і соціальний дарвінізм як «природний закон» про міжвидову боротьбу; протестантська етика як виправдання наживи; політекономія, яка представила господарство у вигляді машини, що діє за законами ньютонівської механіки; великі науково-технічні відкриття, що вимагали нових форм організації виробництва. Розкрито сутність, надано порівняльні характеристики й окреслено перспективи подальшого застосування основних напрямів культури механістичного менеджменту: наукової організації праці та управління; адміністративного менеджменту; бюрократії. Висновки та обговорення. Наукова новизна одержаних результатів полягає у виявленні ключових детермінант генезису культури механістичного менеджменту й узагальненні особливостей самостійних напрямів цієї культури, а практичне значення вбачається у розширенні уявлень про теорію та історію світової культури, включивши в них раніше практично не досліджувані в культурно-історичному контексті ідеї, думки, погляди й концепції механістичного менеджменту
Actuality. Management as a phenomenon of culture and an exclusively unique object of scientific knowledge occupies a special place in the life of society. As historical development of mankind is complicated as organizational structures, as well as the culture of management and a set of theories that describe them. However, modern science does not take into account that radical changes in organizational reality occur not continuously, but during the bifurcation of civilization. A specific culture that arose precisely in such conditions is mechanistic management, the study of which is devoted to this article. Purpose and methods. The purpose of the article is a theoretical and historical analysis of the culture of mechanistic management, the identification of the basic determinants of the genesis of this management culture and the formation of the main directions of its development in conditions of industrialism. The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical principle of cognition, systemic, civilization, historical approaches to the study of social phenomena and processes, and the fundamental provisions of the theory of management. Results. The objective preconditions of the formation of a culture of mechanistic management are determined: European science and mechanism arising from the Newtonian picture of the world – the presentation of organizational reality as a machine, as well as atomism, rationalism and social Darwinism as a "natural law" about inter-species struggle; Protestant ethics as a justification of profit; political economy, which introduced the economy in the form of a machine operating under the laws of Newtonian mechanics; great scientific and technical discoveries, demanding new forms of organization of production. The essence of the article is given, comparative characteristics are given and prospects of further application of the main directions of culture of mechanistic management: scientific organization of labor and management are outlined; administrative management; the bureaucracy. Conclusions and discussion. Scientific novelty of the obtained results consists in identifying the key determinants of the genesis of the culture of mechanistic management and generalization of the peculiarities of the independent trends of this culture, and practical significance is seen in expanding the perceptions of the theory and history of world culture, including in them previously practically not explored in the cultural-historical context ideas, thoughts, views and concepts of mechanistic management. ; Актуальность. Менеджмент как феномен культуры и исключительно уникальный объект научного познания занимает особенное место в жизнедеятельности общества. По мере исторического развития человечества усложняются как организационные структуры, так и культура менеджмента и набор теорий, которые их описывают. Однако современная наука не учитывает того, что кардинальные изменения организационной реальности происходят не постоянно, а во время бифуркации цивилизации. Специфической культурой, возникшей именно в таких условиях, является механистический менеджмент, исследованию которого посвящена эта статья. Цель и методы. Цель статьи – теоретико-исторический анализ культуры механистического менеджмента, выявление базовых детерминант генезиса этой культуры управления и формирование основных направлений ее развития в условиях индустриализма. Методологической основой исследования являются диалектический принцип познания, системный, цивилизационный, исторический подходы к изучению общественных явлений и процессов и фундаментальные положения теории менеджмента. Результаты. Определены объективные предпосылки становления культуры механистического менеджмента: европейская наука и механицизм, вытекающий из ньютоновской картины мира – представление организационной реальности как машины, а также атомизм, рационализм и социальный дарвинизм как «естественный закон» о межвидовой борьбе; протестантская этика как оправдание наживы; политэкономия, представившая хозяйство в виде машины, действующей по законам ньютоновской механики; великие научно-технические открытия, потребовавшие новых форм организации производства. Раскрыта сущность, предоставлены сравнительные характеристики и очерчены перспективы последующего применения основных направлений культуры механистического менеджмента: научной организации труда и управления; административного менеджмента; бюрократии. Выводы и обсуждение. Научная новизна полученных результатов заключается в выявлении ключевых детерминант генезиса культуры механистического менеджмента и обобщении особенностей самостоятельных направлений этой культуры, а практическое значение усматривается в расширении представлений о теории и истории мировой культуры, включив в них ранее практически не исследуемые в культурно-историческом контексте идеи, мысли, взгляды и концепции механистического менеджмента. ; Актуальність. Менеджмент як феномен культури й виключно унікальний об'єкт наукового пізнання займає особливе місце в життєдіяльності суспільства. У міру історичного розвитку людства ускладнюються як організаційні структури, так і культура менеджменту та набір теорій, які їх описують. Проте сучасна наука не враховує того, що кардинальні зміни організаційної реальності відбуваються не постійно, а під час біфуркації цивілізації. Специфічною культурою, яка виникла саме в таких умовах, є механістичний менеджмент, дослідженню якого присвячена ця стаття. Мета і методи. Мета статті – теоретико-історичний аналіз культури механістичного менеджменту, виявлення базових детермінант генезису цієї культури управління та формування основних напрямів її розвитку в умовах індустріалізму. Методологічною основою дослідження є діалектичний принцип пізнання, системний, цивілізаційний, історичний підходи до вивчення суспільних явищ і процесів та фундаментальні положення теорії менеджменту. Результати. Визначено об'єктивні передумови становлення культури механістичного менеджменту: європейська наука і механіцизм, що випливає із ньютонівської картини світу – уявлення організаційної реальності як машини, а також атомізм, раціоналізм і соціальний дарвінізм як «природний закон» про міжвидову боротьбу; протестантська етика як виправдання наживи; політекономія, яка представила господарство у вигляді машини, що діє за законами ньютонівської механіки; великі науково-технічні відкриття, що вимагали нових форм організації виробництва. Розкрито сутність, надано порівняльні характеристики й окреслено перспективи подальшого застосування основних напрямів культури механістичного менеджменту: наукової організації праці та управління; адміністративного менеджменту; бюрократії. Висновки та обговорення. Наукова новизна одержаних результатів полягає у виявленні ключових детермінант генезису культури механістичного менеджменту й узагальненні особливостей самостійних напрямів цієї культури, а практичне значення вбачається у розширенні уявлень про теорію та історію світової культури, включивши в них раніше практично не досліджувані в культурно-історичному контексті ідеї, думки, погляди й концепції механістичного менеджменту
Enduring Legacy describes a multifaceted paradox—a constant struggle between those who espouse a message of hope and inclusion and others who systematically plan for exclusion. Structured inequality in the nation's schools is deeply connected to social stratification within American society. This paradox began in the eighteenth century and has proved an enduring legacy. Mark Ryan provides historical, political, and pedagogical contexts for teacher candidates—not only to comprehend the nature of racial segregation but, as future educators, to understand their own professional responsibilities, both in the community and in the school, to strive for an integrated classroom where all children have a chance to succeed. The goal of providing every child a world-class education is an ethical imperative, an inherent necessity for a functioning pluralistic democracy. The challenge is both great and growing, for teachers today will face an evermore segregated American classroom.
Deze studie analyseert en evalueert de ontwikkeling van het theologisch onderwijs op Jamaïca van 1841 tot 1966. Ze valt in twee delen uiteen. Het eerste deel bepaalt de historische, socio-culturele en zendingscontext waarin ambtsonderricht in deze periode zijn intrede deed in het land. Het concentreert zich op deTainos nederzetting op Jamaïca (1494-1509) alsmede op de problematische verhouding tussen christelijke zending en westers expansionisme ten tijde van de Spaanse heerschappij (1509-1655), de Britse overheersing (1655-1962) en de onafhankelijke natie (1962-), en op de ontwikkelingen in het onderwijs vóór en na de onafhankelijkheid (1962). In een kort historisch overzicht worden de verschillende stadia van kolonialisme, slavernij, emancipatie en onafhankelijkheid kritisch onderzocht. Beoordeeld wordt, hoe etnocentrisme, sociaal-politieke problemen en de 'interculturatie' in een multiculturele en pluralistische samenleving van invloed waren op de zending van de kerk op Jamaïca en de andere Caraïbische gebieden. Dit deel van het werk geeft nodige en nuttige achtergrondinzichten in de historische en sociaal-culturele krachten en factoren die de ontwikkeling van het theologisch onderwijs op Jamaïca gedurende een tijdspanne van 125 jaar hielpen vormgeven. Het onderzoek schetst en bekritiseert ontstaan en groei van de vier denominaties die een aandeel hadden in de ontwikkeling van het theologisch onderwijs op Jamaïca: de Church of England in Jamaïca (1655-1966), de Baptisten (1783-1966), de Methodisten (1789-1966) en de Presbyterianen (1823-1966). Tussen 1655 en 1825 stond de Church of England in Jamaïca onder de jurisdictie van de Bisschop van Londen, en in de achttiende en negentiende eeuw werden de Baptistische, Methodistische en Presbyteriaanse kerken geleid en bestuurd door Amerikaanse en Britse zendelingen. Daardoor kwam het leiderschap van de kerken op Jamaïca onder het oppermachtige gezag van buitenlandse zendelingen die weinig waardering aan de dag legden voor de inheemse cultuur en leiderschap. Niettemin wisten Jamaïcanen als Aemilius Alexander Barclay (1876-1926), Percival William Gibson (1893-1970), Menzie Edward Williamson Sawyers (1905-1980) en Hugh Braham Sherlock (1905-) zich te onderscheiden als inheemse kerkleiders, met name in hun kerkelijke betrokkenheid en op het gebied van onderwijs. Met uitzondering van de Baptistische Kerk werden van 1655 tot 1904 Jamaïcanen van Afrikaanse en Aziatische afkomst uitgesloten van het ambt in de Protestantse kerken. Inheemse arbeid en leiderschap kregen een ondergeschikte, dienende plaats toebedeeld binnen de kerkelijke instellingen. Daardoor boette de missie van de kerk als brenger van geestelijke groei, verzoening en sociale verandering veel in aan relevantie en effectiviteit. De dynamische missie van de kerk werd gereduceerd tot één van instandhouden, zwalkend tussen betrokkenheid en neutraliteit ten aanzien van het verbeteren van het etnocentrische en materialistische beleid en de benarrende en onderdrukkende praktijken van de Euro-Jamaïcanen. De meeste protestantse zendelingen van die tijd (1655-1966) lieten zich niet in met de risico's en de kwetsbaarheid die essentiële elementen zijn van een relevante en authentieke zending van de kerk in een verbrokkelde en pluralistische samenleving. Zij waren meer bezorgd om het instandhouden van hun opgelegde orthodoxieën en het 'brengen van beschaving' dan om de verkondiging van Gods Koninkrijk.?De protestantse kerken op Jamaïca hechtten opmerkelijk veel belang aan het educatieve werk van hun kerkelijke instellingen. Dit kwam vooral tot uiting in de verschillende voorbereidende en voortgezette scholen en de lerarenopleidingen en theologische hogescholen die zij vestigden. De zendelingen gaven financiële steun en deden belangrijk werk voor deze onderwijsinstellingen. Zij waren de pioniers in het onderwijs tussen 1655 en 1966. Onderwijs werd door de kerken op Jamaïca beschouwd als de sleutel tot sociale mobiliteit, vooral voor de mensen van Afrikaanse en Aziatische afkomst, gemarginaliseerd, arm en berooid als die waren. De educatieve zending van de kerken zorgde uiteindelijk voor gekwalificeerde Aziatische en Afro-Jamaïcaanse studenten voor de protestantse theologische hogescholen. Zo werden de ambtsdragers van de protestantse kerken en het docentencorps van de theologische hogescholen in de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw inheems. De zendingsgeschiedenis illustreert de historische, sociale, cultureel theologische en geestelijke context waarin ambtsopleidingen op Jamaïca ontstonden van de negentiende tot de twintigste eeuw. Het tweede deel van het onderzoek bestudeert op systematische en empirische wijze de geschiedenis van het theologisch onderwijs op Jamaïca (1841-1966). De nadruk ligt op het United Theological College of the West Indies en zijn vier voorgangers. Dit deel belicht de politieke, sociale, culturele, missiologische en educatieve factoren en krachten die zich verstrengelden en de vormgeving schraagden van het model van theologisch onderwijs dat op Jamaïca ontstond in de bestudeerde periode. De inhoud, methoden en doelstellingen die de opkomst van het ambtsonderricht inspireerden en versoepelden roepen gepaste vragen op ten aanzien van de invloed van positivisme, Darwinisme en imperialisme op het theologisch onderwijssysteem op Jamaïca. De protestantse hogescholen werden opgericht door Britse zendelingen. Zij werden beheerst en vormgegeven door zendelingen, daar de overzeese zendingsgenootschappen de meeste financiële steun verschaften en verantwoordelijk waren voor de aanstelling van presidenten en beheerders. De zendelingen waren overwegend Brits in hun theologische opleiding en culturele oriëntatie. Daardoor brachten zij hun klassieke en filosofische modellen van theologisch onderwijs van Engeland naar Jamaïca over. De uitheemse staf was vaak niet vertrouwd met de ervaringen van de gemeenschap en het uit het moeder-land geleende curriculum was niet relevant voor alle behoeften en doelstellingen van de Caraïbische bevolking. Dit werk beoogt daarom een kritische beoordeling van de mogelijkheid om ideeën en educatieve methoden, ontstaan in een bepaalde omgeving te verplaatsen en hanteren in een andersoortige samenleving. Dit deel richt de schijnwerper op de vier stadia in de ontwikkeling van het theologisch onderwijs op Jamaïca (1841-1966). Eerst was er het confessioneel ambtson-derricht (1841-1913). Dit proces werd in gang gezet door de protestantse zendelingen en resulteerde in de oprichting van vier confessionele theologische hogescholen: de theolo-gische academie van de Presbyterianen (1841), Calabar College van de Baptisten (1843), Bishop's College van de Anglicanen (1858) en het York Castle theologisch instituut van de Methodisten (1875). Vervolgens was er coöperatief theologisch onderricht, waarin de verstandhouding tussen de protestantse hogescholen werd verdiept en de samenwerking versterkt. Ten derde, als gevolg van de inspanningen die de kerken binnen het coöperatief theologisch onderwijsmodel deden om de kwaliteit van het ambtsonderricht te verbeteren, de uit de hand lopende kosten ervan te verminderen en tegemoet te komen aan de aanbevelingen van de Wereldraad van Kerken, zag het oecumenisch theologisch?onderwijs het daglicht (1954-1966). Deze fase werd ingeluid door de fusie van Caenwood College (Methodistisch) en St. Colme's Hostel (Presbyteriaans) tot Union Theological Seminary (1954). Tenslotte werd dit verder uitgebreid door het opgaan van Union Theological Seminary, Calabar College en St. Peter's College (Anglicaans) in het United Theological College of the West Indies (1966). Dit was de dageraad van een nieuwe tijd, de weerslag van de ijver van elf gemeenschappen en negen denominaties uit zestien gebieden in de Caraïben en de Amerika's voor oecumenisch theologisch onderwijs. De studie besluit met een reflectie op het United Theological College of the West Indies. Dit hoofdstuk houdt zich bezig met een terugblik op de periode 1841-1966, het richt de blik op de huidige situatie en geeft richtlijnen en aanbevelingen voor de toekom-stige ambtsopleiding aan het United Theological College of the West Indies.
Criticizing one-empire approaches, calls to apply much-needed transnational perspectives and methodologies to colonial history have recently emerged. This groundbreaking scholarship has already revealed that the competition between different European empires after 1850 has typically been overemphasized; in fact, a transnational perspective reveals extensive cooperation between the "great powers" of the age, along with myriad examples of exchanges and transfers of colonial knowledge. In this dissertation, I argue that during the height of the New Imperialism during the latter half of the long nineteenth century, one can go even further and describe the co-production of a "global trans-imperial culture" by all of the colonial powers of the age, facilitated by a common "knowledge infrastructure," including international congresses, trans-imperial scholarly exchange and expositions. I contend that Japan was an important member of this "colonial club" that was deeply engaged with evolving global colonial discourse and practice throughout this period. Emerging trans-imperial historiography has largely neglected Japan, while historians of Japan have tended to exaggerate its uniqueness in global imperial history and often missed important global trends in colonial policy that explain many characteristics of Japanese expansionism. Furthermore, an oversimplified description of Meiji expansionism as "mimetic imperialism" shared by some Japan scholars and global imperial historians ignores the degree to which all imperial powers imitated each other during this period and the great extent to which Japan was involved in multidirectional inter-imperial exchanges. The dissertation has three interrelated aims. First, it applies cutting-edge theories of inter-imperial exchanges and cooperation to the Japanese Empire, arguing that Japan took part in a developing global trans-imperial culture throughout the Meiji period. Focusing on connections rather than comparison, it traces how and when different examples of Western colonial knowledge came to Japan and ways in which Japan influenced other empires, investigating trans-imperial conduits like foreign consultants, scholarly texts and international expositions. Secondly, it works to dismantle persistent notions of Japan as a marginal latecomer to this community of imperial powers by demonstrating that Japan engaged with inter-imperially circulating discourses and practices from as early as 1868 and contributed to the development of the culture as a whole. The dissertation joins a growing body of critical work that argues that Meiji-era Hokkaidō is best understood as a colony in which modern technologies of settler colonialism were systematically employed starting directly after the Meiji Restoration. Finally, it employs theories of colonial association as a kind of overarching case-study to illustrate how ideas and practices of colonial governance circulated over imperial boundaries and concurrently influenced all empires of the time. During the second half of the nineteenth century, the strategy of assimilating colonized peoples became increasingly discredited among the colonial policy elite worldwide. New notions of how best to rule a colonial territory based on Social Darwinism and British and Dutch experiments in indirect rule, later collectively referred to as the "association" of colonizer and colonized with minimal cultural interchange, became correspondingly influential. Although assimilation and association are frequently treated as unchanging traits of specific empires (with France and Japan typically identified as assimilationist and Britain and the Netherlands as associationist), this dissertation contends that shifts between assimilation and association happened concurrently in different empires around the world, providing important evidence of a common trans-imperial culture. I will demonstrate that Japanese colonial elites engaged with these ideas at the same time as their counterparts in Western empires, with Japan's famous radical assimilation campaign coming only in the final years of its empire. Revealing the strong influence of associationist thought among Meiji leaders helps to illuminate the consistency and "timeliness" of Japanese colonial discourse and practice and challenges anachronistic notions of the Japanese Empire always being characterized by a unique form of colonial assimilationism. The empirical "body" of the dissertation is divided into three large, thematic sections. Part I investigates the trans-imperial linkages between Japan and the United States during Japan's colonization of Hokkaidō around the 1870s. Chapters 1 - 3 consider the role of three American professors, William Smith Clark, William Wheeler and David Pearce Penhallow, who were hired to establish an agricultural college as part of the colonial development of Hokkaidō. I argue that these American professors contributed to Japan's colonial expansionism in at least three ways: by helping the Kaitakushi physically transform Hokkaidō into a Japanese settler colony, by spreading a colonial worldview according to which the Ainu were portrayed as a primitive, dying race similar to Native Americans, and finally by acting as propagandists for Japanese expansionism after their return. Chapter 4 considers continuing links to American technologies of settler colonialism in the next generation through the writings of Satō Shōsuke on Hokkaidō's colonial status. Satō graduated in Sapporo Agricultural College's first class and later studied land policy in America before returning and becoming president of his alma mater. Part II investigates Japan's early colonization of Taiwan and the debates over its colonial status, which remained highly ambiguous for more than a decade after its acquisition by Japan in 1895. Chapter 5 considers the opinions of three Western colonial consultants from France, Britain and the United States who were engaged by the Japanese government in 1895 from the perspective of assimilation and association. I contend that contrary to previous assertions, all three individuals should be understood as proponents of globally fashionable theories of colonial association rather than as advocates of different national colonial cultures. Chapter 6 is devoted to the writings of Takekoshi Yosaburō, a prominent Japanese proponent of association. I argue that the position of his 1905 book Japanese Rule in Formosa in the domestic political debate over Taiwan's status has not been fully appreciated and that its 1907 English translation played a crucial role in linking Japan into the trans-imperial academic field of colonial policy studies. Thanks to the efforts of Takekoshi and other propagandists, Taiwan came to be seen as a model colony in the West, especially in the United States where it was widely considered to be a good example for the Philippines, raising Japan's status among world colonial powers. Part III shifts focus from colonial territories to expositions, which Japan used to present its empire to a mass public in Japan, its colonies and the West. I argue that expositions were one of the most important sites at which the global trans-imperial culture was created and maintained. Chapter 7 investigates how the Japanese Empire was presented to a Western public at the 1910 Japan-British Exhibition in London, where it displayed its various colonial territories in detail for the first time outside of Japan. Chapter 8 analyzes presentations of the constituent parts of the Japanese Empire at the Takushoku hakurankai or Colonization Exposition that was held in Tokyo two years later. Based on the above case studies, this dissertation concludes that contrary to common assertions, colonial assimilation was not a salient characteristic of Meiji imperialism, and that Japanese leaders did not emulate specific French assimilationist models as is commonly asserted. Instead, leading colonialists in both France and Japan, as well as other empires, were concurrently influenced by new, anti-assimilationist ideas of colonial association, including conserving resources by allowing indigenous laws and customs to be maintained as much as possible, making colonies financially self-sufficient and endowing a separate colonial administration with vast discretionary power. This is not to say that assimilation did not have proponents in Japan and that it did not sometimes inform Japanese colonial policy, but rather that it did not form the dominant mode of Japanese colonialism at this time. While examples of assimilationism can be found in Meiji Japan, I contend that these have been anachronistically exaggerated by later historians as a result of their greater familiarity of Japan's later radical assimilation drive. The ideas that would later be collectively known as association so dominated the global trans-imperial discourse of colonial administration at this time that countries like Japan that aspired to influence and respect by the world's "great powers" could hardly afford to ignore them. Assimilation was widely censured as a failed policy by inept "Latin" colonizers like Spain and could therefore only be advocated by Japanese politicians in a domestic context. Even then, opponents of assimilation had a powerful tool at their disposal in the ostensibly scientific arguments of numerous well-known Western theorists. Though not always completely successful, Japanese overseas propaganda still managed to use presentations of Taiwan's efficient management along associationist lines to convince many Westerners of Japan's aptitude for colonization, allowing it to participate in many of the key institutions of the global trans-imperial culture and even, at times, to serve as an inspiration to other empires. ; Research funded by the Linnaeus University Centre for Concurrences in Colonial and Postcolonial Studies and Forskarskolan i historiska studier (Lund University)
How poor migrants shape city politics during urbanizationAs the Global South rapidly urbanizes, millions of people have migrated from the countryside to urban slums, which now house one billion people worldwide. The transformative potential of urbanization hinges on whether and how poor migrants are integrated into city politics. Popular and scholarly accounts paint migrant slums as exhausted by dispossession, subdued by local dons, bought off by wily politicians, or polarized by ethnic appeals. Migrants and Machine Politics shows how slum residents in India routinely defy such portrayals, actively constructing and wielding political machine networks to demand important, albeit imperfect, representation and responsiveness within the country's expanding cities.Drawing on years of pioneering fieldwork in India's slums, including ethnographic observation, interviews, surveys, and experiments, Adam Michael Auerbach and Tariq Thachil reveal how migrants harness forces of political competition—as residents, voters, community leaders, and party workers—to sow unexpected seeds of accountability within city politics. This multifaceted agency provokes new questions about how political networks form during urbanization. In answering these questions, this book overturns longstanding assumptions about how political machines exploit the urban poor to stifle competition, foster ethnic favoritism, and entrench vote buying.By documenting how poor migrants actively shape urban politics in counterintuitive ways, Migrants and Machine Politics sheds new light on the political consequences of urbanization across India and the Global South
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Glatfelter, Charles H.; Oral History Collection To read the transcript and access the audio/video (if available) of this interview at the same time, first download the pdf of the transcript by clicking on the link at the top of this screen. The transcript will open in a separate window. Next, select the or option to the right of the screen to access the media player. Special Collections & College Archives Musselman Library Interview with Michael Birkner Interviewer: Rebecca Duffy Interview Date: November 22, 2013 Interview with Michael Birkner Rebecca Duffy, November 22, 2013 1 Rebecca Duffy: [Today is November 22, 2013. I am Rebecca Duffy and I will be interviewing Professor Michael Birkner in Special Collections at Gettysburg College's Musselman Library.] We will start with you as a student here, so that we can get some insight. I think that's really special that we have an alumnus [that is so accessible] from the 1970s. You graduated in 1972? Michael Birkner: Yes. Duffy: Did you start here in 1968 and go straight through the four years? Birkner: Yes, I did. Duffy: You were a History major. Did you have any other majors or minors? Birkner: Actually, I was a back-ended History major. I was a Political Science major for three years and I intended to go into political journalism. That was my interest. I was always a politics junkie, so it was a natural for me to be interested in that. If you know anything about American History from 1968 to 1972, you know it was a very tumultuous time. Being interested in history as it was being made was particularly attractive to me. But by the time I was finishing my junior year as a student I looked back and thought about what I had done in Political Science and what I still had to do and I wasn't impressed by the coherence of the Political Science major. Specifically, I also had been avoiding a particular faculty member who was terrible and who taught a required course in International Affairs. I thought about it and I said [to myself], "I don't want to take this person's course just for the sake of getting a major that I'm not even convinced is worth having. So I went over to see Dr. [Charles] Glatfelter. I said to him, "I realize I am a second semester junior, but I think I would rather major in history. Is that possible?" [Pause] I don't want to make myself out to be special, but the people in the History department knew me and I had taken courses in history because I had liked history. They [Norman Forness, George Fick, and Charles Glatfelter] pitched to me that I should switch majors and become a history major. The important thing was they said, "if you just take this and this and this, you have got your major." So I did. I had probably seven or eight courses in Political Science, but I didn't [think well enough of my 2 experience to] declare it a minor. I just left and became a History major and then wound up going on to graduate school. Duffy: What were some of the courses that you took in History while you were here? Birkner: Well, I won't go into all the details because that will bog you down, but I will say that the program in History at the time was Euro-centric. If you look at the catalogue you will see that there really was very little World History. You took courses on the western historical tradition, you took courses on the European and British history, and you took courses on American history. There was no Africanist in the department, there was no Latin Americanist, and there was no Middle Eastern person. We did have a person that did Asian history, but half of that person's courses were focused on American diplomatic history which was not unusual at that time. So, essentially outside of the West we actually had half of a person to do anything else in the world. It was a provincial kind of historical learning. I did take a course in Chinese history, but I cannot say I had a good grounding in anything more than the Western traditions. The other thing I can abstract for you about my experience is that I was again unusual in that my interests were American history, but I took more non-American history than American history. My attitude- and I think it was justifiable- was that if I went to graduate school in History, I would be doing almost all American history and why should I not have the opportunity now to get a little wider range. In retrospect now there are all kinds of ways I could have broadened my education in college [with]. I was not adventurous and the college wasn't particularly adventurous in its curriculum. When you think about it, the one smart thing I did was not do all of that American history when I was going to get [plenty of] it in graduate school. Duffy: That Professor that you had for Chinese history, was that Professor Stemen? Birkner: Yes, Roger Stemen. Duffy: He was in charge of anything East Asian, sometimes even Indian history, I think I noticed? 3 Birkner: He might have done that once and that was it. He wasn't really interested in Indian history. We had a woman named Janet Gemmill [whose maiden name was Powers], so [after her divorce] she is Janet Powers. She taught Indian Civilization, but for reasons I have never really understood- this is before my time as a faculty member -I think she and the History department were not on the same wavelength, so she didn't teach it through the History department, she taught it through IDS. Mr. Stemen was the Asianist. He came in 1961 and he was the first to teach that. Duffy: I noticed that. I also noticed that the courses at that time [during the 1960's primarily] were dual courses, such as 201 and 202. Were you required to take both of them if you took one? Birkner: No, but you are right, they were sequenced. I'm guessing a lot of that was because a good percentage of undergraduates in those days went on to social studies education. They probably wanted to fill out a card of having the 201, 202 of History. That wasn't anything that affected me as a student. That wasn't a requirement. [Pauses to collect thoughts] The only requirement where we had to go through both parts of the sequence were interdisciplinary courses called "Contemporary Civilization" and "Literary Foundations of Western Civilization." Duffy: What was required by the History department [when you were a student] was passing a few three hundred level courses, the Methods course and Senior Seminar, right? Birkner: Right. Duffy: So you completed all of those? Birkner: Absolutely. Duffy: Did you have Professor Glatfelter for Methods? Birkner: Absolutely, everybody took Methods with Dr. Glatfelter. Except for the semesters when he was on sabbatical, he was it. Duffy: What was that experience like? How would you have described it when you were in the class? 4 Birkner: Maybe, it was a lot like what you experience with me. However, Dr. Glatfelter was a very different personality than I am . He was very Germanic. He had been trained originally to be a high school social studies teacher. Now he was a very smart man and wound up getting a PhD from Johns Hopkins. You don't do that unless you have some brains. He was one of these people who went by categories--one, two, three- which is not the way I do things. His approach to teaching was not very exciting to me. Just to give you an example of the way he taught Methods, one-third of the course he lectured about the historiography of Western Civilization, the writing of the history of the West from Herodotus until the Progressive Era in the early 20th century. Each day he would come in for seventy-five minutes and lecture about Herodotus or Livy or Gibbon or Voltaire- who was a historian not a very good one, but a historian [none the less]- [hand motions and voice indicating droning on], Prescott and Parkman and Bancroft. Your first big paper in the course was to read three of these historians--one from the Ancient World, one from Early Modern Europe and one from the 18th or 191h century--and write a comparative [paper]. He did that every semester. I benefited from it, though I have not read those historians since. But [in general] this was dull. The second part of the course was more "Nuts and Bolts." That's where he talked about doing footnotes and bibliographies and reference books. Of course [this was] the pre-computer age so he would bring in a cart and show you reference books. Again, it wasn't too exciting. The third part of the course was the "Philosophy of History'' in which he would talk about a range of things from why we do history to the discourses of history. It was very conservative. As I may have said in class, we read one article about Oral History and he basically said, "I made you read this because it is possible this may be interesting, but it is also possible that it may just be a fad." We didn't do anything more with that. We did the same thing with Psychohistory; maybe we read an article on it. Now Psychohistory came and went really, it is not much today talked about. But he was not an adventurous person. So why is it that he is remembered? Because Dr. Glatfelter had extremely high standards and he challenged you to be the best that you could be. He was a very demanding task-master. 5 When you handed in a paper, he read every line and corrected every line. You got away with nothing. He was a person of tremendous integrity and he wanted you to be. That's what really affected me the most, to be honest with you. The specifics of what he was teaching didn't grab me much, but his ethos, that's what really grabbed me. I don't know what students think about me, but I would guess I am considered "old school" and that's okay, because you need to authentic. Dr. Glatfelter was authentic. And I like to think I am. Some students probably think it is good and some maybe think I am too hard [and demand too much work]. Again, I don't know what the word on the street is, but you've got to be what you are as long as you're nice and fair and all those things- some [professors] can be mean and that's not a good thing [chuckles], but I don't think I am that! [In the end] I think I took away [Dr. Glatfelter's] sensibility about doing history and that has always had an impact on me- [even] forty years on. If you talk to other graduates, I bet you would get similar responses. Duffy: That he was a challenging teacher, but certainly worth it in the end for [the experiences] you get out of it? Birkner: Yeah, sure. Duffy: More than [simply] as a historian? Birkner: [Thoughtful] Yeah, absolutely. [Pauses to collect thoughts] He and I were colleagues for a year when I was back in the late seventies teaching here. When he retired [in 1989], I took his job. We became close [friends] and for the last 24 years of his life- he died in February [2013]- we did a lot of things together. For [many] years I brought him into the Methods class to talk to the students about a specific project or brought the students down to Weidensalllobby to talk with him if they had questions about a particular topic. He was wonderful. Duffy: What was that like when you first came back here having Professor Glatfelter and I can't remember exactly who was still here then who had been here when you were a studentBirkner: Everyone 6 Duffy: Everyone? Birkner: Everybody. Duffy: [So then,] what was that department dynamic like when you joined, having your old professors [as colleagues]? Birkner: . As a student was I was very close with faculty, more close than I think [most] students are today. Just to give you an example, there was no Specialty Dining in those days, there was the Bullet Hole- [though] it was in a different part of the CUB- and there was a group of about 8-10 faculty that ate there every day and talked politics- remember, it's a very interesting time- and they talked campus business as well. They invited me to eat lunch with them. So, I ate lunch in the Bullet Hole every day with the faculty. Now, you say you already know a creepy amount of information about me, but one thing [is that] I belonged to a fraternity. The fraternity I belonged to only ate dinner together in our house; we didn't eat breakfast or lunch together. We were on our own for lunch. Most of my fraternity brothers after class went back to the house and ate lunch together; probably watched Jeopardy or something and just hung out. I never did. I always went to the Bullet Hole and ate lunch with the faculty. Secondly, I was the editor of the Gettysburgian. At the time newspapers were different then they are now. They were really newspapers as opposed to mostly opinion. [Pauses to collect thoughts] The paper [during my years in college] was well respected. So, faculty members wrote for it, faculty members called me up. I had a kind of elevated sense of myself. To answer your question, it wasn't a hard transition to come back in 1978 to teach because people had always treated me collegially as opposed to say you were simply a student. Duffy: As a subordinate71 Birkner: Yeah, well [Pauses to collect thoughts] I hope I don't treat you [quite] like that. We all have different roles to play. It was an easy transition is the short of it. 1 Intended to say something which more conveyed the mentor-student relationship 7 Duffy: What about the transition that we started to talk about before- when you took over the Methods class? What was that like? Did you see that you wanted to make a lot of changes? Did you make them right away? Birkner: That's a good question. Dr. Glatfelter was not a controlling person, but on the other hand he was a very "tracked" person. As I said there wasn't a lot of change [over time] . I was hired, in some measure, because [members of the History department] felt the Methods course was an important course and they felt that I would be the person who could make it matter in the future. When I came back, Dr. Glatfelter said [something like], "You do what you want with the Methods course, but here's the way I do it." The first year I tried to teach it along the track he laid out. I used some different books, but I basically had the same structure he had. I was bored teaching it! Teaching about Medieval historians and giving students bits and pieces about historians -I could see that nothing was going to stick with them. I just said [to myself], "I can't do this!" That's when I said to myself, "this course is going to need re-tooling." That's how you have more or less greater extent what you are experiencing [this semester in Methods]. Dr. Glatfelter was the one who had the three projects and I have three projects, but he never would have assigned an Oral History! Here's the other interesting thing, he didn't assign any manuscript, original material research because we didn't have an archive for the students to work in! We really couldn't do a lot of that. Dr. Glatfelter's laboratory was the Adams County Historical Society where he was the director. He never had the students [go there]. I was surprised about this because we could have done that. We had an archive [at the college]; it just wasn't a place where you could work. He could have assigned us to have stuff to work on and under controlled conditions we could have done it. He just never did it. The part that really surprised me was that here he is the director of the Adams County Historical Society, which has tons of great [material] to work on. I've used it many times in my Methods class- just not this semester because they have had some difficulties moving out of the old Schmucker building [and into a much smaller facility]. So, one of the things I said was that 8 were going to start doing this! What I did [was encourage the creation of a facility for storing a working with archival material on Gettysburg College's campus]. I had something to do with the fact that this [special collections research room] exists because [as department chair] I was able to get a very unusual bequest which had not originally been directed to Gettysburg College. I was able to convince Homer Rosenberger's executor [Attorney William Duck of Waynesboro, PA] that Gettysburg College would be the place to house the Rosenberger Collection, with the idea we would get his estate. The money we got from that estate allowed Robin Wagner, the library director, to hypothecate into other money which enabled them to build this room- which is an enormous asset to students of history, and not just in Methods. Plus we have all of these great internships etc. which we didn't have before that. So, [to go back for a second] in 1990-1991, which was my second year here, I revamped the course really along the lines of what you are taking now. Duffy: So has it not changed so much in the past few decades? What would you say has changed? Birkner: What has changed in part is that the discourses in history have grown increasingly focused on anthropology. The opportunity for students to do more intensive work in Special Collections has probably been the biggest change. They can do much more in Special Collections than they could when I first started teaching here. The idea is always to give students opportunity to work with the stuff of history and be historians rather than just write about [secondary works]. I'm a little off sync with some of my colleagues who are so emphatic that what students need to learn is historiography and what I think is what students need to learn is to feel confident about doing history and that means doing it, instead of writing about historians doing it. I want you to do it. Now, of course the two are not mutually exclusive. You should learn that history is an evolving discipline and there is always an on-going dialogue -that's of course important. But to me, for the Methods course, what's really important- if I can put it this way- is to get your hands dirty doing it, [for example] have that one-on-one experience doing an Oral History with a senior citizen; it will stick with you for a long time. 9 Duffy: Definitely. I think I have noticed that. I feel like I live in Special Collections sometimes! Birkner: And that's a great thing because it is your laboratory! You may have friends that are Environmental Science majors, they're working in a lab. Your lab is right here. Duffy: [Pauses] [So then,] If we could just go back one moment to when you were a student and there weren't as many opportunities [to research in-depth on campus]. I know the senior seminar was molded into a course throughout the sixties Uust before and during your time here as a student]. so I was wondering about your experience in the senior seminar and how you were able to do the research you needed to do [without the facilities here]? Birkner: That's a good question; I think it was only in the late 1960s that they developed the senior seminar more or less the way we know it. Until then, students had to take comprehensive exams and they also wrote a senior thesis, [but there was no senior seminar]. The problem with that program is number one: camps terrify students. A high percentage of the students were not capable of engaging them very effectively, which depressed the faculty. [Further], the quality of the senior theses was generally pretty low, in part because there was little faculty supervision. If you have say forty seniors who are majors and you've got the faculty you have, they just weren't [able to] give the time to the students on an independent study basis to do the senior thesis. So that is when they came up with the seminar notion. As far as being able to do the research- it was unusual for you to be able to spend time doing anything original. Today, more and more of our students [are doing original research]. I was talking to Lincoln Fitch the other day, he's a senior and he is doing his senior thesis on Reconstruction and he's going down to the Library of Congress and working with the papers there and he is making some interesting finds. We wouldn't have thought of that because nobody was encouraging us to do that. I wrote my senior thesis on Christian Humanism in England in the early 16th century. I read a lot of first-hand accounts, they were printed, but they were still primary sources. I read secondary sources about the Humanist movement, which is part of the Renaissance, as it affected life in England. 10 Duffy: So you feel that students now have a better opportunity to delve in deeper? Birkner: Yeah. The other thing that should be emphasized is that our faculty are more "teacher-scholars" or "scholar-teachers" than was the case in the sixties when their primary emphasis was on teaching. Again, you can't draw with too broad a brush because Dr. Glatfelter was always doing scholarship of a kind. He was very productive, but his focus tended to be narrow--on Adams or York counties or religions of York and maybe Pennsylvania. Few people in the department were pursuing active research agendas because they didn't have the same emphasis on scholarship and mentoring students as scholars as we have today. I think having a teaching faculty that is also a scholarly faculty is going to make for better mentors at the senior level or any level. Think about someone like David Wemer, who is a senior History major and just won a prize for the best paper by an undergraduate in the United States. [The prize was sponsored by the American Historical Association.] It was published in a student scholarly journal. What a great recognition for Gettysburg College. He is an exceedingly talented person, but having someone like Dr. Bowman advising him and mentoring him made it [possible]. I mentored three students [over the past several years] who were [George C. Marshall] Scholars. Each was invited down, at my nomination, to become an undergraduate fellow in Lexington, Virginia [under the auspices of] the George C. Marshall Foundation. Each of them did outstanding work and each was recognized for that work. By coincidence, I had lunch today with one of those students. He was a History major and now works as an archivist for the CIA and wanted to come back and talk to me about graduate school. That kind of mentoring I don't think would have happened forty years ago. [However,] I have a certain reputation in the field, I know people, I know what my students are doing and I can then recommend them. The sad thing with the Marshall Program is that they blew through all their money. So, after the program existed for four or five years they ran out of money and I can't recommend students to it anymore because it doesn't exist. The two other students who I recommended for it and got accepted, 11 one is now working on his PhD in Cold War History at Ohio State and the other one is doing a PhD in Early American History at William and Mary, so clearly they moved on and did good things. Duffy: So you would say that the faculty dynamic today- [a group made up of a dozen or so] individuals each scholars and, I would say talented, teachers is creating these opportunities for students? Birkner: I think it enhances and enriches the environment for our History students; hence, it gives them an extra boost toward having a valuable college experience. Dr. Glatfelter had the right standards and the right spirit. But I think that what we have today, is not only that among most of our faculty -I wouldn't say everyone does because Dr. Glatfelter was pretty much the top of the line in that- but they are committed on both the teaching and scholarly side and that's good modeling for students. When you are a senior taking a seminar you will be asked to attend a seminar session in which you will read a faculty member's paper in advance and then go in and hear that faculty member describe how he or she got into writing that paper and then you will be able to ask questions of that member about it. We do that every semester. That's a bit of modeling. You can see what the faculty member does and say to yourself, "Maybe that's how I can do it." That didn't exist forty years ago. We do a lot more stuff you would take for granted, but didn't exist then. Such as, Career Night, Grad School Night, bringing in alumni who are successful in the field of history to talk, the Justin DeWitt Lecture. How about two student journals? The Civil War Journal and The Gettysburg Journal of History again didn't exist forty or even, fifteen years ago, but they do now. That's how David [Wemer] got this national recognition, because he published his article in the History journal. [Earlier today] I was talking to Sam Cooper-Wall today about his thesis for me and I was saying how he really had potential to publish it or expand it as his master's thesis. "Don't forget," he said, "I published it in the Gettysburg Historical Journal." That's right, he did. That's the kind of thing that gives you value added. 12 Duffy: I guess my last question is just going back, once again in a more comparative way, you said the time that you were here was a very [tumultuous] time. Did the faculty use any of those current issues as teaching moments in the classroom? Birkner: Not really. I think one faculty member who taught American Cultural History picked up on environmental issues, which was one of the pieces of the puzzle in the late sixties. Earth Day started when I was college student. He tried to connect Post- Civil War environmentalism, Darwinism, with the new environmental ethic of the late sixties- early seventies. I thought that was good, but he was the only [one]. Professor Stemen, who taught Chinese history, was teaching at the very time that Nixon made his initiative to open doors to China, and he would mention it, but it wasn't integral to the teaching. We were aware of it. I think people made a definite effort not to politicize the classroom. It's not a good idea for teachers at any level to voice their ideas about politics to students. So, that didn't happen really. People were very focused on the subject matter. Duffy: I think that is about it for the questions that I have- Birkner: I think that the one piece of this you are not getting is the student side. You don't want to assume that everything is always [better each year]. I think, today, our students are more sophisticated in many ways about history. You are much more cosmopolitan and you are much more adventurous than our generation in many respects. Just think about that fact that students take courses in fields I never took courses in because they weren't even there, but nobody is afraid to take a course in Middle Eastern history or Australian history or African history. [Today's] students are interested. That's a very good sign. On the other side ofthe coin, I wouldn't disparage students from the late Sixties who were, like me, first generation college students who had a hunger for education and were willing to work hard . . , , There were a lot of people in that circumstance. So, the students were a little bit more aggressive for their education in the late sSxties. Now I will tell you also, that when I came back in the late Seventies the students were not what I remembered them being. They were very self-focused and 13 [pauses to collect thoughts] uninterested it seems to me in the same kinds of issues I had been interested in in college, so that was a little bit of a disappointment. Duffy: I read that I think in one of the oral histories with Professor Glatfelter. He had realized a shift around the mid-Seventies. [He noticed] students were changing what they wanted out of school and how they felt about school. So, I think he saw as well, a decline in the level of learning or [rather] interest in learning. Birkner: I think this is not just a Gettysburg story. Duffy: Right. Birkner: I think it would [have been the case] at you name the place. I remember when I taught my first class at the University of Virginia. This is almost hilarious in a way because I taught a course in [19]74 at the University of Virginia as a grad student. It was a seminar and we read a book on the Sixties. The kids were all like [Raises voice, indicates excitement], "What were the sixties like? What were the sixties like?" and I was thinking [Chuckling between words], "Whoa, whoa!" [To them] It was like "what was World War One like?" It was 1974 and I thought, "Whoa, how quickly the gestalt of the times changes." So, what Glatfelter noticed is certainly what I noticed. Now, particular students, of course, were terrific. They are wonderful and friends of mine now, but the mentality [gestalt] of the campus was very different. Just as an example, the fraternity that I was in had disappeared by the time I came back to teach because it was a more alternative, non-conformist fraternity [and there was no market for that at Gettysburg after 1975]. We didn't do hazing and hell week. We invited the faculty to our parties and they came. Duffy: [Laughs] Birkner: Seriously! It was kind of an admixture of fraternalism, but not the dopey stuff. Obviously, to each his own, but I never had a use for anything [like that]. I remember Dr. Glatfelter- he was not a funny man- but I remember one of the funniest things he ever said. I once said, "Charlie, I know when 14 you were a student at Gettysburg College they still had traditions during orientation where they would punish [underclass] students [for infractions of the rules]. They would cut men's hair off, make women wear side-boards over their front and back with their hometown and phone number on it." Duffy: [Laughs] Birkner: Oh yeah, absolutely! And I said to him, "What if you had ever been brought up by the Tribunal for some infraction when you were a first year student?" Without missing a beat he said to me, "I know exactly what would have happened. I would have packed up my suitcase and gone home because I wouldn't have put up with that nonsense for one second!" That was Charlie. I can't claim that I was as individualistic as he was. For all I know I would have accepted [hazing], but it was nice to find a home [in a fraternity] where it really wasn't practiced. But by the late seventies students weren't into that. They didn't want an alternative fraternity, they wanted a gung-ho fraternity experience. Again, that's okay. I would wish that a fraternity like the one I was in would exist again today because I think there is something to be learned from living in a house with people from different backgrounds [with] different values in some cases. Learning how to live together, learning how to keep a place up [is important]. I don't regret for one minute that I did that. I also had a [fine] experience in that I was a free agent to do what I wanted. Duffy: You got to go to lunch! Birkner: Yeah, I got to go to lunch and I got to eat dinner with my fraternity brothers and party with them and make those horrible road trips down to Wilson College. You did the things that college students do, but you also did it on a slightly different track. When I came back in the late eighties the college was in transition. It had become by then a more national institution, so students were coming from a larger swath of the country, which was a good thing. [It reflected] a more cosmopolitan view. [The population] was still very white, not as diverse as it is today, but moving in the right direction, I think. I would honestly say that your generation of students on the whole is a lot more fun to teach than 15 any generation I have taught before. Just take for example class yesterday on the "Cat Massacre." You are willing to buy into reading something challenging, thinking about it and then talking about it. To me that is learning. But that wasn't really the pedagogy [in the 1960s and 1970s] and when the transition was made a lot of students just wouldn't buy into it because they were [satisfied] being more passive. Learning should be active. It seems to me we have got that buy in from our majors and more generally, too. Hopefully, what you do in my class and your other history classes carries over into Poli Sci and the other courses you are taking, because again, why should it not? [From here we continue to talk for the next few minutes about the intersections between disciplines in the case of myself and my partner Ryan, as well as the possibilities of support from the government for public history and the National Park Service]. 16
