Consensus history

Last updated December 22, 2023

Consensus history is a term used to define a style of American historiography and classify a group of historians who emphasize the basic unity of American values and the American national character and downplay conflicts, especially conflicts along class lines, as superficial and lacking in complexity. The term originated with historian John Higham, who coined it in a 1959 article in Commentary titled "The Cult of the American Consensus". Consensus history saw its primary period of influence in the 1950s, and it remained the dominant mode of American history until historians of the New Left began to challenge it in the 1960s.

Meaning

In 1959, John Higham developed the concept of an emerging consensus among historians that he saw as based on the search for "a placid, unexciting past" as part of "a massive grading operation to smooth over America's social convulsions." Higham named his research concept critically a "Cult of the American Consensus". Higham felt the conservative frame of reference was creating a "paralyzing incapacity to deal with the elements of spontaneity, effervescence, and violence in American history". He maintained it had "a deadening effect on the historian’s ability to take a conflict of ideas seriously." Either he disbelieves in the conflict itself (Americans having been pretty much of one mind), or he trivializes it into a set of psychological adjustments to institutional change. In either case, the current fog of complacency, flecked with anxiety, spreads backward over the American past.^[1]

Peter Novick identified Richard Hofstadter and Louis Hartz as leading "liberal consensus historians" and Daniel J. Boorstin as a "leading conservative consensus historian". Novick includes as other prominent leaders David M. Potter, Perry Miller, Clinton Rossiter, Henry Steele Commager, Allan Nevins and Edmund Morgan.^[2] Consensus history rejected the concept of the central role of class conflict and all kinds of other social divisions that were prevalent in the older "Progressive" historiography, as articulated especially by Charles A. Beard, Frederick Jackson Turner, and Vernon L. Parrington.

The concept of consensus history was viewed as one-sided and harmonizing conflicting forces from the very beginning, but especially by New Left historians in the 1960s, who again stressed the central roles of economic classes, adding racism and gender inequality as two other roots of social and political conflicts.^[3]

Richard Hofstadter

The term was widely applied to his revision of the supposedly Beardian idea that a fundamental class conflict was the only key to understanding history. After 1945, Hofstadter identified with a political liberalism that seemed similar to the views of other "consensus historians". Hofstadter rejected the term, because in his view conflict, also on economic terms, remained an essential aspect of political development.^[4]

The general misunderstanding of Hofstadter as an adherent of "consensus history" can be found in Eric Foner's statement that Hofstadter's book The American Political Tradition (1948) "propelled him to the very forefront of his profession." Foner argues:

Hofstadter's insight was that virtually all his subjects held essentially the same underlying beliefs. Instead of persistent conflict (whether between agrarians and industrialists, capital and labor, or Democrats and Republicans), American history was characterized by broad agreement on fundamentals, particularly the virtues of individual liberty, private property, and capitalist enterprise.^[5]

Hofstadter in 1948, thus rejected the extremely simplified black-and-white polarization between pro- and anti-business politicians as early as his American Political Tradition (1948).^[6] But he was still viewing politics from a critical left-wing perspective.^[7] Making explicit reference to Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Bryan, Wilson, and Hoover, Hofstadter made a statement on the consensus in the American political tradition, which is sometimes seen as "ironic":^[8] "The fierceness of the political struggles has often been misleading...the major political traditions have shared a belief in the rights of property, the philosophy of economic individualism, the value of competition; they have accepted the economic virtues of capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man." Hofstadter later complained that this remark in a hastily written preface requested by the editor had been the reason for "lumping him" unfairly into the category of "consensus historians" like Boorstin, who celebrated this kind of ideological consensus as an achievement, whereas Hofstadter deplored it.^[9] In the former draft preface he had written, that American politics "has always been an arena in which conflicts of interests have been fought out, compromised, adjusted. Once these interests were sectional; now they tend more clearly to follow class lines; but from the beginning American political parties.....have been intersectional and interclass parties, embracing a jumble of interests which often have reasons for contesting among themselves."^{[ citation needed ]}

Thus, Hofstadter modified Beard's interpretation of history as a succession of mainly socio-economic group conflicts without completely abandoning it.^[10] He thought that in almost all previous periods of the history of the United States, except the Civil War, there was an implicit fundamental consensus, shared by antagonists, explaining that the generation of Beard and Vernon Louis Parrington had "put such an excessive emphasis on conflict, that an antidote was needed."^[11] With a sociological understanding Hofstadter saw that "a political society cannot hang together, at all, unless there is some kind of consensus running through it".^[12] On the other hand, he did not minimize conflicts within such a society as "...no society as such a total consensus as to be devoid of significant conflict."^[11] There was one total failure of consensus he admitted, which led to the Civil War.

Hofstadter himself expressed his dislike of the term consensus historian several times.^[13] He also criticized Boorstin for overusing the consensus and ignoring the essential conflicts in history.^[14]

The post-1945 era was depicted by consensus historians as a harmonious return to the past, argues Lary May. He says that Hofstadter, Hartz and Boorstin believed that "the prosperity and apparent class harmony" after 1945 reflected "a return to the true Americanism rooted in liberal capitalism." The New Deal was seen as a conservative movement that led to the building of a welfare state that saved liberal capitalism instead of transforming it.^[15] Contrary to May, Christopher Lasch wrote that unlike the "consensus historians" of the 1950s, Hofstadter saw the consensus of classes on behalf of business interests not as a strength but "as a form of intellectual bankruptcy and as a reflection, moreover, not of a healthy sense of the practical but of the domination of American political thought by popular mythologies".^[16]

Related Research Articles

Historiography is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic by using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches. Scholars discuss historiography by topic—such as the historiography of the United Kingdom, that of WWII, the pre-Columbian Americas, early Islam, and China—and different approaches and genres, such as political history and social history. Beginning in the nineteenth century, with the development of academic history, there developed a body of historiographic literature. The extent to which historians are influenced by their own groups and loyalties—such as to their nation state—remains a debated question.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry Steele Commager</span> American historian (1902–1998)

Henry Steele Commager was an American historian. As one of the most active and prolific liberal intellectuals of his time, with 40 books and 700 essays and reviews, he helped define modern liberalism in the United States.

Charles Austin Beard was an American historian and professor, who wrote primarily during the first half of the 20th century. A history professor at Columbia University, Beard's influence is primarily due to his publications in the fields of history and political science. His works included a radical re-evaluation of the Founding Fathers of the United States, whom he believed to be more motivated by economics than by philosophical principles. Beard's most influential book, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913), has been the subject of great controversy ever since its publication. While it has been frequently criticized for its methodology and conclusions, it was responsible for a wide-ranging reinterpretation of early American history.

The historiography of the French Revolution stretches back over two hundred years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniel J. Boorstin</span> American historian and 12th Librarian of Congress

Daniel Joseph Boorstin was an American historian at the University of Chicago who wrote on many topics in American and world history. He was appointed the twelfth Librarian of the United States Congress in 1975 and served until 1987. He was instrumental in the creation of the Center for the Book at the Library of Congress.

The Frontier Thesis, also known as Turner's Thesis or American frontierism, is the argument advanced by historian Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 that the settlement and colonization of the rugged American frontier was decisive in forming the culture of American democracy and distinguishing it from European nations. He stressed the process of "winning a wilderness" to extend the frontier line further for U.S. colonization, and the impact this had on pioneer culture and character. Turner's text takes the ideas behind Manifest Destiny and uses them to explain how American culture came to be. The features of this unique American culture included democracy, egalitarianism, uninterest in bourgeois or high culture, and an ever-present potential for violence. "American democracy was born of no theorist's dream; it was not carried in the Susan Constant to Virginia, nor in the Mayflower to Plymouth. It came out of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier," wrote Turner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Hofstadter</span> American historian and public intellectual (1916–1970)

Richard Hofstadter was an American historian and public intellectual of the mid-20th century. Hofstadter was the DeWitt Clinton Professor of American History at Columbia University. Rejecting his earlier historical materialist approach to history, in the 1950s he came closer to the concept of "consensus history", and was epitomized by some of his admirers as the "iconic historian of postwar liberal consensus." Others see in his work an early critique of the one-dimensional society, as Hofstadter was equally critical of socialist and capitalist models of society, and bemoaned the "consensus" within the society as "bounded by the horizons of property and entrepreneurship", criticizing the "hegemonic liberal capitalist culture running throughout the course of American history".

Vernon Louis Parrington was an American literary historian, scholar, and college football coach. His three-volume history of American letters, Main Currents in American Thought, won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1928 and was one of the most influential books for American historians of its time. Parrington taught at the College of Emporia, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Washington. He was also the head football coach at the College of Emporia from 1893 to 1896 and Oklahoma from 1897 to 1900. Parrington founded the American studies movement in 1927.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Lasch</span> American historian (1932–1994)

Robert Christopher Lasch was an American historian, moralist and social critic who was a history professor at the University of Rochester. He sought to use history to demonstrate what he saw as the pervasiveness with which major institutions, public and private, were eroding the competence and independence of families and communities. Lasch strove to create a historically informed social criticism that could teach Americans how to deal with rampant consumerism, proletarianization, and what he famously labeled "the culture of narcissism".

<i>An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States</i> 1913 book by Charles A. Beard

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is a 1913 book by American historian Charles A. Beard. It interpreted the early history of the United States from the lens of class conflict, arguing that the Constitution of the United States was structured to financially benefit the Founding Fathers.

Realism, a dominant school of thought in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation.

<i>Black Reconstruction in America</i> Book by William Edward Burghardt Du Bois

Black Reconstruction in America: An Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860–1880 is a history of the Reconstruction era by W. E. B. Du Bois, first published in 1935. The book challenged the standard academic view of Reconstruction at the time, the Dunning School, which contended that the period was a failure and downplayed the contributions of African Americans. Du Bois instead emphasized the agency of Black people and freed slaves during the Civil War and Reconstruction and framed the period as one that held promise for a worker-ruled democracy to replace a slavery-based plantation economy.

The Dunning School was a historiographical school of thought regarding the Reconstruction period of American history (1865–1877), supporting conservative elements against the Radical Republicans who introduced civil rights in the South. It was named for Columbia University professor William Archibald Dunning, who taught many of its followers.

In United States politics, modern liberalism is a form of social liberalism that is one of two current major political factions in the United States. It combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice. Economically, modern liberalism supports government regulation on private industry and opposes corporate monopolies. It opposes cuts to the social safety net, while simultaneously promoting income-proportional tax reform policies to reduce deficits. It supports a role for government in reducing economic inequality, increasing diversity, providing access to education, ensuring healthcare, regulating economic activity, and protecting the natural environment. This form of liberalism took shape in the 20th century as the voting franchise and other civil rights were extended to a larger class of citizens, most notably among African Americans and women. Major examples of modern liberal policy programs include the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, the Affordable Care Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Paranoid Style in American Politics</span> 1964 essay by Richard J. Hofstadter

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is an essay by American historian Richard J. Hofstadter, first published in Harper's Magazine in November 1964. It was the title essay in a book by the author the following year. Published soon after Senator Barry Goldwater won the Republican presidential nomination over the more moderate Nelson A. Rockefeller, Hofstadter's article explores the influence of a particular style of conspiracy theory and "movements of suspicious discontent" throughout American history.

New labor history is a branch of labor history which focuses on the experiences of workers, women, and minorities in the study of history. It is heavily influenced by social history.

David Scott Brown is a Horace E. Raffensperger professor of history at Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania, United States. He is the author of several books, including biographies of Richard Hofstadter and F. Scott Fitzgerald.

The Progressive historians were a group of 20th century historians of the United States associated with a historiographical tradition that embraced an economic interpretation of American history. Most prominent among these was Charles A. Beard, who was influential in academia and with the general public.

The historiography of the United States refers to the studies, sources, critical methods and interpretations used by scholars to study the history of the United States. While history examines the interplay of events in the past, historiography examines the secondary sources written by historians as books and articles, evaluates the primary sources they use, and provides a critical examination of the methodology of historical study.

Political history in the United States covers the historiography or the methods used by political historians, political scientists, and other scholars in analyzing the history of politics in the United States.

References

Footnotes

↑ Higham 1959.
↑ Novick 1988, p. 333; Jumonville 1999, pp. 232–239.
↑ Higham 1989; Unger 1967.
↑ Brown 2006, p. 75.
↑ Foner 1992, p. xxi.
↑ Jumonville 1999, p. 235.
↑ Jumonville 1999, pp. 232–239.
↑ Kraus & Joyce 1990, p. 318.
↑ Palmer, William (2015-01-13). Engagement with the Past: The Lives and Works of the World War II Generation of Historians. University Press of Kentucky. p. 186. ISBN 9780813159270.
↑ Diggins 2011.
1 2 Pole 2000.
↑ Pole 2000, p. 74.
↑ Rushdy 1999.
↑ Kraus & Joyce 1990.
↑ May 2010.
↑ Lasch, Christopher (March 8, 1973). "On Richard Hofstadter". The New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504 . Retrieved 2018-12-29.

Bibliography

Brown, David S. (2006). Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography.
Diggins, John Patrick (2011). "Liberal Consensus and American Exceptionalism". In Kazin, Michael (ed.). The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 324–327. ISBN 978-1-4008-3946-9.
Foner, Eric (1992). Introduction. Social Darwinism in American Thought. By Hofstadter, Richard. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. ix–xxviii. ISBN 978-0-8070-5503-8.
Higham, John (1959). "The Cult of the American Consensus: Homogenizing Our History". Commentary. 27 (2): 93–100.
——— (1989). "Changing Paradigms: The Collapse of Consensus History" (PDF). Journal of American History. 76 (2): 460–466. doi:10.2307/1907981. ISSN 1936-0967. JSTOR 1907981. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
Jumonville, Neil (1999). Henry Steele Commager: Midcentury Liberalism and the History of the Present.
Kraus, Michael; Joyce, Davis D. (1990). The Writing of American History (rev. ed.). Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-2234-2.
May, Lary (2010). "Review of Dancing in the Dark: A Cultural History of the Great Depression, by Morris Dickstein". Journal of American History. 97 (3): 765–766. doi:10.1093/jahist/97.3.765. ISSN 1945-2314.
Novick, Peter (1988). That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge University Press.
Pole, Jack (2000). "Richard Hofstadter". In Rutland, Robert Allen (ed.). Clio's Favorites: Leading Historians of the United States, 1945–2000. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press. pp. 68–83. ISBN 978-0-8262-6362-9.
Rushdy, Ashraf H. A. (1999). Neo-slave Narratives: Studies in the Social Logic of a Literary Form. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-802900-7.
Unger, Irwin (1967). "The 'New Left' and American History: Some Recent Trends in United States Historiography". American Historical Review. 72 (4): 1237–1263. doi:10.2307/1847792. ISSN 1937-5239. JSTOR 1847792.