I, like Josh, also felt growing empathy for Heimert
while reading the critical bludgeoning he received from Mead and Morgan. Not having read Heimert made this week’s
articles particularly interesting. I
found myself persuaded by each argument in the order I read them. Without a firsthand evaluation of Heimert’s
monograph, the reviews felt almost like reading someone’s mail.
Judging
by the reaction Heimert’s work produced, he, at the very minimum, provided a justification
to further dialogue the role of the Great Awakening in American History. Occasionally, various schools of thoughts
feel they have reached a point of full understanding that concludes the need
for further evaluation. In essence, a “decoder
ring” can be used to illuminate the relevance of a historical event that saturates
the discourse. It often takes a new
style or genre of historiography to restart or reinterpret long concluded “realities
of understanding” that have reached critical mass. Overcoming common knowledge is quite
difficult using the common resources. In
this regard, all critics agree Heimert provided a valuable service by engaging
a mammoth research project and presenting it to the academy. Even though Heimert was much maligned he did “push
the rock up the hill”. The nuggets of
truth he discovered are just as valuable once panned and separated from the argumentative
gravel and silt for future historians.
In this way I like Tony’s
proposal to hypothesis’ the state of present day historical evaluation of the
relationship between the Great Awakening and the Revolution.
Observing
a historiographical debate from outside the discussion is a very interesting
way to view the evolution of a theoretical discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment