The protocol for most history articles is to begin with a critique of previous historians’ writing or to note that they have missed something important. Most historians do this politely. Sometimes though, exchanges can be heated, even a bit nasty. It isn’t all dull behind the covers of the Economic History Review.
I’ve seen two such debates in my limited experience—an animated conversation with just barely contained hostility. In both cases, the conflicts were between a “social” and an “economic” historian and between a man and a woman. Here’s a summary of one. [1]
In 2004, economic historian Sheilagh Ogilvie criticized a new approach to the history of pre-modern guilds—“rehabilitation” literature that painted guilds as contributing to economic efficiency rather than being merely self-interested monopolists (as economists had been saying for years). She called these “stimulating perspectives,” but they needed to be“tested against alternative theories,” which she then proceeded to do with an empirical study of a weavers’ guild in southwestern Germany. Nothing was untoward in her remarks.
A few years later, S. R. Epstein replied. First, he said that Ogilvie used merely a “single—arguably even singular” example. Her goal was to “demolish a view now held by a majority of scholars with relevant expertise in early modern economic history.” “[H]er article not only misrepresents essential elements of modern international scholarship” but also “fails to address significant elements of her [own] selected study.” All that in one paragraph.
In the next paragraph he warns his readers that “a careless reading of the secondary literature is apparent in [her] misinterpretations of the position of several scholars” (including his). Her questioning of the importance of apprenticeship “harks back to eighteenth-century anti-guild polemicists,” and two of her arguments are “factually and logically untenable.” Overall, “Ogilvie presents her arguments and methodology as novel; in practice, they are neither.”
Harsh, yes. Ogilvie responded in kind: “Professor Epstein’s comment presents no new findings and ignores the theoretical issues I raised.” Later: “Epstein fails to address my cross-European comparisons,” and “Epstein’s criticism of my German evidence is again vitiated by errors and distortions. His inclusion of masters’ daughters among women who could do craftwork freely is simply false.”
“Factually and logically untenable”—“simply false”—a “polemic.” This almost sounds like a political campaign. Welcome to European history.
[1] Sheilah Ogilvie, “Guilds, Efficiency, and Social Capital: Evidence from German Proto-Industry.” Economic History Review 57, no. 2 (2004): 286-333. http://www.jstor.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/stable/3698609. S. R. Epstein, “Craft Guilds in the Pre-modern Economy: A Discussion,” Economic History Review 61 (2008), 155-174. Sheilagh Ogilvie, “Rehabilitating the Guilds: A Reply.” Economic History Review Vol. 61, no. 1 (2008), 175-182.
As, I said, I was merely speculating, and I will offer a mea culpa at the end of the post, since my basic assumption turned out to be wrong. Given how much the humanities and social sciences have been politicized, subjecting an academic controversy to the left-right paradigm usually provides insight. And given that Ogilvie’s “guild as cartel” perspective is essentially a free market argument (and one with which I agree), and that social historians today often argue from a leftist (often feminist) perspective, it made sense to assume some sort of left-right conflict.
Additionally, on today’s campus, the left can mean the anarchism of Noam Chomsky and Paul Goodman. Since anarchists seek to organize society by interlocking associations, I would imagine they would almost necessarily look upon the influence of guilds favorably. For guilds had a political influence as well as economic; medieval city states and towns were often governed through a careful balancing of interests rather than pure top-down autocracy. Most likely medieval burgomeisters and signores took great care not to get on the guilds’ bad side.
And so I made a “leap too far.” I checked Epstein out a bit, and it turns out that he, too, was an economic rather than a social historian, despite his social emphasis on guilds. My guess now is his aggressive attack on Ogilvie was more personal—his work on guilds was the crowning achievement of his career (he died young), so he defended it passionately.
One must wonder how much of Epstein’s defense of guilds is political, which would explain some of the nasty edge. I’m just “conjecturifying” here, but it would seem that a positive treatment of guilds is essential for the collectivist-anarchist position. The guild concept is one way of bringing management into the interlocking system of labor unions, community organizations, and other NGOs that anarchists promote as the way to organize society.
Jay, Collectivist–that does ring true, at least partially; there is quite a bit of writing about how artisans “became” factory workers (but some didn’t; some historians say that the cottage “putting out” system set the stage for factories, and guilds did not). I’m looking into that more. But anarchist? How does that fit in?