The Institute of Historical Research lacks mud, tents and druids and is conveniently located in the centre of London. In spite of these obvious drawbacks, around forty postgraduate historians rejected the charms of Glastonbury and instead made a pilgrimage to Bloomsbury, to attend the History Lab’s annual conference. Attendees did not get to witness the spectacle of Jay-Z or Shakin’ Stevens, although both Jethro Tull and the Levellers were mentioned in papers. Moreover, who needs Neil Diamond when the first talk of the conference was on (Sweet) Caroline England?
The broad conference theme, ‘turning points’, allowed for an interesting mix of approaches, styles and periods, but it also gave coherence to the thirty-odd papers which constituted the main bulk of proceedings. A few people had pulled out at the last minute, but the show must go on. Indeed, in a somewhat surreal twist, I found myself delivering somebody else’s paper on the agricultural revolution just after lunch on the first day. After this, Hermione Gifford (Imperial) spoke on industry, specifically the adoption of tungsten carbide cutting tools in Britain after 1927. Hermione’s presentation, and several others, was enhanced by the well thought-out use of projected images which help to grab and sustain the audience’s attention. Mari Takayanagi (IHR), who also works for the Parliamentary Archives, illustrated her talk on the Life Peerages Act of 1958, which included women peers for the first time, with images of the key figures and documents. Her co-panellist, Lucy Hewitt (Edinburgh) projected a number of old maps of London to demonstrate some of the ‘Work of the London Society and the Emergence of Professional Planning’. As these examples show, the participants’ research interests cover an enormous range: earlier on we’d heard Liza Filby (Warwick) discussing Thatcher, sex and morality, alongside Tom Packer (Oxford) who delved into Jesse Helms’ campaign tactics. In a panel charged with contemporary resonance, Campbell Wilson (Glasgow) looked at the oil crisis of 1973 and the discovery of 'energy' while Michael Passmore (IHR) covered the introduction of 'right to buy' for council tenants. Alongside this mass of twentieth century material, the opening panel – on change and continuity in seventeenth century England – gave us a glimpse into what my mum would call ‘real’ history. I found it especially interesting that so much thought-provoking work on this tumultuous period in English history is being carried out by students in American universities!
History Lab events are generally friendly and sociable, and the conference was no exception. The atmosphere was refreshingly laid-back and non-threatening, feedback was constructive, and Tom Packer was indefatigable (he was attending two conferences simultaneously) and I think he just managed to edge Noah Millstone (Stanford) for number of interesting and incisive questions asked. The value of these events is not just about giving a paper, but about meeting people in the same boat, to share good and bad experiences. A lot of the American students who attended are working in Britain, so hopefully some of the contacts they’ve made will prove useful.
Over the lunch break, the History Lab AGM was held and Helen McCarthy (IHR) and Liza outlined the many successful events held during 2007-2008. The newly-elected members of the committee will be under a lot of pressure to maintain the high standards set, but it is undoubtedly a good thing that the History Lab exists. Perhaps one of the reasons I’m taking so long to finish my PhD is so that I can still participate in its activities...
Some people had written their papers months in advance, some had been writing them in the days and nights before the conference. For those of us in the latter group, artificial stimulation was definitely required as the day went on: the tightly-packed schedule was undoubtedly interesting, but hard on tired brains. Luckily, the organisers provided an abundant supply of coffee and, at the end of the first day, wine. The wine reception followed a plenary session on ‘Time and the Shape of History’, led by Professor Penelope Corfield (Royal Holloway) and Dr William Gallois (Roehampton). While a conversation on the nature of time after eight solid hours of panel discussion was perhaps a little beyond some of us, the speakers gave enjoyable and thought-provoking talks and reminded us that we are a lucky generation of scholars, no longer shackled by post-modernism.
The conference dinner, held at a nearby Zizzi, involved more free wine. I had apparently forgotten that I still had a paper to give the next day, and had a few glasses to wind down (perhaps reflecting the fact I had delivered an ‘extra’ paper, I also had two dinners). Dinner was also a good chance to find out about people beyond their research interests (I’ve always been a fan of the idea that you should know your historians before you read their work) and also for me to force the grim details of my own farm-based lifestyle upon unsuspecting people. After dinner, some of us headed to a nearby pub (the evening was beginning to take on a somewhat inevitable character in the context of history-based events). In the pub, the discussion, as ever, revolved around music and, fuelled by alpine lager, some singing was heard. When we were kicked out at closing time, some delegates headed home while the more ‘carefree’ among us headed off to the bowels of nearby Soho where we found a ska club and stayed out til three in the morning. At this point, I recalled I had to give a paper in eight hours time.
Unfortunately, the logistical arrangements of getting some (by now) pointless sleep and printing out my paper meant that I missed the first panel of the second day. This was on ‘Debating Medieval Turning Points’ and, by all accounts, went down very well. However, I had arrived in time for much-needed coffee and then the panel on ‘War, armaments and the quest for peace: transformations in interwar Britain’, which I was speaking on. This had been planned as early as January, as I have great respect for the work of my two co-panellists and wanted the chance to present alongside them. Helen McCarthy spoke on the impact of the League of Nations Union and raised various important points about the Union’s significance (or otherwise), in a talk full of amusing quotations and illustrations. Waqar Zaidi (Imperial) dealt with the impact of technology on international relations and interwar liberal internationalism. I am enormously impressed by his ability to carve out a unique, coherent and interesting thesis from a rather intimidating range of materials, and the relationship between technology and internationalism is fascinating. By comparison to these two my own work is very basic, so I was pleased to get through my paper and avoid any tricky questions. I was a bit scared because Waqar’s supervisor, who writes on the British military-industrial complex, turned up just beforehand. Luckily, he didn’t tear me apart in public, but made some comments to me afterwards. Phew.
After lunch, we had a brilliant (in all senses) talk on the changing perceptions of colour in the age of aniline dyes by Charlotte Nicklas (Brighton) which, again, was lavishly illustrated. Dan Wilson (Birkbeck) then presented a fascinating cameo study on Raymond Williams and the ‘interregnum’, 1880-1914. A large number of empire historians could not make it, so Philipp Wirtz (SOAS) bravely took the stage alone. His account of German observers of the Young Turk movement was well-told and well-received. Indeed, many of the papers on the second day dealt with impressions of the ‘foreigner’ – on the next panel, Chris Knowles (IHR) talked about the reactions of British army officers in Germany during the transition from war to peace in 1945 and Ulrike Thieme (Glasgow) covered the Northern Department of the Foreign Office, its impressions of the post-1945 Soviet political structure (and politicians), and its persuasion of the government to get tough with the Soviet Union. After this panel, I had to leave, and was disappointed to miss the final session on periodisation and narrativity in history-writing. I imagine this would have brought together many of the diverse themes of the conference together and raised more theoretical questions about how we go about our discipline. After all, there aren’t just turning points in the historical narrative, but also huge shifts in the way we go about looking at them.
If you are postgraduate student in the UK next summer, you should definitely consider presenting your work at the 2009 conference. If you don’t fancy that, you should nonetheless attend. It’s an ideal place to give a first paper, to network, to simply meet new people and gain motivation (and to discover previously unknown nightclubs in Soho). My own flagging spirits have certainly been revived, though I should possibly be working on a chapter rather than writing this report... It just remains to thank the History Lab team for organising this, to all the chairs of the various panels and to everybody who turned up and made this such a diverse and entertaining couple of days. And it only cost a tenth of a Glastonbury ticket!
Ed Packard (LSE)
Labels: conference
