The Power of Popular Culture

I was reading an article in the Irish Times today commenting on recent remarks by Glen Hansard, and Irish musician and actor recently known for his role in the film Once. What struck me in the article was a comment about the status of high culture in Ireland. The writers states:

>> "We do, as a nation, have a problem with high art. Public art has a terrible record of being vandalised."

Given my personal interest in Irish history this comment struck me because it echoes one of the central points of my dissertation - that popular cultural is the real barometer to measure Irish society against. It's not just political. It's not just that the IRA historically targeted governmental monuments to destroy because of what they represent. It's deeper. The Irish have had a contempt for the upper classes for so long and the number of elites has been so small, comparatively, that high culture only matters so much as that it correlates to British (or any other) culture. The popular is what truly represents the people of Ireland. The fact that class is understudied in Irish history has led scholars to assume the tension in Ireland ran solely along ethnic lines, like F. S. L. Lyons' "Culture and Anarchy." But ethnicity is only part of the issue. Were a lot of Irish elites non-Catholics of Anglo-Irish stock? Most likely. That fact, however, seems like a convenient excuse to divert a class issue into an ethnic one. Because most of the folks in Ireland come from modest means, it's only natural that they hold high art in contempt. By exploring the the popular aspects of culture helps to illustrate a more complex Irish history.

Building solidarity

Last night I spent some time with colleagues discussing various aspects of our collective graduate school experience. One of the topics we discussed is something that I have been actively trying to change this year - the lack of camaraderie in our department. It seems to me that this problem stems from a number of factors. First, we're a relatively small department. That means that cohorts are not very big and one if lucky if they have someone with a similar research project to bounce ideas off of. Second, we are an urban school in Chicago with people spread out over a large area. This creates a motivational issue for people to actually get out of their houses and participate in various activities (especially with the current shape of the CTA and the winter weather). As the president of our department's graduate student association I've made concerted efforts to increase interest in our organization and foster a sense of community amongst the students in the department. It seems like this action won't pay off for another few years as it will probably take a few more years of sustained advocacy to get our department where it needs to be. Providing opportunities for people is only one half of the equation. The other half involves people actually taking part in them. One can offer as many services as they like, but if no one uses them what is the net benefit? It seems both sides are deprived of positive opportunities. What are some ways to get people more involved? How does one go about getting people to show up to meetings, workshops, or even the bar? These are some of the issues my department will continue to face for the foreseeable future.

Where to draw the line?

No, "draw the line" is not intended as a reference to the hit-or-miss Aerosmith album from 1977. Rather, it's a question about the reciprocal commitment of graduate programs to their students. Granted, some doctoral institutions are blessed with large faculties that can easily or even reasonably accommodate changes to student's study plans, but what about smaller departments? It's not unreasonable for incoming freshmen to change their intended major 4-5 times, on average so why would it be different for graduate students to adhere strictly to their proposed course of study when they enter the program. When students are accepted into a program they make a commitment to that school and that department. At the same time, the department makes a commitment to the student as well. Especially if a student performs well and is in good standing academically, the department should do everything possible to accommodate the student in accordance with their academic interests. Naturally, for smaller departments, this might be more difficult. Sometimes exceptions can be made, wrinkles implemented, and favors granted, but what are students to do in the rare instance that their program fails them? Attrition rates measure the the inverse relationship, but it seems reasonable to ask how prevalent this situation is? I would assume it's rare, but that does not make it any less tragic when it occurs. I can speak from personal experience, that I faced some difficulties with finding an advisor at my school, but I was eventually able to work out a situation mutually agreeable to myself, the department, and the graduate school. It's just very unfortunate that smaller departments face these issues and that a small minority of students are negatively affected by them.

Music, Pop Culture, and Irish History

I was reading Tim Lacy's History and Education blog the other day and he had an interesting post about a class at UMass-Amherst that used the Grateful Dead as a lens for studying American Culture since the 1960s. I found this intriguing for a number of reasons: 1. I'm a huge DeadHead and would love to take that class, and 2. I'm continually interested in the role that music plays in a society's culture. I have two separate projects in mind along these lines for Ireland - neither of which I'll touch for a couple years because I'm sure the dissertation will get in the way.

The first project would be to investigate the Blues and R&B scene in Ireland, specifically the North, in the 1960s and 1970s. During a period where ethic/sectarian differences became extremely volatile, music provided a milieu for co-mingling, and relatively peacefully at that from some of the material I've read. It'd be interesting to contrast the trajectories and impact of two popular artists - Van Morrison and Rory Gallagher (Protestant and Catholic respectively) to examine this question.

The second project would be similar to the way that scholars tend to approach the 1960s in America by looking at Irish counter culture. I recently finished reading Christy Moore's book "One Voice." What struck me was the amount of anti-Government sentiment in Ireland during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. I think that in many ways, Irish folk or ballad singers provided a steady challenge to the state's agenda because singers were common, played in pubs, which meant that they reached a wide array of people at little cost. It seems there was plenty of exposure to these artists throughout the island, and their liberal leanings must have had some reverberations throughout society writ large. With a government trying to dig itself out of a pre-modern nationalist agenda in the 20th Century, and a Church that often turned a blind eye to endemic social problems, i.e. both were conservative entities, that really left pub culture and balladeers as a sizable, relatively uncensored form of popular culture and opposition (film, literature, and published music were more susceptible to the censorship laws in Ireland).

These are just the germ of the ideas at this point. Any comments (if anyone reads this) are welcome.

Veterans/Remembrance Day

No matter how you stack it, all veterans are worthy of remembrance. Taking the time to recognize the sacrifices veterans have made for their country is important not only for understanding contemporary events, but also how we understand the past. One or two days per year may be enough for the general population, but remember that there are families and individuals that are affected daily, and they make an important contribution to how we understand the memory of the past.

Semper Fi

Final Thoughts on Comps

So yesterday I had the oral exam that comprises the second part of the major field comprehensive at my school. It was basically what I expected; two of the three professors asked useful questions that were broad in scope and allowed me to demonstrate a knowledge of the literature, while the third asked very specific questions, looking for specific answers that did not lend themselves to an historiographical discussion. The highlight was when I was asked by this professor to discuss a counter-factual and its implications on a specific nation's history. This made for some unpleasant and uncomfortable moments in an already nerve-racking experience. But at least I was not surprised. That's the way this faculty member approaches everything. They cannot simply ask the broad question and let you answer. Regardless I no longer have to work with this person and I am glad to have finished the exam process.

Since I have passed all of my exams now I think it's fair to call into question the way that they are handled at least in my department. For the PhD one takes a minor field exam and a major field exam. Fair enough. The minor field is a three-hour written exam with two examiners. You get 4 questions, pick two and write on them. The major field is split into written and oral components. There are three examiners and the written is five hours, while the oral is two. Furthermore, students are not allowed to use and notes during any of the tests. This last point is an issue of contention with me. I don't understand what the problem is with using notes. Clearly you know the material if you're taking the exam, and you've got so much information in you head it seems at least fair to have a copy of your reading list in the exam with you. Plus, having your notes is not the tipping point between knowing the historiography and not. If you don't know it your notes won't help you anyway, but if you do they can help you make tighter arguments quicker, enabling you to write more and more accurately. Besides, when is a professor without notes of some kind? In lecture they might not use them, but at least they have their notes at the ready in case they need them (generally). I was browsing another department's website (as I often do) and saw that their major field exam was eight hours, could be on or off campus, and was open note. This seemed to me like the optimal conditions for doing the test. It gives enough time to think about, write, and revise your answers. With the five hours window at my school you're locked in an office alone with a computer. You don't really have time to eat or use the restroom. Hell, there's barely time to stand, stretch, and shake the carpal tunnel out of your wrists. If one has more time to write better answers then the oral exam, in some ways, is rendered obsolete. There will always be questions regarding specific parts of your answers, but it is likely that there would be less in a modified system. Is is necessary to formally discuss these questions as part of the exam? Or would it be better to simply address them informally as necessary, but not have that constitute part of the exam process? It just seems that the process in my department is a bit over-complex. That's not to say that it can't be successfully completed; it can. Rather, it's impossible to complete without thinking, "how is this useful to me" or "how does this prove my abilities as an historian" at various junctures.

Exam = Passed

While writing the previous post I got a call from my GPD/Committee chair congratulating me on passing the written portion of my major field exam. To say that it's a weight off my shoulders would be an understatement. She told me that I had good answers, appropriate in length, scope, and usefulness of sources. I feel like this deserves it's own separate posting because it's such a milestone. I don't envy anyone who has to undergo this process, and at my institution I'm not a fan of some of the particulars (ex: closed note), but it's a good feeling to have passed. Now it's just the matter of the oral component and on to dissertation! In the words of Nick Monterosso "hooray for me!"

A rare political piece

As an historian, my girlfriend often chides me about my total lack of regard for contemporary American politics. But what can I say? It's all the same posturing, nothing ever changes, and frankly it's not very interesting. However, last night on Leno I caught part of his interview with Republican candidate Ron Paul and I was impressed with what the guy had to say. Mainly, I enjoyed his strong adherence to republicanism (with a small "r"), that is, keeping government small and letting social and economic forces play out in a free market. This got me wondering about where we went wrong as a political nation. Clearly, I think it was the New Deal that created a government people needed and relied on. Of course, this was a matter of survival in the 30s and 40s. Then in the 50s it seems like the government started to exploit the system in a way that only worsened in the 60s and 70s. By that time, federal government was too big to reduce, and the coming of Reagan was the final straw. Today though, despite an economic recession, I think it's more important than ever to reduce the size of the national government and allot greater sovereignty to individual states. It just seems that the entire system is broke and needs to be fixed, and reducing the size of government is one feasible way and one that is in accordance with the principles this nation was founded upon. Furthermore, accountability would be restored on an individual and local level.

Since we're talking about a system overhaul, I think one area politicians need to look is the state of campaigning in this country. Yes, we are a large country with a population over 300 million, but that is no reason to have 1-2 year presidential campaigns. The British parliamentary system has is right. When the British form a new government they campaign for about a month and then have their elections. How pleasant would it be to simply have campaigns in October and then vote in November. There's less posturing, bullshit, and mudslinging that way and it is much more cost effective. By having less time to run a campaign it would be easier (theoretically) for individuals of more modest means to gain access to the American political system. If there is a more socially representative population in the house and the senate then there would be less need for PACs and other lobby groups. It just seems to me that solutions are simple, but that people don't want to have to deal with the whining and are unwilling to undergo a little hardship for the greater, long-term good. That myopic perspective is what got us here in the first place.

Toots and The Maytals, Chris Pierce, and the House of Blues

So last night my girlfriend and I went to go see Toots and The Maytals at the House of Blues here in Chicago. It was my first show at the main theatre at the HOB blues so I was looking forward to it. That, and when I was a Freshman in undergrad a co-worker saw Toots and raved about it. I've been meaning to see him ever since but never got around to it until yesterday. Toots put on a great show. He's got to be in his 60s and he's still the consummate entertainer. Seeing Toots also make me realize how unique Bob Marley was as an artist. While Toots' main focus seems to be entertaining, Marley had other motives. He was much more concerned with raising consciousness about injustice and inequality, but did so in a manner that remained entertaining. It goes to show that Marley really transcended the boundaries of performer, entertainer, evangelist, and activist.

One of the opening acts (yes, plural - more on that in a minute) was a guy named Chris Pierce. Being the music snob I am, I tend to be skeptical of opening acts but Chris and his band performed admirably. They had a nice balance of soul, gospel, blues, reggae, and rock. Really a pleasant listen. He reminded me a bit of Amos Lee. There were some sound issues with Chris' set, mainly the bass was too loud and completely washed out. However, the HOB let the band use their house Hammond B-3, which complemented their sound nicely. I had the pleasure of talking to the drummer after their set. A very nice guy (who played a really stripped down kit and made it work very well, I might add) who seconded my thoughts on the sound issue (The sound did improve for Toots' set).

Had the aforementioned acts contained the entirety of the show, it would have been a rousing success. However, in between these two highlights was one of the worst bands I've ever seen. First of all, this show was on a Tuesday night and didn't start until 9pm. Why on earth there needed to be more than one opening band is beyond me. This meant that Toots didn't go on until about 11:30pm, probably about the time he would have been finishing up had the second band not played. I would be much happier today if that had happened, my ears would feel better, I wouldn't be so tired, and Katie would have stayed for the whole show (having a REAL job gets in the way of late night concerts). The terrible sound (engineering-wise) continued with the Fear Nuttin' Band, and their music was so putrid that it just exacerbated the situation to the extreme. Chris Pierce offered a pleasant segue to Toots, I can see why they shared a bill. But this other band created a jarring fissure between the other two performances. They played what they called "Yardcore," a mixture of Jamaican music (hence the "Yard") and hardcore. The end result of this equation was basically a Linkin Park type of sound (one song sounded kind of like 311) but without any semblance of melody or songcraftsmanship. If the goal is to be loud and atonal they were certainly good at that. The singers were two Jamaicans who spat fast paced Jamaican patois at the audience and struggled mightily when a measure of (attempted) melody crept into their songs. The audience had to suffer through this wall of noise for a good 45 minutes. I feel sorry for audiences of Toots' upcoming shows on the East Coast as apparently these guys are opening for the next couple weeks. A shock to the system indeed. Needless to say, I'll do a bit more research before I go see another show at the House of Blues, especially in terms of concert start times and opening acts. Although I'd love to see Chris Pierce come back to Chicago and put on a full set.

Chicago Marathon = Disaster

I'm amazed at how poorly run this year's Chicago marathon was - and no, not by the actual runners. It's like as though the 90 degree heat was a surprise, which makes the lack of water and paramedics seem more like poor planning than anything else. I know a bunch of people who ran this year and last year and the difference was staggering. Granted the weather last year was better, but regardless the people who organize these events generally have an idea of what would be necessary to have a safe, successful run. Moving the start time up would have been one logical option. It just seems ridiculous that it took hundreds in the hospitalized and one dead to highlight the ineptitude of this year's marathon. Let's hope next year will see the return of a well-run marathon and a little more amicable running weather.

Much love for the LMA

If you are a fan of live music and have not familiarized yourself with the live music archive you need to do so. As an admitted Deadhead the site is a treasure trove. You can stream any of their almost 3000 Dead shows on your computer and download a great number of them in lossless file formats (SHN, FLAC). The aren't your ticket? There are hundreds of bands and thousands of shows on the archive. Most tend to be in the "jam band" community (however widely applied that term is), such as String Cheese Incident, Derek Trucks Band, Yonder Mountain String Band, Phil Lesh and Friends, etc. It's a great way to check out new acts before you purchase tickets and records.

Follow up

After meeting with the new GPD last week, I discovered that the graduate student representative at the faculty meetings is selected by the GPD. This task was officially given to the HGSA for which we plan to have a democratically nominated individual represent the history graduate student body.

Personally, I'm excited at the level of involvement being afforded the HGSA by our GPD and the increased amount of transparency in departmental issues. I would encourage all graduate students, regardless of discipline, to join your department's graduate student association (or equivalent) or to establish one if there isn't already. Not only does it provide camaraderie but access to departmental information that might otherwise not be immediately forthcoming.

New Discovery: The Saw Doctors

I first time I saw the Saw Doctors was at the Chicago Celtic Festival in the fall of 2004. I had never heard them before but a few of their songs stuck in my head for a few years. At the end of the spring semester one of my professors commented to me about the band, knowing my affinity for all things Irish. Most recently, while at work, I noticed some of their tunes on the shared iTunes network at work. After a few virtual spins I was hooked. They remind me of a college/party band, along the lines of Jimmy Buffet, but their social and cultural commentary is pointed, on the ball, and identifiably Irish. Their most recent stuff seems a bit more mainstream, a bit slicker, and, dare I say, over produced, but on the whole these guys write great tunes, have a great sense of humor, and a unique worldview. They don't delve into traditional Irish instrumentation, an occasional accordion seems to be the closest they get, but the motifs of exile, home sickness, social frustration, and others reinforce some of the accepted (read: nationalist, except the anti-Clericalism really) ideas of what is Irish (see Kerby Miller). By no means does this reflect quotidian Irish life, but catering to your audiences' expectations is what sells records - on both sides of the Atlantic. So to put my musical and intellectual snobbery aside, I give the Saw Doctors a big thumbs-up (hopefully Roger Ebert won't take exception to the use of his trademark "thumbs" rating).

4x6 Cards

A quick tip for studying for exams: use 4x6 cards. Get a stack of blank cards, enough so you have one for each source on your reading list. Across the top write the Author's last name, the full title of the book, and I put the year of publication in the upper right hand corner. On the next line write "T:" followed by the thesis of the book or article. I try to keep it rather concise, no more than two lines on the card. Next, write "A:" and list all of the main arguments, sub-theses, or other pertinent information from the book. The bottom four lines on the card I use for methodology "M:" and relevance "R:". Just like you don't need to read the whole book to understand it's historical context and relevance, you don't need pages of notes on each work. When it gets time for your exam you're not going to remember much more than you can fit on a 4x6 card anyway, if that. This method is revised from the one I used for my minor field reading list, with the most important change being relevance. By thinking about some of the broader themes each work addresses while you're studying it prevents you from having to go back and re-consult items. I find the 4x6 card method useful because it allows you to physically move texts from one grouping to another and assess how adding or subtracting a given work affects the trend you have established. It also helps to see the cross-pollination and layers involved between areas of history such as nationalism, culture, identity, colonialism, etc. Finally, always remember to consult book reviews on the works you read for you list and compare others' thoughts on the book to your own? If theirs don't make sense it creates more questions and provides insight into the field. Book reviews also help you get through your list quicker, which, in turn, provides you more time to actually study your notes rather than cramming in as many books as you can at the last minutes. I've found that an average of two works per day got me through my list fairly quickly (I had already read or was familiar with about half of the 130 or so books on my major field list and notes I had on those sped up the process even more).

Graduate Students and Faculty

In the history department at my university at least one graduate student is selected to sit in on faculty meetings. However, the process by which this individual is selected, what their role is at faculty meetings, and their obligations to the faculty and their fellow graduate students is in no way publicized. It seems both logical and fair that these requirements be clearly spelled out and accessible to all faculty and graduate students. Furthermore, just as graduate students elect their representatives in the department's History Graduate Student Association, so too should they be able to vote for their faculty representative. This restores transparency to the entire process and makes the elected individual responsible to his or her peers for communicating pertinent information regarding the status of the department. If the proceedings of the meetings is deemed too confidential for the general graduate student population, then what is the point of even having a student representative? I believe that establishing a presence in the department is critical for continued excellence in graduate studies. I intend to raise these issues with the department's Graduate Program Director; I will report back on my findings when I have more concrete answers.

Quality or quantity

It seems that smaller PhD programs have difficult decisions to make between accepting quality students and providing a quality graduate education and accepting (and matriculating) a higher number of students in order generate more revenue for the university. When the latter occurs it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the quality of the program because departmental funding must be distributed more thinly, or disproportionate number of PhD students go without funding. For those hoping to join the ranks of academia, they are placed in a difficult situation because they lack the pedagogical guidance some of their colleagues receive in terms of classroom preparation, designing courses, and writing lectures and tests. Instead of looking at their bottom line, more departments should limit the number of people admitted to their programs in order to ensure those accepted receive the highest quality education and preparation possible. If such a policy were followed not only would the glut of un-tenured PhDs diminish, but the institution's credibility rises as well. Furthermore, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion, smaller departments would be able to specialize to a higher degree the types of PhDs they turn out. For instance, if my current institution followed this logic, the focus would be on Public and American history with a major strength in urban history. Naturally there would be other problems that arise from this situation, notably difficulty retaining faculty in other fields who might be discontent not having graduate students to work with, but it seems like an interesting idea that might solve a number of the current problems in academia.

Working with faculty

One of the most important decisions that graduate students make is who they choose to study with. Because different people have differing attitudes toward what they expect from their graduate students it behooves the potential student to establish contact with their future mentor beforehand. This will ensure that you both have clear ideas of what to expect from them and they from you. An email or phone call is all it takes to get this process started. Granted this isn't necessarily a new idea, but I would also suggest going a step further before making a final decision. Wherever you are applying you should contact the graduate secretary and ask for contact information (phone, email) of any students currently working with your chosen faculty member. As colleagues they might be more willing to open up about the positives and negatives of working with a particular individual. Doing a little bit of homework can pay huge dividends in the future and help expedite your graduate school experience.

One of many

A couple brief words of introduction and purpose:

I'm currently entering my fourth year working toward a PhD in history at Loyola University Chicago. My focus is on modern Ireland, paying particular attention to cultural history, the historical function of memory, and the First World War. My dissertation will address a number of questions that take all of these issues into account.

Like many individuals pursuing a doctorate in history I someday hope to secure a tenured faculty position, although this suggests it's unlikely to happen. Regardless, I plug along in pursuit of the ultimate goal. I hope that this can be a forum for me to address issues and concerns I have with my degree program in the hope that it can help others navigating similar terrain. At the same time, I want to be able to provide positive feedback about my personal progress in the program and, hopefully, useful suggestions that others might utilize.

A few quick facts about me:
I finished coursework in the Spring of 2007.
I passed my minor field comprehensive exam in Spring 2007 (American history)
I will take my major field comprehensive exam in November 2007
I am the president of Loyola's History Graduate Student Association