现状:国外观点:1968年后的美国历史、新政秩序的终结和新自由主义

IF 0.2 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Pub Date : 2021-12-24 DOI:10.1353/rah.2021.0061
Ariane Leendertz
{"title":"现状:国外观点:1968年后的美国历史、新政秩序的终结和新自由主义","authors":"Ariane Leendertz","doi":"10.1353/rah.2021.0061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the past twenty years, American historiography has produced a burgeoning body of scholarship dealing with the deep social, political, and cultural transformations of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Historical scholarship on American conservatism and U.S. political history established the highly productive line of research centered around the resurgence of conservatism cum neoliberalism and the “rise of the right” in the United States. The associated narratives have earlier been criticized for their simplifying dichotomy.1 Joining in this criticism, a group of historians recently called for a “new political history” to transcend the familiar “red-blue divide” and the long influential narratives of the rise of conservatism and the end of the New Deal order. Instead, historiography should investigate the deeper forms of consensus and longterm structures in the American polity by studying the various relationships between the twentieth century American state and its citizens in the capitalist and (later) globalized economy.2 Bruce Schulman, in this journal, characterized this trend as “Neo-Consensus History.” Rather than emphasizing social and political conflicts, increasing polarization, and ideological divides in U.S. politics and society since the end of the 1960s, this historiography underlines common attitudes and orientations across party lines, like the development of suburban attitudes and policy preferences, the expansion of the carceral state, and the embrace of neoliberal ideas and policies across the political spectrum. Focusing on consensus, it also emphasizes continuities rather than historical breaks and shifts.3 As a German historian who has dealt intensively with post-1968 U.S. history in the past ten years, I am rather ambivalent about the “neo-consensus” approach. It is my contention that if we flatten the concept of neoliberalism to free-market ideology and a capitalist consensus that has permeated the American political tradition regardless of party affiliations throughout the twentieth century, as suggested in Shaped by the State (2018), edited by Brent Cebul, Lily Geismer, and Mason B. Williams, we risk losing sight of the deep impact of State of the Field","PeriodicalId":43597,"journal":{"name":"REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY","volume":"49 1","pages":"633 - 648"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"State of the Field: A View from Abroad: Post-1968 U.S. History, the End of the New Deal Order, and Neoliberalism\",\"authors\":\"Ariane Leendertz\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/rah.2021.0061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the past twenty years, American historiography has produced a burgeoning body of scholarship dealing with the deep social, political, and cultural transformations of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Historical scholarship on American conservatism and U.S. political history established the highly productive line of research centered around the resurgence of conservatism cum neoliberalism and the “rise of the right” in the United States. The associated narratives have earlier been criticized for their simplifying dichotomy.1 Joining in this criticism, a group of historians recently called for a “new political history” to transcend the familiar “red-blue divide” and the long influential narratives of the rise of conservatism and the end of the New Deal order. Instead, historiography should investigate the deeper forms of consensus and longterm structures in the American polity by studying the various relationships between the twentieth century American state and its citizens in the capitalist and (later) globalized economy.2 Bruce Schulman, in this journal, characterized this trend as “Neo-Consensus History.” Rather than emphasizing social and political conflicts, increasing polarization, and ideological divides in U.S. politics and society since the end of the 1960s, this historiography underlines common attitudes and orientations across party lines, like the development of suburban attitudes and policy preferences, the expansion of the carceral state, and the embrace of neoliberal ideas and policies across the political spectrum. Focusing on consensus, it also emphasizes continuities rather than historical breaks and shifts.3 As a German historian who has dealt intensively with post-1968 U.S. history in the past ten years, I am rather ambivalent about the “neo-consensus” approach. It is my contention that if we flatten the concept of neoliberalism to free-market ideology and a capitalist consensus that has permeated the American political tradition regardless of party affiliations throughout the twentieth century, as suggested in Shaped by the State (2018), edited by Brent Cebul, Lily Geismer, and Mason B. Williams, we risk losing sight of the deep impact of State of the Field\",\"PeriodicalId\":43597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"633 - 648\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/rah.2021.0061\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/rah.2021.0061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的二十年里,美国史学产生了一个新兴的学术体系,处理20世纪70年代、80年代和90年代深刻的社会、政治和文化变革。关于美国保守主义和美国政治史的历史学术确立了以保守主义和新自由主义的复兴和美国“右翼崛起”为中心的富有成效的研究路线。早期,相关叙事因其简化的二分法而受到批评。1最近,一群历史学家加入了这一批评,呼吁建立一部“新政治史”,以超越人们熟悉的“红蓝分歧”以及保守主义兴起和新政秩序终结等长期影响的叙事。相反,史学应该通过研究二十世纪美国国家及其公民在资本主义和(后来的)全球化经济中的各种关系,来研究美国政治中更深层次的共识形式和长期结构。2布鲁斯·舒尔曼在这本杂志中将这一趋势描述为“新共识历史”。“这部史学没有强调自20世纪60年代末以来美国政治和社会中的社会和政治冲突、两极分化加剧以及意识形态分歧,而是强调了跨党派的共同态度和取向,比如郊区态度和政策偏好的发展、尸州的扩张、,以及在各个政治领域接受新自由主义思想和政策。关注共识,它也强调连续性,而不是历史的断裂和转变。3作为一名在过去十年中深入研究1968年后美国历史的德国历史学家,我对“新共识”的方法相当矛盾。我的论点是,如果我们将新自由主义的概念扁平化为自由市场意识形态和资本主义共识,这种共识在整个二十世纪渗透到美国政治传统中,而不分党派,正如Brent Cebul、Lily Geismer和Mason B.Williams编辑的《由国家塑造》(2018)所建议的那样,我们有可能忽视《战地状态》的深刻影响
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
State of the Field: A View from Abroad: Post-1968 U.S. History, the End of the New Deal Order, and Neoliberalism
In the past twenty years, American historiography has produced a burgeoning body of scholarship dealing with the deep social, political, and cultural transformations of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Historical scholarship on American conservatism and U.S. political history established the highly productive line of research centered around the resurgence of conservatism cum neoliberalism and the “rise of the right” in the United States. The associated narratives have earlier been criticized for their simplifying dichotomy.1 Joining in this criticism, a group of historians recently called for a “new political history” to transcend the familiar “red-blue divide” and the long influential narratives of the rise of conservatism and the end of the New Deal order. Instead, historiography should investigate the deeper forms of consensus and longterm structures in the American polity by studying the various relationships between the twentieth century American state and its citizens in the capitalist and (later) globalized economy.2 Bruce Schulman, in this journal, characterized this trend as “Neo-Consensus History.” Rather than emphasizing social and political conflicts, increasing polarization, and ideological divides in U.S. politics and society since the end of the 1960s, this historiography underlines common attitudes and orientations across party lines, like the development of suburban attitudes and policy preferences, the expansion of the carceral state, and the embrace of neoliberal ideas and policies across the political spectrum. Focusing on consensus, it also emphasizes continuities rather than historical breaks and shifts.3 As a German historian who has dealt intensively with post-1968 U.S. history in the past ten years, I am rather ambivalent about the “neo-consensus” approach. It is my contention that if we flatten the concept of neoliberalism to free-market ideology and a capitalist consensus that has permeated the American political tradition regardless of party affiliations throughout the twentieth century, as suggested in Shaped by the State (2018), edited by Brent Cebul, Lily Geismer, and Mason B. Williams, we risk losing sight of the deep impact of State of the Field
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Reviews in American History provides an effective means for scholars and students of American history to stay up to date in their discipline. Each issue presents in-depth reviews of over thirty of the newest books in American history. Retrospective essays examining landmark works by major historians are also regularly featured. The journal covers all areas of American history including economics, military history, women in history, law, political history and philosophy, religion, social history, intellectual history, and cultural history. Readers can expect continued coverage of both traditional and new subjects of American history, always blending the recognition of recent developments with the ongoing importance of the core matter of the field.
期刊最新文献
Author-title-Reviewer Index for Volume 51 (2023) Nothing to Smile About: Quaker Capitalism and the Conquest of the Ohio Valley The Topology of Tree Time Apaches in Unexpected Places The Tragedy of Phrenology and Physiognomy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1