History, Agency, and Political Change Author(s): Victoria Hattam Source: Polity, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Spring, 2000), pp. 333-338 Published by: University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235354 Accessed: 22-02-2016 19:19 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235354?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Polity. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:19:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Polity * VolumeXXXII,Number3 * Spring 2000 History, Agency, and Political Change Victoria Hattam New School for Social Research Agency Through History Manypoliticalscientistshaveturnedto historicalresearchas meansof clarifying the constraintsshapingcontemporarypoliticalaction.Polsky'sself-identified pessimismin thisforumcapturesthisview of politicalhistoryelegantlywhen he identifiesnotionsof "pathdependence"and "policylegacies"as key contributionsof historicalresearch.The focus for manyhistoricallyorientedpoliticalscientistshas been on identifyingthe ways in which politicalinstitutionsand policieshave provideda distinctive set of incentivesandconstraintsthathave,in turn,structuredsubsequentpoliticalchoice.'AlthoughI agreewith much in this line of argument,my own interestin history,andin historically groundedpoliticalresearch,stems froma quitedifferentimpulse.I turnto historypreciselyto gaina sense of politicalagency by expandingthe set of politicalpossibilitiesavailablein contemporarypolitical debate. History,fromthis perspective,serves as an agent for, ratherthan a constrainton, politicalchange.Ifpoliticalactorsand activistswere to read"our"work, I hope theywould leave it with an extendedsense of politicalpossibilitiesas the verybest politicalhistory,as I see it,oughtto broadenthe culturalandpoliticalhorizons we use to framecontemporarypoliticaldebate. Thereare at leastthreeways in which historyacts as a source of agencyand change;firsthistorydenaturalizesthe present;second it is a source of alternative visionsand practices;and finally,it helpsto specifycontemporarypoliticaltopography.Allthreedimensionsof agencycan be foundin most politicalhistories.Unfortunatelythereis no roomhereto surveythe field,thusa few instancesof each will have to suffice.Letme brieflyoutlineand illustrateeach of these mechanismsfor expandingoursense of agencyandpoliticalchangethroughhistoricalresearchand concludewith some remarkson questionsof presentismin politicalhistory. One of the most importantimpulsesand effectsof politicalhistoryhas been to denaturalizethe present.That is to unmaskthe taken for granted,or common Historicalresearch sense, natureof our currentpoliticalinstitutionsand practices.2 1. See JamesG.MarchandJohanOlsen,"TheNew Institutionalism: Factorsin Political Organizational andThedaSkocpol,eds.,Bringingthe Life,"APSR78 (1984):734-49;PeterB. Evans,DietrichReuschmeyer, StateBackIn (NewYork:Cambridge Press,1985);PaulPierson,"WhenEffectBecomesCause: University Weir,Politicsand PolicyFeedbackandPoliticalChange,"WorldPolitics45, 4 (July1993):595-628;Margaret Jobs:TheBoundariesof Employment PrincetonUniversity Press, Policyin the UnitedStates (Princeton: 1992);andPolskyin thisforum. 2. Fora fascinatingaccountof common sense, see CliffordGeertz,"CommonSense,"in his Local Knowledge:Further (NewYork:BasicBooks,1983):73-93. Essaysin Interpretative Anthropology This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:19:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 334 HISTORY, ANDPOLITICAL CHANGE AGENCY, quicklyputsoureverydayassumptionsaboutpoliticsintoquestionas we encounter and assumptionsin earliereras.The sense of differverydifferentunderstandings ence providedby historyoften has opened up questionsof social and political withoutthe hisorganizationthatmay not have seemed in need of interpretation toricalcontrast.Historicalresearchhas been especiallyimportant,I believe,in the of the objectsof sub-fieldof Americanpoliticswhere, giventhe culturalfamiliarity for it is all too to take our current politicalpractices granted.Historical easy study, to researchhas broughtmanyof us face face with very differentpoliticalorders, therebyunderscoringthe contingentstatus of a whole varietyof contemporary Historical comparison,thus,providesa pointof contrastthat politicalarrangements. helpsto problematizeaspectsof Americancultureandpoliticsthatotherwisemight have been left unexamined.Scholarsworkingin the subfieldof comparativepolitics often can obtaina sense of analyticdifferencegeographically by comparing a rangeof politicaloutcomesacrossnationalboundariesat a singlepointin time. Americanists,by contrast,rarelyhave such an opportunityand thus many have sought this point of differencetemporarily, by turningto historyfor a point of comparison.Inshort,historyhas provideda much neededcomparativedimension to Americanpoliticswhichhas, in turn,openedup contemporarypoliticalarrangements for furtheranalysis.3StephenSkowronek'sconceptualizationof the early Americanstateas a "stateof courtsand parties"has playedsuch a role in opening Karen up questionsof the natureand limitsof statecapacityin the U.S.Similarly, Orren'sworkon the persistenceof Feudalisminto the earlytwentiethcenturyhas turnedournotionsof liberalismand labor'srelationto it upsidedown,therebycallingintoquestionmanyassumptionsaboutthe natureof Americanpoliticspastand present.4 Second, many scholarshave gained an increasedsense of politicalagency throughthe recoveryof alternativepoliticalvisions and modes of organization uncoveredthroughdetailedhistoricalresearch.History,forthese politicalscientists, embeddedwithinthe domihas been a processof recoveringthe countercultures of the nantculturethathavebeen obscuredby all too Whiggishan understanding of social and has the these lost alternatives expanded range past. Reconstructing haveengagedin extensivehistoricalresearch.WhatI am arguingis 3. Ofcourse,manycomparativists thathistoricalresearchhas a particular importin the subfieldof Americanpolitics,not that methodological historicalinstitutionalist it does not existelsewhere.Forfineexamplesof comparative research,see Theda SvenSteinmo,KathleenThelen,andFrankLongstreth, eds.,StrucSkocpol,StatesandSocialRevolutions; in Comparative Press, University Analysis(NewYork:Cambridge turingPolitics:HistoricalInstitutionalism inBritainandFrance(New the Economy:ThePoliticsof StateIntervention 1992);PeterA. Hall,Governing Politicsand Industrialization: York:OxfordUniversity Press,1986);ColleenDunlavy, EarlyRailroadsin the HealthPoliPrincetonUniversity UnitedStatesand Prussia(Princeton: Press,1994);and EllenImmergut, in WesternEurope(NewYork:Cambridge tics:Interestsand Institutions Press,1992). University State:TheExpansionof NationalAdministrative 4. See StephenSkowronek, Buildinga NewAmerican Press,1982);andKarrenOrren,BelatedFeudalism: Cambridge University Capacities,1877-1920(NewYork: in theUnitedStates(NewYork: Press,1991). Labor,theLaw,andLiberalDevelopment University Cambridge This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:19:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Victoria Hattam 335 politicaloutcomes that might be consideredin contemporarypoliticaldebates. demiseis criticalifwe areto assessthe relevanceand Accountingforthe alternatives' of such alternatives forcontemporarypoliticaldebate.GeraldBerk politicalviability and GaryHerrigel'saccountsof the competingforms of corporateorganization are fine examplesof such work; duringAmericanand Germanindustrialization GretchenRitter'sand my own workmightbe seen as instancesof recoveringalternativevisionsof economicorganization and politicson the laborside, while Anne Nortonhasexploredalternative formsof cultureandpoliticsin theAmericanSouth.5 Third,politicalhistorymightbe used to empowerratherthanconstrainpolitical choice much as Smitharguesin this forum.I thinkof this as the topographical accountof historyin which we lay bare past politicalsettlementsnot so much to establishthe set of currentpoliticalchoices, but ratherso thatwe mightknow the terrainon whichwe are operatingand therebywage the most effectivecampaign to bringourvariouspoliticalvisionsto fruition.Putsimply,in orderto be politically effectivewe mustknowwhere the bodiesare buriedand politicalhistoryis one of the keymeansof identifyingtheirlocation.Mappingthe politicalterrainwill not,of course,predictthe outcome;norwill it, or shouldit, lead to agreementoverwhat our course of actionoughtto be. Ratherit simplymakesapparentthe conditions underwhichwe seek to specifyand worktowardour respectivesocialvisions.Ira Katznelson'sCityTrenchesseems a classicworkin thisvein,in which he identifies a centralpoliticalfaultline runningthroughAmericanpoliticsafterthe onset of in whichAmericanworkersidentifyand mobilizepoliticallyon the industrialization basisof residenceratherthanemployment.Understanding the natureandoriginsof thisdivisionis essentialforany politicalactorwho would wage an effectiveurban politicalcampaign.6RogersSmith'srecentwork on Americancivic idealsand the multipletraditionswhich informthem also exemplifiesthis approach,as Smith arguesthatthe particular weightgivento the competingtraditionsshapingourcitizenshiprequirementsultimatelyis determinedby the balanceof politicalforcesat any given historicalmoment.The outcome can neversimplybe readoff of past politicalsettlements;rather,the historicalrecordoughtto alertus to the forcesto be reckonedwith in ourown time.7 5. See GeraldBerk,Alternative Tracks:TheConstitution of AmericanIndustrial Order,1865-1916(Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversity TheSourcesof Press, 1993);GaryHerrigel,IndustrialConstructions: GermanIndustrial Power(NewYork:Cambridge Press,1997);RichardLocke,RemakingtheItalUniversity ian Economy(Ithaca:CornellUniversity TheAntiPress,1997);GretchenRitter, Goldbugsand Greenbacks: and the Politicsof Finance,1865-1896(NewYork:Cambridge Press,1997); monopolyTradition University VictoriaHattam,LaborVisionsand StatePower:TheOriginsof BusinessUnionismin the UnitedStates PrincetonUniversity AReadingof Antebellum Americas: (Princeton: Press,1993);AnneNorton,Alternative PoliticalCulture(Chicago:ChicagoUniversity Press,1989). 6. See IraKatznelson,CityTrenches:UrbanPoliticsand the Patterning of Classin the UnitedStates of ChicagoPress,1982). (Chicago:University 7. See RogersSmith,CivicIdeals:Conflicting Visionsof Citizenshipin U.S.History(New Haven:Yale Press,1997). University This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:19:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 336 HISTORY, ANDPOLITICAL CHANGE AGENCY, Letme illustratethesedynamicsof historyas a sourceof agencyand changeby drawingon mycurrentresearchon ethnicityandAmericanracialpolitics.Thepoint is not to suggestits exemplarynaturebut ratherto providesome fleshforthe skeletalargumentsadvancedabove. Ethnicity Then and Now Wearelivingthroughan historiceraof immigration intothe UnitedStates,thehigh levelsof whichhaveonlybeen matchedtwicebeforeinAmericanhistory,firstduring the 1850sand again at the turnof the centuryduringthe Progressiveera. Many observersbothinsideandoutsidetheacademyareaskinghow thesepost-1965immiand politically. grantswillalignculturally Where,manywantto know,willthe principalsocialcleavagesbe drawnintheearlydecadesof thetwenty-first century?Myown sense of how immigration an politicswill playin the decadesto come is principally politics.Thatis, my argumentforthe relevanceof politicalhistoryforcontemporary willalignpolitically own sense of how contemporary is shapedincrucial immigrants erasettlementbetweensecond waysby the past.Onlyby recoveringthe Progressive wave immigrants andelitescanwe beginto decipherthecontoursof immigrant politicstoday.Butthismuchalmostallcan agreeon;the rubcomeswhen one beginsto specifymorepreciselytheparticular ways inwhichthe pastremainsrelevantto conOne finds thatseveralquitedifferentargumentscan be temporarypolitics. quickly usedto linkthe Progressive erawiththe present.I findmyself,again,on the agency endof thepathdependence-agency continuuminwhichhistoricalresearchbecomes a meansof imagingandfacilitating politicalchange.8 One of the most strikingcomparisonsbetweenthe Progressiveeraandcontemporaryimmigrationpoliticsis the very differentlanguagesused for the respective debates.Duringthe Progressiveera, the languageof ethnicitywas only justbeing "invented" and had not yet become the principaldiscoursefor describingimmiRather,a quitedifferentdiscoursedominateddiscussionsof difgrants'experience.9 ferenceduringthe nineteenthcenturyin which the principalclassificatory scheme The nineteenth-century compared"thenatural"and "historicraces."'0 languageof notionof the heritability of acquired "historicraces"drew heavilyon Lamarckian in which climate,geography,and even social arrangementswere characteristics 8. Thissectiondrawson mycurrentresearchon ethnicityandAmericanracialpolitics.Fora preview of the largerargument,see VictoriaHattam,"Ethnicity, RacialDiscourse,andCoalitionPolitics," paperpreparedfordeliveryat theAPSAmeetingsin Atlanta,GA,September1-5,1999. 9. Fortheinventionof ethnicity, see WernerSollors,ed., TheInventionof Ethnicity (NewYork:Oxford Press,1989),intro. University 10. Forfascinatingdiscussionsof eighteenthand nineteenthcenturyracialdiscourse,see GeorgeW. in AmericanSocialScience,1890-1915," in his Race, Culture,and Evolution: Stocking,"Lamarckianism (NewYork:FreePress,1968);and NicholasHudson,"From'Nation' Essaysin the Historyof Anthropology to 'Race':TheOriginof RacialClassification in Eighteenth-Century Studies Thought," Eighteenth-Century 29, 3 (1996):247-64. This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:19:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Victoria Hattam 337 thoughtto providethe basisof racialdifferenceoverlongperiodsof time.Mostnineelitesdidnotdistinguishsharplybetweennotionsof raceandnation, teenth-century norbetweennotionsof raceandethnicity;ratherthe term"historicraces"was used to referto all of the above. Confrontingthese quite differentlanguagesof race quicklyhighlightsthe historicalspecificityof ourown notionsof raceand ethnicity. I immediatelywant to knowwhen the discursiveshiftfrom"historicraces"to ethnicityoccurred?Whatwas at stakein thischangein discourse?How didthe different linguisticframingsof differenceshape immigrants'interestsand alliances? Answeringthese questionshas takenme back to the Progressiveerawhere I find myselfagainturningto historyas a sourceof agencyand change. Turningto the Progressiveera quicklydenaturalizesour twentieth-century notionsof raceand ethnicityand placesquestionsof socialand politicalconstructioncenterstage.Ourtwentieth-century conceptionsof raceand ethnicitynow are revealedas historicalparticularities ratherthanbeingseen as transhistorical systems of humanclassification.Recoveringthe differentlanguagesof racethatdominated discourse,thus, serves to repoliticizenotionsof race and ethnineteenth-century nicityin our own time. Moreover,tracingthe shift in racialdiscoursefroma language of "historicraces"to thatof ethnicitynot only denaturalizesthe present,it also helpsto clarifythe particular racialdiscourse. meaningof ourtwentieth-century or the discursive however,does not Identifying mapping contemporary topography, mean thatwe are destinedto repeatit; nor must our currentpoliticalchoices be determinedor limitedby this historically constructedterrain.On the contrary,conI as see is era it, engagedin reworkingthe Progressive temporaryimmigrantpolitics, settlement.Narrowlyconceivednotionsof raceandethnicity,manyhaveargued,no longercapturethe fullrangeand heterogeneityof the Americanpopulation,especiallygiventhe enormousdemographicchangethathas takenplaceduringthe last threedecades."Distinctions betweenraceandethnicitythatwere carvedout during the Progressiveera are currentlyunderattackfrommanyquarters;whether,or in whatways,our languagesof differencewill be reconfigured in the twenty-first centhe Progressiveeralegacy turyis not yet clear.Butboth identifyingand articulating helpsto clarifythe terrainon which the currentstrugglesarebeingwaged.Again,I do not see, norwould I expectto find,agreementover how questionsof raceand ethnicityought to be reworked;many very differentvisions currentlyare being advocated.WhatI am suggesting,however,is thatall advocateswould do well to understandthe Progressiveera legacyso thattheycan moreeffectivelyidentifythe variouschangesneededto realizetheirparticular vision.'2 11. Manyhavepointedout the liminallocationof AsianAmericans,and HispanicswithinAmerican ethnicandracialclassificatory schema.Forexample,see PeterSkerry, MexicanAmericans:TheAmbivalent HarvardUniversity of Asian Press,1993);and ClaireJean Kim,"TheTriangulation Minority(Cambridge: Politicsand Society27, 1 (March1999):105-138. Americans," 12. Fora briefreviewof contemporary culturalandpolitiargumentsovercontemporary immigrants' cal identification, see Hattam,"Ethnicity, RacialDiscourse,andCoalitionPolitics," 5-10. This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:19:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 338 HISTORY, ANDPOLITICAL CHANGE AGENCY, Politics and Presentism Studentsof historyoften are remindedof the dangersof presentistarguments aboutthe past.Inorderto understandanyhistoricalera,manyclaim,we mustsuspend our presentdaycategoriesand assumptionsand recoverinsteadthe distinctivelanguagesandworldviews of otherhistoricalperiods.Onlyafterunderstanding the paston its own terms,so the argumentruns,willwe be able to assess the historicaldynamicswithanydegreeof subtletyandwithoutsimplyimposingourown valuesandassumptionsonto the past.Myviewof historyas a sourceof agencyoutlinedaboveleavesme in an ambiguouspositionin relationto the dangersinherent in presentism.On the one hand,the importanceof historyas a means of denaturalizingthe presenthingeson our abilityto rediscoverdifferentworldsin the past, and as such is verymuch in the anti-presentist camp. Recoveringthe differentlanof that class and ethnicity prevailedduringthe nineteenthcenturyhas been guages essentialin my own workand has been the keyvehiclethroughwhich I haveidentifiedthe dynamicsof politicalhistory.Yet,my claimthathistoryprovidesa means of openingup contemporarypoliticalchoice pointsin a ratherdifferentdirection. Namely,that historicalresearchis inevitablyshaped by our own contemporary politicalconcerns.Perhapsit is a mistake,especiallyforpoliticalscientists,to diminish the linksbetweenthe presentand the past.Indeed,I thinka case can be made orientedpoliticalsciencemakinga virtueof theirpresentistconcerns. forhistorically This would requirethat we give a more explicitaccount of our contemporary assumptionsand concernsand thatwe readilyacknowledgetheirmotivatingforce in our historicalwork.Framinghistoricalresearchas a self consciousresponseto issuesin own timeswould, I think,help foregroundquestionsof agencyand politicalchangeas keyto even the most antiquarian projectsof historicalresearchand mighthelp focus more sharplythe distinctiveprojectembodiedin the historical turnwithinpoliticalscience.'3 13. Mythinkingon presentismhasbeeninfluencedbythreeessays:JoanScott,"TheEvidenceof ExpeSci"TheStateto the Rescue?Political rience,"Critical Inquiry17,4 (Summer1991):773-97;IraKatznelson, SocialResearch59, 4 (Winter1992):719-37;andAnneNorton,"95Theses ence and HistoryReconnect," on Politics,Culture,andMethod," manuscript. This content downloaded from 128.233.210.97 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:19:13 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
