Choices and emphases: some superficial thoughts on the AHA’s "Statement on Embargoing of History Dissertations"

There has been some discussion around the American Historical Association Statement on Policies Regarding the Embargoing of Completed History PhD Dissertations, published on July 22. (I'd post some other links, but there are plenty of them at the bottom of the page). On July 24, they posted a new text: Q&A on the AHA’s Statement on Embargoing of History Dissertations.
  

Most of the claims seems factually correct to me, though probably not all. The answers to the first two questions of the Q&A seems correct, so I won't comment on them. To the third question, "Don’t embargoes of dissertations primarily benefit book publishers?", the text answers negatively and mentions that "All historians should have the opportunity to revise their work before it is published". I'd observe, first, the dissertation is not necessarily an unfinished work. Second, that it would be entirely possible to dedicate some later time to revise a dissertation and republish it, even if not in paper and ink, if the presupposition that the book form is absolutely necessary to the profession was questioned. Since we historians know that any professional convention was born in a historical process, it is obviously possible to discuss whether is desirable to accept the conventions. One example is on the first text, where we read that "History has been and remains a book-based discipline". It is true that the discipline probably requires the construction of long arguments or narratives, but the book form has itself a history, one that shows that no press must necessarily be on the process. Agreeing or not that the historian must have the choice not to publish the dissertation online for free access, it is helpful to keep in mind that there is a possibility of opposing the current scenario. When we say "it is and remains like this", we're also helping it so stay this way.

The fourth question talks about it: "Why isn’t the AHA fighting for recognition of other forms of scholarship in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions?". The text claims that the AHA alread does it, which I believe to be correct (I don't live in the United States, so it's just a supposition). Then we read: "At the same time, we recognize that, like it or not, many junior faculty who want to achieve tenure today must produce a published monograph. This reality guides our statement on embargoes; we seek to protect the interests of historians who are junior scholars". This sounds a fair description of what they are doing right now, and that is exactly the problem.

First because, by accepting to play the game without pointing out, in both texts, the bigger issues involved, the AHA legitimates its rules. Even if it might be fair to the young scholars to allow them to embargo their dissertations for six years, the conservative consequences of this legitimation need to be counteracted in the text itself. And though of course a possible discussion could be what count as "good", I'd assume that is generally agreed that the current rules of the game are not "good" not even for the junior scholars taken as a group. Even if they were, AHA’s proposal are not good for the action of the historians as responsible intellectuais in their society, since the exchange of researches helps to increase the quality of the works. If what keeps them to publish the dissertation is the politics of the profession, it is the politics itself that must be questioned. To argue for the individual choice, we must take in account what is involved in the very choice.
  

In this way, to focus on the individual or in the guild or in the society as a whole will conduct us to different views on what is desirable in this situation. So, when the text says "This reality guides our statement on embargoes" (emphasis added), what is at stake is (once we agree in the details about the reality, such as whether to publish the dissertation online reduces one’s chances to publish it by a major university press) in what part of the reality we should focus. And the reality don't count as an arbiter on where we will focus. So, I see at least two choices at stake here. The first is, to focus on the individuals (this junior scholar, that junior scholars) or in major groups (be it all junior scholars at the tenure-track, all the historians, whole societies or the humanity)? Second, to focus on the present as it is or in the possible changes can be done?

They are not either-or choices. The importance of keeping the multiplicity of possibilities in mind is exactly to allow us to think in various directions, individual-guild-society, past-present-future, at the sime time. However, if our focus is primarily on the individuals and primarily the present state of the things, it will be harder to be responsible towards the humanity and the future generations, even if we wish to do it.
    

Further reading
    

Hayden White, The Politics of Contemporary Philosophy of History. In: The Fiction of Narrative: Essays on History, Literature, and Theory, 1957-2007. Edited and introduced by Robert Doran. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
   

I’d like to point out that I don’t claim to know much about tenure issues or AHA’s procedures. This text must be read only as a reflection on the discussion – which I read very superficially, by the way – and criticisms are welcome.