APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2003-11 > 1069085105


From: Suzanne Mullin Meissner <>
Subject: [APG] Genealogical Theory
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:05:18 -0500


I'd like to put my two cents into this discussion. My view of the field is that
it is on a similar trajectory as other disciplines which at one time were also
regarded as 'amateurish'.

Take a look at social anthropology. A little more than one hundred years ago,
most 'serious' scholars dismissed it. After all, what could anthropologists
contribute about some 'exotic tribe' that amateur travel writers and
missionaries had not already done? It took time for the field to be recognized
as making a 'real' contribution to knowledge. (some still say that it does not).
I think it would be good to track how anthropology and other 'new' disciplines
came into the 'academic fold'. I believe that genealogy is undergoing a similar
transition, what I refer to as "professionalizing the field". This is not
meant as an insult to the fine genealogists already out there, just an
observation of institutional parallels drawn from my own field.


I agree with those on the list who underscore the theoretical underpinnings of
genealogy. From an academic point of view, yes genealogy is weak in terms of
theory, and has yet to contribute significantly to changing historical or
sociological or anthropological paradigms. What can a genealogical study of an
area contribute to a greater understanding of say, kinship theory, marriage
ritual, immigrant culture, patterns of social change, to name a few? [This
comes from an anthropological perspective]. For history the questions would be
different, still the premise is the same, what does a study of family X
contribute to broader issues? Don't get me wrong, I DO believe that genealogy
as an academic subject has much to contribute, it is just that it has not yet
convinced enough gatekeepers that it can solve problems that THEY are interested
in.

I wish that genealogy would adopt more comparative study. All of our
discussions focus on US research, but I would like to see undergraduate training
in in genealogy incorporate survey courses such as "the history of genealogical
record keeping", including all sorts of family lineage/record keeping AROUND THE
WORLD.

Another course I would propose would be a survey course "U.S. Ethnic research"
where students would be introduced to Anglo, African-American, Asian, Native
American and Jewish research (to name a few). Again, I believe that such a
breadth of study would get students out of a tunneled mindset (only interested
in my ethnic group)and expose them to the multi-ethnic dimension of American
history. I keep thinking about the diversity of family backgrounds of the young
people in my classroom.

Well, these are my thoughts for now. I sure wish that genealogy had a journal
in which to publish more theoretical issues such as raised in this discussion.
Let me know if one exists that I am not aware of.




Suzanne Mullin Meissner
--
Research Associate
Department of Anthropology
Indiana University
130 Student Building
Bloomington, IN 47405--
Research Associate
Department of Anthropology
Indiana University
130 Student Building
Bloomington, IN 47405

This thread: