History of the Human Sciences – Early Career Prize, 2021-22

History of the Human Sciences – the international journal of peer-reviewed research, which provides the leading forum for work in the social sciences, humanities, human psychology and biology that reflexively examines its own historical origins and interdisciplinary influences – is delighted to announce details of its prize for early career scholars. The intention of the annual award is to recognise a researcher whose work best represents the journal’s aim to critically examine traditional assumptions and preoccupations about human beings, their societies and their histories in light of developments that cut across disciplinary boundaries. In the pursuit of these goals, History of the Human Sciences publishes traditional humanistic studies as well work in the social sciences, including the fields of sociology, psychology, political science, the history and philosophy of science, anthropology, classical studies, and literary theory. Scholars working in any of these fields are encouraged to apply.

Guidelines for the Award

Scholars who wish to be considered for the award are asked to submit an up-to-date two-page CV (including a statement that confirms eligibility for the award) and an essay that is a maximum of 12,000 words long (including notes and references). The essay should be unpublished and not under consideration elsewhere, based on original research, written in English, and follow History of the Human Science’s style guide. Scholars are advised to read the journal’s description of its aims and scope, as well as its submission guidelines.

Entries will be judged by a panel drawn from the journal’s editorial team and board. They will identify the essay that best fits the journal’s aims and scope.

Eligibility

Scholars of any nationality who have either not yet been awarded a PhD or are no more than five years from its award are welcome to apply. The judging panel will use the definition of “active years”, with time away from academia for parental leave, health problems, or other relevant reasons being disregarded in the calculation.

Prize

The winning scholar will be awarded £250 and have their essay published in History of the Human Sciences (subject to the essay passing through the journal’s peer review process). The intention is to award the prize to a single entrant but the judging panel may choose to recognise more than one essay in the event of a particularly strong field.

Deadlines

Entries should be made by Monday 31st January 2022. The panel aims to make a decision by Friday 29th April 2022. The winning entry will be submitted for peer review automatically. The article, clearly identified as the winner of the History of the Human Sciences Early Career Prize, will then be published in the journal as soon as the production schedule allows. The winning scholar and article will also be promoted by History of the Human Sciences, including on its website, which hosts content separate to the journal.

Previous Winners

2020-21: Liana Glew (Penn State), “Documenting insanity: Paperwork and patient narratives in psychiatric history”, and Simon Torracinta (Yale), “Maps of desire: Edward Tolman’s Drive Theory of Wants”. Special commendation: Erik Baker (Harvard), “The ultimate think tank: The rise of the Santa Fe Institute Libertarian”.

2019-20: Danielle Carr (Columbia), “Ghastly Marionettes and the political metaphysics of cognitive liberalism: Anti-behaviourism, language, and The Origins of Totalitarianism”. Special commendation: Katie Joice (Birkbeck), “Mothering in the Frame: cinematic microanalysis and the pathogenic mother, 1945-67”.

You can read more about these essays in interviews with the authors on the journal’s website.

To Apply

Entrants should e-mail an anonymised copy of their essay, along with an up-to-date CV, to hhs@histhum.com

Further Enquiries

If you have any questions about the prize, or anything relating to the journal, please email hhs@histhum.com

History of the Human Sciences Early Career Prize – winners!

Congratulations to the joint winners of this year’s Early Career Prize, Liana Glew (Penn State) for the essay ‘Documenting insanity: Paperwork and patient narratives in psychiatric history’ and Simon Torracinta (Yale) for the essay ‘Maps of desire: Edward Tolman’s Drive Theory of Wants’. Congratulations also to Erik Baker (Harvard) who received a commendation for the essay ‘The ultimate think tank: The rise of the Santa Fe Institute Libertarian’.

All three scholars will be invited to submit their pieces for publication in the journal and will be interviewed about their work for the website soon.

Thank you to everyone who submitted essays for consideration for the prize – the editors were very impressed by the high quality of submissions and inspired by the new research early career scholars are currently conducting.

Honorable Mention: Alexandra Rutherford

The editors of History of the Human Sciences are delighted to learn that Alexandra Rutherford’s ‘Surveying Rape,’ published in the journal in 2017, has received an honorable mention at the 2019 awards of the Forum for History of Human Science.

Rutherford’s article is an account of the role that social science methods play in “realizing” sexual assault, amid public discussion of (and conservative-led controversy about) the statistic that 1 in 5 women students on (US) college campus experience sexual assault. Setting aside questions of methodological validity, Rutherford shows how the survey, as a measuring device, has become central to the “ontological politics” of sexual assault. Drawing on histories of feminist social science, the article suggests that the social and political life of the survey has been a central actor in rendering sexual assault legible: “only by conceptualizing the survey as an active participant in the ontological politics of campus sexual assault,” Rutherford argues, “can we understand both the persistence of the critical conservative response to the ‘1 in 5’ statistic and its successful deployment in anti-violence policy.”

The editors would like to extend their very warmest congratulations to Professor Rutherford for this much deserved recognition. The article is free to download for rest of the month at this link.

July 2016 issue of ‘History of the Human Sciences’

The July 2016 issue of History of the Human Sciences (Volume 29, Issue 3) is now published. Abstracts of research articles, plus links to the full text, are below.

Elwin Hofman (KU Leuven) – ‘How to do the history of the self

The history of the self is a flourishing field. Nevertheless, there are some problems that have proven difficult to overcome, mainly concerning teleology, the universality or particularity of the self and the gap between ideas and experiences of the self. In this article, I make two methodological suggestions to address these issues. First, I propose a ‘queering’ of the self, inspired by recent developments in the history of sexuality. By destabilizing the modern self and writing the histories of its different and paradoxical aspects, we can better attend to continuities and discontinuities in the history of the self and break up the idea of a linear and unitary history. I distinguish 4 overlapping and intersecting axes along which discourses of the self present themselves: (1) interiority and outer orientation; (2) stability and flexibility; (3) holism and fragmentation; and (4) self-control and dispossession. Second, I propose studying 4 ‘practices of self’ through which the self is created, namely: (1) techniques of self; (2) self-talk; (3) interpreting the self; and (4) regulating practices. Analysing these practices allows one to go beyond debates about experience versus expression, and to recognize that expressions of self are never just expressions, but make up the self itself.

Egbert Klautke (University College London) – ‘“The Germans are beating us at our own game” – American eugenics and the German sterilization law of 1933

This article assesses interactions between American and German eugenicists in the interwar period. It shows the shifting importance and leading roles of German and American eugenicists: while interactions and exchanges between German and American eugenicists in the interwar period were important and significant, it remains difficult to establish direct American influence on Nazi legislation. German experts of race hygiene who advised the Nazi government in drafting the sterilization law were well informed about the experiences with similar laws in American states, most importantly in California and Virginia, but there is little evidence to suggest they depended on American knowledge and expertise to draft their own sterilization law. Rather, they adapted a body of thought that was transnational by nature: suggesting that the Nazis’ racial policies can be traced back to American origins over-simplifies the historical record. Still, the ‘American connection’ of the German racial hygiene movement is a significant aspect of the general history of eugenics into which it needs to be integrated. The similarities in eugenic thinking and practice in the USA and Germany force us to re-evaluate the peculiarity of Nazi racial policies.

Maurizio Esposito (University of Santiago) –  ‘From human science to biology: the second synthesis of Ronald Fisher

Scholars have paid great attention to the neo-Darwinism of Ronald Fisher. He was one of the founding fathers of the modern synthesis and, not surprisingly, his writings and life have been widely scrutinized. However, less attention has been paid to his interests in the human sciences. In assessing Fisher’s uses of the human sciences in his seminal book the Genetical Theory of Natural Selection and elsewhere, the article shows how Fisher’s evolutionary thought was essentially eclectic when applied to the human context. In order to understand how evolution works among humans, Fisher made himself also a sociologist and historian. More than a eugenically minded Darwinist, Fisher was also a sophisticated scholar combining many disciplines without the ambition to reduce, simplistically, the human sciences to biology.

Gastón Julián Gil (CONICET; Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata) – ‘Politics and academy in the Argentinian social sciences of the 1960s: shadows of imperialism and sociological espionage

Social sciences in Latin America experienced, during the 1960s, a great number of debates concerning the very foundations of different academic fields. In the case of Argentina, research programs such as Proyecto Marginalidad constituted fundamental elements of those controversies, which were characteristic of disciplinary developments within the social sciences, particularly sociology. Mainly influenced by the critical context that had been deepened by Project Camelot, Argentinian social scientists engaged in debates about the theories that should be chosen in order to account for ‘national reality’, the origins of funding for scientific research, or the applied dimension of science. In this sense, the practices of philanthropic organizations like the Ford Foundation stimulated considerably the ideological passions of that period; those practices also contributed to fragmentation in various academic groups. In this way, the problem of American imperialism, and its consequent economic and cultural dependencies, were present in the controversies of academic fields whose historic evolutions cannot be fully understood without considering their strong links with national and international politics.

Colin Gordon – ‘The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon‘ (Review Essay)

(Extract in lieu of an abstract) This big and potentially influential volume is one sign among others of Michel Foucault’s ongoing elevation to classic status within the history of recent thought. The publishers say that the 117 entries in this volume are written by ‘the world’s leading scholars in Foucault’s thought’. Some of the 72 contributors certainly fit that billing. Alongside many established experts, there are also younger scholars whose renown lies, hopefully, in the near future; this mix gives a range of generational perspectives which is to be welcomed. The contributors are comprised overwhelmingly of philosophers working in the USA and Canada, plus a handful from western Europe, and two Australians. Foucault’s creative impact has long extended across a far wider global and intellectual community than is adequately represented here. The mass presence of philosophers doubtless reflects the commercial fact that academic reference works targeted at the university library market generally need a definite primary departmental focus. Nevertheless, it is a pity that a few more contributions have not been provided to this lexicon by some of those academics based in geography, history, politics, criminology, sociology, anthropology or classics who have engaged with, used or tested Foucault in their fields. This might have also diminished a tendency, perhaps compounded by the legacy of a past generation of commentaries focused on Foucault’s earlier books, to produce an overall emphasis which underplays Foucault’s public and political engagements.

Colin Gordon on the ‘Cambridge Foucault Lexicon.’

We were delighted to publish an in-depth review essay by Colin Gordon, on the new Cambridge Foucault Lexicon, in the July 2016 issue of HHS (Gordon is, among other things, an internationally-renowned scholar of Foucault; he is editor of Power/Knowledge [Pantheon] and co-editor of The Foucault Effect [Chicago]).

We were even more delighted that when our colleagues at Sage made the essay open access, a status that will be retained through the end of 2016.

You can now access the essay, without subscription, here: http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/29/3/91.full.pdf+html