Starkey and female historians (part 3)
This time last year TV historian David Starkey attacked female historians for ‘feminising’ history and supposedly dumbing down the subject. His criticism focused on the idea that female historians were concentrating too much on things like relationships and women, which gave a false picture of the past. This was an incorrect assertion, as there are plenty of female historians writing on topics that don’t revolve around relationships and women. Dr. Starkey’s criticisms, I felt, could be explained in part by his position as a TV historian, rather than as an academic one.
Now he is at it again. In an interview, the TV historian claims that female historians tend to be quite pretty and like to show off their looks, with the implication being that they are academic lightweights who can only compete with ‘intellectual titans’ like him if they flaunt themselves:
Now the historian David Starkey has poured vitriol on his female competitors, likening their books to “historical Mills & Boonâ€.
The broadcaster and writer, whose speciality is Tudor history, says patronisingly that women who write history books are “usually quite pretty†— and eager to show off their looks on their book covers.
Once again, Dr. Starkey has attacked female historians without any foundation: it is not clear whether he is just trying to generate publicity for a new project or whether is it evidence of something more deep-seated (such as a dislike of women or envy at colleagues who have stayed within the academic sphere so are more respected).
Hundreds of books and articles are published by female historians each year. Few of them ever have a small picture of the author on the front, and most of them are on serious and well-researched topics (just like most articles and books by male historians). I wouldn’t be able to recognise most female historians I have read by sight, and know that their books speak for themselves. A quick survey of my collection reveals precisely zero books where the historian’s (male or female) picture is visible on either the front or back cover, but then I don’t own anything by David Starkey.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: History,Sex equality
I did not know this about Starkey & had not seen the earlier piece by Rumbold.
I do enjoy his renditions. But now that I have seen his book cover and his attempt at pouting provocatively I cannot take him seriously again
Just reading Alison Weir’s ‘Katherine Swynford’ and strangely it has a picture of Katherine on the front. No pics of the author anywhere in this edition. Starkey really is a horrible little tory man.
Ah yes, Starkey, stopped being a historian in my opinion once he started doing TV shows and focused on being an celebrity academic. What was he saying about real historians again?
What he really means if course his competition is the really attractive MALE historians on television making programmes about Britain’s history , and in TV we know looks and age are the premium …
If he wants to have a discussion about what perspectives feminist historians bring to knowledge , history and power, he should probably start by realising that feminist historians aren’t all women – feminist perspectives can be provided by women and men… Da.
So are we looking at a potential replacement of Starkey for a 20 something history celebrity a la replacement of Arlene Phillips?
Only thing is I cannot think of any nubile 20 something male historians – oxymoron?
They’re not 20 something, but the TV careers of Tristram Hunt, Dan Snow and Neil Oliver have all been helped by their looking good on-screen. Those kind of photogenic historians, who are willing to turn their hand to series outside their academic specialism, are always likely to do well in today’s market. In contrast, Starkey, who’s a genuine expert in the Tudor field, has pretty much stuck to familiar territory in his series and and so rather used up his TV-friendly material.
I’m sorry – David Starkey, the TV historian who has made a career out of thrusting his mug in our faces, is telling women they should shut up and stop showing off? Pot, kettle, black.
Either Starkey’s being directly threatened by a female rival appearing on TV (perhaps Bettany Hughes?) or he’s trying to get himself some publicity – perhaps, as magistra suggests above, to extend his fame shelf-life.
I am absolutely baffled by his comment as, like Rumbold, I know what none of the historians I’ve read look like. I know what one young female historian looks like, but that’s only because I’ve met her!
If his female competitors are ‘historical Mills & Boon,’ I’d consider him ‘historical Dan Brown’ – controversy-attracting but uninteresting and talentless. If he’s so outspoken, why doesn’t he go ahead and name some names, instead of simply casting aspersions? Pathetic.
I think it is deeper than him just calling female historians “lightweights.”
When he says that female historians are concentrating too much on women he’s really saying that the history of women isn’t important. Because women never did anything of import or had any influence or had anything to say before 1920. Well, according to Mr. Starkey.
@7
I would agree with that analysis.
Mr Starkey seems to me to be one of those historians who over-emphasis the role of the individual in history – the flip side of which is to underestimate the impact of wider societal trends, economic developments etc etc
In such an approach it is only really the ‘important’ movers and shakers who matter to the narrative and, as you say, in Mr Starkey’s world view, women aren’t important enough to matter (except insofar as they influence their husbands)
Starkey has a reputation for hair-raising rudeness that has served him quite well over the years. His work as a historian of the Tudor dynasty has been rather good – and I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that even as a historian of the elite (in this case the Tudor new aristocracy) that a considerable number of his primary sources were generated by the extraordinary literate women of his chosen period. His outrageous comment on the education of Elizabeth II should be understood in the light of his awareness of the incredible academic talents of her predecessor of the same regnal name.
I am not defending Starkey – it is just that he is a victim of his own studied manner and associated celebrity (or notoriety when that serves), as much a s a deliberate generator of scandal. When he makes pronouncements of this sort of misogynist order, one should certainly condemn – but one should also try to recall that David is sitting in the background, hooded eyed, lapping up the attention.
I’m with Abu Faris in that Starkey is still an academic historian, and a very good one, whatever the acceptability or otherwise of his personal views. This is probably ‘Starkey the presenter who wants to maximise his public exposure’ speaking – or rather, trolling. Also, the eye-candy issue is real: if you want to be a TV historian you need to look cute. I have had some experience of this in my day job, but I’m not going to name any names… You can ‘sell’ a book on the academic market without looking cute (I’d know) but if I were trying to sell one on the mass market, I’d want to look as cute as possible.
Personally, I think that sticking a proper historian in front of the camera is over-rated, and that it’s a better bet to use someone who is a good presenter rather than an expert. And I say this having worked with a number of good historians who were also good presenters. Either your series is going to be very focused indeed, or pretty soon the expert is going to move out of her/his area of expertise and become just another presenter, except perhaps not such a good one. Given the chance, I’d hire Portillo – he’s good.
persephone – the trouble is, once you’ve spent five years in an archive sorting out the book, thus making your name as a historian, you only have a couple of years of your 20s left, and you now have an unhealthy pallor, stick-thin arms, dodgy eyesight, an uattractive tendency towards instrospection, etc. In other words, I think that the hunk shortage in the lower reaches of the historical profession is structural: it’s not going to go away, and the best way we can deal with it is to only demand a BA of our presenters.
Simon Schama is not what I would consider cute, but I get the feeling he created hugely popular TV series. I think looks are overrated. The issue here is that not all academic researchers are able to make their material interesting/accessible to the general public.
Envy is not something one usually likes to show publicly, and for a good reason: it is very difficult to feel any sympathy for those that exhibit it.
Chris
The issues of palour and stick thin arms after spending a lifetime toiling in the stacks drove me into the arms of philosophy – yes, we go in for unhealthy introspection; but at least (a lot of the time) we can ply our trade down the pub (although generally it is a good idea to do it out of earshot of non-philosophers, as we are bloody irritating).
OK, there’s Simon Schama and . . . I’m not sure whether or not Schama’s created anything: quite a lot of all broadcast history is not thought up and planned by those who front it. Although once someone has a public image, then things are often thought up _for_ them with their co-operation.
Most people, like me, do think that looks are over-rated – it’s just 20%* of the population don’t, and the commissioning editor would rather they were watching, hence giving an immediate 20%* boost to the ratings the show woudl otherwise get. So all other things being equal, a good cute presenter is, nowadays always, going to get picked in preference to an even slightly less cute, but equally good, alternative.
Things have changed from the days when The Dragon Has Two Tongues, or AJP Taylor’s lectures could be made and broadcast to millions of people. This is not necessarily a good thing, but I can’t think of any way to put the clock back. Sorry if I came over at all bitter or envious just then: I’m not. I like it just the way it is for me.
My advice is therefore “Do it on the radio”.
* NB – made up number alert. But it doesn’t matter how large it is, so long as commissioning editors think it’s significant. And they do.
Chris Williams @11
A pre-show Historian bootcamp mebbe?
There is an eye-candy aspect to Simon Schama, it’s just that it’s eye-candy for a different demographic, in which older men can still be considered sexy, while older women aren’t. I suspect the choice of Schama by the BBC to do ‘A History of Britain’ was to try and get someone in the Michael Wood mode, who combined sound historical credentials with rugged looks, a taste for vaguely trendy leisure-wear and a distinctive and resonant voice. In some of the recent TV programmes by Schama, it’s noticeable how much time is spent on shots of him just standing around looking vaguely noble. If the BBC had been concerned primarily about historical background, they would presumably have chosen someone who’d actually researched British history, which Schama never has.
I think whether the author’s picture is on book covers varies a lot between publishers: my vague impression is that US academic publishers may do it more. The two author photos I remember most, though, are both male: Eric Hobsbawn, who looked extraordinarily ugly, and John Boswell, who looked amazingly cute.
Actually, I found Michael Wood’s prancing about in Iraq and his tremulous wonder at all manly
thighsthings Alexandrian rather funny in a sort of high camp way.