Independence
I’m starting to think that calling a post “Am I a proper historian now?” might have been a bad idea. It really wasn’t meant to be as self-pitying as it might have seemed, but of course text doesn’t always obey its authors intentions.
First of all I want to stress that I don’t feel inferior or excluded just because I don’t have a job in a university (or anywhere). The publication of my first article shows that I can get work published in peer reviewed academic journals as long as what I write is good enough, and that I can write pieces which are good enough. I don’t really have any problems getting speaking engagements either. I’ll be giving a paper on animals and early-modern society at the FORWARD symposium at Nottingham Trent University on 28th May. To the extent that I am excluded from things, many of these are things that people inside history departments might wish they were excluded from too: admin, meetings, petty rivalries, marking semi-literate essays etc. I’ve never really been interested in teaching, which limits the kind of jobs I can get. Concentrating on research is likely to mean a continuing cycle of short-term jobs and unemployment, but I thrive on adversity.
There are obviously some disadvantages to being independent and unemployed, and not just lack of money. I don’t have very easy access to a good academic library. Although I have graduate membership of Leeds University library, which is outstandingly good, it’s a 2 hour/£25 train journey away. Membership of the IHR gives me online access to some journals but not all the ones I need. With no ATHENS password most of the resources archived by the AHDS are off limits to me. The last two problems could be overcome by greater commitment to Open Access in the humanities. I want resources which are currently limited to academics to be freely available to everyone, regardless of who they are or what they want to do with them.
Self-publishing on the web, whether through blogs or other kinds of website, gives almost complete freedom (within the law of course). You don’t need anyone’s help to start a blog. You don’t need funding or qualifications or any kind of formal legitimation. You can just do it. I think this freedom is important. It would be terrible if blogs were formally peer reviewed and counted towards RAE. Instead of enthusiasm and risk the blogosphere would be full of safe but dull posts by people who didn’t really want to do it. Investigations of a Dog is my personal space where I can live under my own law and say “so I willed it”. As the Beckett paraphrase in the sub-title suggests, this is a place where I can try to fail in more interesting ways. I don’t always manage it. Sometimes I’ve embarrassed myself with an ill-considered post which could have done with more editing, and some of my posts have just been mediocre, but the possibility of getting something good makes it worth taking these risks.
