Research: Generalist or Specialist?

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

I was asked:

"With all of the varied subjects that one could study in the Civil War community, would you recommend specialization in researching one aspect or would you recommend a broader approach, where the historian takes the general studies approach to this field?"

For an undergraduate degree, I have a BA Degree in American History, with a Dual Specialization in the second half of the 18th century AND the era of the Civil War. (Plus an internship in Ohio Prehistory and Archaeology.)
For a number of years, I was also a former CW military collector.
And, for a number of years, I was a former CW gunmaker and gunsmith.

IMHO, as serious reenactors and/or living historians we absolutely NEED to be "generalists" when it comes to the CW. (As CW historians and "buffs" [hate that word, myself] we can easily afford to be "specialists.")
In order to pursue the study of history as it relates to the simulation and
emulation of as many aspects of CW life as is possible or desireable- regarding the mental, physical, spiritual man (or woman), his (or her) material culture, and his (or her) life and times.

As a "specialist," it is impossible to have enough range and depth into more than one topic or area of study to be able to pull off what is need for the "Time Warp/Time Machine" emulation.

The more we personally know, and "consume" the better we are at "nailing" as many facets and aspects of that man (or woman) as can be, or should be done.

However, we can STILL learn, grow, evolve, and research as "generalists" while focusing on a specific interest or passion- and contribute something "back" into the hobby.

On the Forum (maybe even fora), I seem to enjoy something of a modest "reputation" for being a "generalist." However, at the same time, I also seem to enjoy a modest reputation for being a "specialist" when it comes to CW era firearms.

But that is not fully accurate, as I tend, by choice, to reply and respond to firearm questions as my "specialty" and leave many other areas where I may be as equally competent, or even "informationally" or "research" superior to some members and posters- so I am not seen, or held, to be hogging the spotlight as some kind of egotistical or egomaniacal, know-it-all, expert." ;-)

Most lads I know are "generalists."
A few are "generalists" with a passion for a more narrower "specialist" focus or personal interest.
A very few, are "generalists" with a "specialized" focus or interest that has become a talent, skill, and business.
Taken together, collectively we combine to from a very broad as well as specific "hinge point" of where our communal CW knowledge rests and how our unique talents and gifts are shared to further our understanding of life in the Past, as well as our collective ability to emulate portions of it.

IMHO, it is better to be a "generalist" knowing a little about many things rather than a "specialist" knowing "everything" about just one thing but nothing about the other "myriad set of knowledge and details" needed to create a historically accurate persona/impression, have a believable image for oneself and to others, and engage and participate in historically accurate activities based upon the quest or journey for emulation.

On the other hand, the broad spectrum of the FMCPHA umbrella, at its poles, calls for less from some segments and more from others. So, I will not comment on knowing just enough of the modern day "recreational pageantry culture" to pursue and find one's Mental Picture happily fulfilled there. And, so on, and so on...

Others' mileage may vary...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
General Consternationalist Mess

[marine05]

Re: Research: Generalist or Specialist?

Sir,

I would agree with your thesis that we should all be "generalists" and I would opine that a large majority of reenactors are. A great number of the men, women and even teenagers involved in our hobby are very widely read, however there is always that "gotcha" question asked that draws a blank expression from the reenactor.

I, myself, have been interested in history since a boy, my father was a U.S. History teacher and I guess I picked up on that at a very young age. My son is also interested in history and is a reenactor. Also as a professional soldier for 28 years and still counting I find the life of soldiers in the field has not changed much. My own historical education experience started with reading about specific battles and has stretched into unit and individual accounts of those same actions. There are very close parallels between the American servicemen of the ACW and now. Ask the average service man or woman serving in combat zones why they are there and what is going on next to them; you would find striking similarities between their answers and those serving on both sides during the ACW.

As an artillery reenactor I do focus on that branch and have read as much as possible on my specific unit. I have studied the TTPs for artillery and as a unit we try to follow those as closely as possible, however we in the 21st Century are burdened by concerns and constraints that were not encountered by the original participants. But those restrictions should not deter the reenactor from knowing how "they" really did it.

If a reenactor is not a "generalist" on the ACW then all that particular individual is doing is playing soldier, dressing up in "old" clothes, doing weekend camping and burning powder and thus contributing little to the hobby. Because sometime, someplace regardless of the level of reenacting some citizen will ask that person a question concerning his/her impression, unit, uniform etc.

Am I an expert, hardly, I know enough to be really dangerous. I feel I know, as your thesis stated, a little about a lot, and a lot about a little. In short I am a generalist.

Thank you all for your indulgence.

YOS,

DJM

[SCTiger]

Re: Research: Generalist or Specialist?

Curt,

Thanks for the post and the intelligent answer. In regards to being a "generalist" in terms of this hobby, I incline to agree with you about this for the following reasons.

1. The ACW soldier would have a broad but, general knowledge of his world as it existed in the 1800's. In some ways we will never learn everything they did, in other ways we have access to information that most soldiers/civilians of the era never would. Moderate specialization on a few topics relating to your first person background enhances the impression, over-specialization ruins it.

2. We may not cover every sharpshooting "gotcha" question, but there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" versus a fabricated answer. Again a little mystery is a good thing and it may motivate that person to visit a library or museum. If the sole purpose of the questions is to embarass the living historian or if the interrogating person is trying to impress everyone with their knowledge, then I would fall back on my area of expertise or deflect the conversation toward a new topic. There is no way to please such a personality.

3. Non-reenactors may engage in specialized areas as a part of their studies or careers. For the reenactor, maybe a 70 % general/ 30 % specialized approach may help to avoid LHBO (Living Historian Burn out). For every three books, articles or threads I may read on military subjects, I will read seven items on other subjects relating to the era. From song lyrics to novels of the day. This should produce a more well rounded education.

During one LH presentation, I was speaking with a family and performing a first person role (as I was instructed.) I was comforatble with the role, the rapport was great and I could tell that the family was enjoying talking with me. When the father asked a couple of questions about my uniform, I was prepared to relate how it was issued and tell of all the challenges it took to keep it in repair. No sooner than the word "uniform" was uttered, than another LH type came over, hijacked the entire conversation in third person and began to bombard the poor family with minute details and cryptic reenactorisms like "RD II" and "FHW". This continued for forty-five more minutes. The family left and my chance to practice my first person was squashed. After that rude experience, I lost the mood for futher first person attempts at that event. I didn't want another "specialist" up-staging and then destroying my presentation.

I appreciate your response and the research threads have been helpful.