Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:41:18.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rejoinder to Rebecca Edwards and James L. Huston

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2010

Richard Schneirov
Affiliation:
Indiana State University

Extract

I would like to thank Rebecca Edwards and James L. Huston for their thoughtful and challenging responses to my essay. Both these authors have thought deeply about periodization and synthesis, and for that reason it occurred to me to allow their responses to stand alone and go unanswered. But in the interests of sparking further discussion I would like to offer a few clarifications and additional thoughts with regard to periodization. Due to considerations of space I will not try to answer all the reservations and criticisms expressed and alternative views advanced but will focus only on a few points that bear on the thrust of my essay.

Type
Forum
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 To take one outstanding example, Bensel's thought-provoking periodization ends up slighting socio-economic complexity in favor of an analysis grounded in the behavior of political parties and the nation-state. A reader of his work gets the impression that the state and politics were the prime movers of society and classes. Bensel, Richard Franklin, The Political Economy of American Industrialisation, 1877-1900 (Cambridge, UK, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also see Sanders, Elizabeth, Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877-1917 (Chicago, 1999)Google Scholar.

2 Trachtenberg, Alan, The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age (New York, 1982).Google Scholar