Tweet
By Katrina Stanislaw
TUFTS' INA BAGHDIANTZ MCCABE EXPLORES HERITAGE
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2012/08/09/tufts-ina-baghdiantz-mccabe-explores-heritage/
MEDFORD, Mass. - The following is an interview with Ina Baghdiantz
McCabe, Tufts Professor of History and Darakjian and Jafarian Chair in
Armenian History, regarding her studies of diasporas and her insight
on the formation of identities. It appeared in the newsletter of The
Fletcher School's Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies.
Katrina Stanislaw: Your childhood was uniquely international: raised
in eight countries and educated in six languages before the age of 18.
How did this exposure influence your passion for history?
Ina Baghdiantz McCabe: Living in many cultures makes you realize that
most people are the same despite their cultural differences. Pain
and suffering are universal, as is the hope people hold for happiness
and a better future. Revolutions have happened on the force of this
promise for happiness and equality, but they always fail because some
people never believe it should be allowed. To put it simplistically,
people believe they are better than "other" people. The idea that
some people are better than others, taken to its extreme logic,
is what led to the Holocaust.
Of all the places I have lived I feel most at home here in the
United States; it remains the best democratic experiment, despite
some scary episodes. Unfortunately, that experiment also has a very
painful beginning with the annihilation of many native groups. As a
historian it helps you avoid the trap of exceptionalism; you realize
that many problems are universal.
KS: Did any of the countries and cultures you experienced in your
childhood have a particularly profound impact on the development of
your academic interests?
IM: My passion for history stems from the many cultures that I have
made my own and to me they are all profoundly connected. I have
read most deeply in French and so the ideas of some very interesting
thinkers such as Bourdieu, Bataille and the very old-fashioned Fernand
Braudel have marked me. As a historian I shy away from jargon and
theory but I have read a lot of theory, as most of it started in
France. Only in the United States could I have become a historian,
so of all of the cultures I know, the largest impact has been that
of the place I have had the privilege of choosing as my country. I
consider the state of Vermont, where my family lives, my home.
My own travels have forged a strong interest in cross-cultural
exchanges, in travel writing, in diasporas, in trade and in
intellectual exchanges. My Flemish mother and my Armenian father were
both born in strong patriarchal cultures that were not inclined to
accept women as intellectual or artists. Although there have been
some, including my mother, they succeeded with great difficulty. I
was born with a strong personality and a lot of drive, but even in
the countries where I have lived in Europe I certainly would have
not had the opportunities I have had here in the United States.
KS: In your writing, research and teaching you focus on the role of
diasporas, specifically the Armenian diaspora, and merchant networks.
What is it about diasporas that piques your academic interest?
IM: In a film by Bertrand Tavernier a history teacher enters his
high school class, opens a suitcase and takes out a knife and a
large sausage, which he proceeds to hack into pieces as he exclaims,
"this is history."
History departments are cut up into national histories - we have
inherited this artificial classification from 19th-century nationalist
views. The worlds was not always made up of nation-states, nor
will it be in the future. In this national classification, diaspora
communities were an invisible group. Luckily, things are changing
and many departments are now designated in terms of regions or in
transregional terms, but most hiring is still done according to
national histories.
I have worked on the global silk and silver trade of a small group
of Armenians - the New Julfans - since 1987 and wrote my first book
about their trade in 1999. They were the same group Philip Curtin
used to define the terms "trade diaspora" in 1984 and his work on
cross- cultural trade sparked my own. My native Armenian and my
knowledge of Persian were important to this research, as the New
Julfans lived in Iran after 1604. I wanted to look at theoretical
problems and definitions of a deported, wealthy diaspora community,
as well as into the actual trade of the Armenians. I collaborated
with many people interested in the same issues.
Phillip Curtin was also a pioneer in a second issue that fascinates me;
in his discussion of trade networks in 1984 he includes the European
militarized diaspora in the same category as the Armenians, the Jews,
the Banians and the Fukein Chinese. This remains a contested issue
as the term diaspora has rarely been applied to Europeans abroad. I
agree with Curtin that his classifications offers a clearer picture
of reality. It is very hard to reconstruct the past - all honest
historians will accept that - but if networks, cross cultural contacts
and exchanges, travel and movement, cosmopolitanism and transnational
histories are not part of the quest, the quest will not yield fruitful
results.
KS: Your work estimates the importance of understanding the
intersection of material and intellectual exchanges and how these
two elements of history viewed together can create a more complete
historical pictures. Can you describe the link between these two
elements and provide an example of how they can be viewed together?
IM: A striking example is the creation of the cafe, a public
space in 17th-century Paris, in imitation of the coffee houses in
Constantinople, Cairo or Isfahan. I have three chapters on the arrival
of coffee in France in my latest book. According to several French
sources, the Armenians opened the first five Parisian cafes.
The transfer of ideas is often linked to goods, although few historians
study it that way. Many ideas about health, digestion and even morality
were transferred with imported coffee, a commodity.
Views about coffee vary tremendously and could fluctuate within
the same decade. Today the cafe is seen as a Parisian institution,
a marker of French identity, and the French think of coffee as
a national drink, its "oriental" roots forgotten. This very slow
cycle of cultural integration would also be the fate of many luxury
goods imported from Asia. Initially viewed as foreign or exotic, the
same product some few years later is viewed as representing France
and French habits. This transformation fascinates me. Most people
imagine that there are some objective properties that are intrinsic
to the nature of things. In the case of coffee I could show how views
about coffee changed according to who was importing it and whether
it profited France or not at that point in history. Views regarding
its properties varied from nefarious enough to cause impotence to
excellent for your health. I also showed how a glorious heroic tale
about the arrival of coffee in Martinique - due to one French officer
- served to create total silence about the use of slaves on French
plantations, making France the main European exporter of coffee to the
rest of Europe by the 18th century. In analyzing the discourse about
goods you can find variations in the discourse about the same good
that prove how fickle and changing our perception of reality can be.
We constantly construct categories and change them to suit our
interests. As Louis XIV used the sale of coffee to raise money
for his wars, court doctors advocated that coffee was better for
your health than wine. Because an object or good is inanimate, it
is easier to show how terribly subjective we are according to our
self-interests. A social scientist can study material goods to show
that values are not intrinsic to objects themselves, but rather are
projected onto goods by society. This goes against objectivism, a view
that there is one reality that exists independent of the human mind,
a truth with a big T.
KS: History is an essential part of understanding contemporary
culture. Are there any dynam- ics or patterns you have found in
your research that you feel are particularly relevant when looking
at current and future interactions between different countries and
cultures?
IM: A study of constantly changing ideas about the "foreign,"
the "exotic," diaspora, refugees and cross-cultural exchanges and
encounters permeates my work. Our false categories can be a huge
obstacle to peace and mutual understanding. Categorizing something as
foreign or exotic leads to an "us and them" view of the world. The
same holds true of the traditional view of diaspora; it is seen
as a group that does not really belong to its host country. I have
argued for a different view in my work. This "us and them" view is
very politically potent. I can give you a vivid example to clarify:
when you hear someone argue that our current president is a foreigner
and was not born in the United States, despite ample proof that he
was, he is being described as "exotic," and you are encountering
this phenomenon of arbitrary "othering." History is supposed to
be about facts; our president's American birth certificate is the
kind of document historians use, but what people do with facts makes
the historian's job complex. My concern with the past gives me hope
that we can understand that we built this world both materially and
ideologically and that we are responsible for the many skewed systems
of beliefs that cause us so much trouble.
TUFTS' INA BAGHDIANTZ MCCABE EXPLORES HERITAGE
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2012/08/09/tufts-ina-baghdiantz-mccabe-explores-heritage/
MEDFORD, Mass. - The following is an interview with Ina Baghdiantz
McCabe, Tufts Professor of History and Darakjian and Jafarian Chair in
Armenian History, regarding her studies of diasporas and her insight
on the formation of identities. It appeared in the newsletter of The
Fletcher School's Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies.
Katrina Stanislaw: Your childhood was uniquely international: raised
in eight countries and educated in six languages before the age of 18.
How did this exposure influence your passion for history?
Ina Baghdiantz McCabe: Living in many cultures makes you realize that
most people are the same despite their cultural differences. Pain
and suffering are universal, as is the hope people hold for happiness
and a better future. Revolutions have happened on the force of this
promise for happiness and equality, but they always fail because some
people never believe it should be allowed. To put it simplistically,
people believe they are better than "other" people. The idea that
some people are better than others, taken to its extreme logic,
is what led to the Holocaust.
Of all the places I have lived I feel most at home here in the
United States; it remains the best democratic experiment, despite
some scary episodes. Unfortunately, that experiment also has a very
painful beginning with the annihilation of many native groups. As a
historian it helps you avoid the trap of exceptionalism; you realize
that many problems are universal.
KS: Did any of the countries and cultures you experienced in your
childhood have a particularly profound impact on the development of
your academic interests?
IM: My passion for history stems from the many cultures that I have
made my own and to me they are all profoundly connected. I have
read most deeply in French and so the ideas of some very interesting
thinkers such as Bourdieu, Bataille and the very old-fashioned Fernand
Braudel have marked me. As a historian I shy away from jargon and
theory but I have read a lot of theory, as most of it started in
France. Only in the United States could I have become a historian,
so of all of the cultures I know, the largest impact has been that
of the place I have had the privilege of choosing as my country. I
consider the state of Vermont, where my family lives, my home.
My own travels have forged a strong interest in cross-cultural
exchanges, in travel writing, in diasporas, in trade and in
intellectual exchanges. My Flemish mother and my Armenian father were
both born in strong patriarchal cultures that were not inclined to
accept women as intellectual or artists. Although there have been
some, including my mother, they succeeded with great difficulty. I
was born with a strong personality and a lot of drive, but even in
the countries where I have lived in Europe I certainly would have
not had the opportunities I have had here in the United States.
KS: In your writing, research and teaching you focus on the role of
diasporas, specifically the Armenian diaspora, and merchant networks.
What is it about diasporas that piques your academic interest?
IM: In a film by Bertrand Tavernier a history teacher enters his
high school class, opens a suitcase and takes out a knife and a
large sausage, which he proceeds to hack into pieces as he exclaims,
"this is history."
History departments are cut up into national histories - we have
inherited this artificial classification from 19th-century nationalist
views. The worlds was not always made up of nation-states, nor
will it be in the future. In this national classification, diaspora
communities were an invisible group. Luckily, things are changing
and many departments are now designated in terms of regions or in
transregional terms, but most hiring is still done according to
national histories.
I have worked on the global silk and silver trade of a small group
of Armenians - the New Julfans - since 1987 and wrote my first book
about their trade in 1999. They were the same group Philip Curtin
used to define the terms "trade diaspora" in 1984 and his work on
cross- cultural trade sparked my own. My native Armenian and my
knowledge of Persian were important to this research, as the New
Julfans lived in Iran after 1604. I wanted to look at theoretical
problems and definitions of a deported, wealthy diaspora community,
as well as into the actual trade of the Armenians. I collaborated
with many people interested in the same issues.
Phillip Curtin was also a pioneer in a second issue that fascinates me;
in his discussion of trade networks in 1984 he includes the European
militarized diaspora in the same category as the Armenians, the Jews,
the Banians and the Fukein Chinese. This remains a contested issue
as the term diaspora has rarely been applied to Europeans abroad. I
agree with Curtin that his classifications offers a clearer picture
of reality. It is very hard to reconstruct the past - all honest
historians will accept that - but if networks, cross cultural contacts
and exchanges, travel and movement, cosmopolitanism and transnational
histories are not part of the quest, the quest will not yield fruitful
results.
KS: Your work estimates the importance of understanding the
intersection of material and intellectual exchanges and how these
two elements of history viewed together can create a more complete
historical pictures. Can you describe the link between these two
elements and provide an example of how they can be viewed together?
IM: A striking example is the creation of the cafe, a public
space in 17th-century Paris, in imitation of the coffee houses in
Constantinople, Cairo or Isfahan. I have three chapters on the arrival
of coffee in France in my latest book. According to several French
sources, the Armenians opened the first five Parisian cafes.
The transfer of ideas is often linked to goods, although few historians
study it that way. Many ideas about health, digestion and even morality
were transferred with imported coffee, a commodity.
Views about coffee vary tremendously and could fluctuate within
the same decade. Today the cafe is seen as a Parisian institution,
a marker of French identity, and the French think of coffee as
a national drink, its "oriental" roots forgotten. This very slow
cycle of cultural integration would also be the fate of many luxury
goods imported from Asia. Initially viewed as foreign or exotic, the
same product some few years later is viewed as representing France
and French habits. This transformation fascinates me. Most people
imagine that there are some objective properties that are intrinsic
to the nature of things. In the case of coffee I could show how views
about coffee changed according to who was importing it and whether
it profited France or not at that point in history. Views regarding
its properties varied from nefarious enough to cause impotence to
excellent for your health. I also showed how a glorious heroic tale
about the arrival of coffee in Martinique - due to one French officer
- served to create total silence about the use of slaves on French
plantations, making France the main European exporter of coffee to the
rest of Europe by the 18th century. In analyzing the discourse about
goods you can find variations in the discourse about the same good
that prove how fickle and changing our perception of reality can be.
We constantly construct categories and change them to suit our
interests. As Louis XIV used the sale of coffee to raise money
for his wars, court doctors advocated that coffee was better for
your health than wine. Because an object or good is inanimate, it
is easier to show how terribly subjective we are according to our
self-interests. A social scientist can study material goods to show
that values are not intrinsic to objects themselves, but rather are
projected onto goods by society. This goes against objectivism, a view
that there is one reality that exists independent of the human mind,
a truth with a big T.
KS: History is an essential part of understanding contemporary
culture. Are there any dynam- ics or patterns you have found in
your research that you feel are particularly relevant when looking
at current and future interactions between different countries and
cultures?
IM: A study of constantly changing ideas about the "foreign,"
the "exotic," diaspora, refugees and cross-cultural exchanges and
encounters permeates my work. Our false categories can be a huge
obstacle to peace and mutual understanding. Categorizing something as
foreign or exotic leads to an "us and them" view of the world. The
same holds true of the traditional view of diaspora; it is seen
as a group that does not really belong to its host country. I have
argued for a different view in my work. This "us and them" view is
very politically potent. I can give you a vivid example to clarify:
when you hear someone argue that our current president is a foreigner
and was not born in the United States, despite ample proof that he
was, he is being described as "exotic," and you are encountering
this phenomenon of arbitrary "othering." History is supposed to
be about facts; our president's American birth certificate is the
kind of document historians use, but what people do with facts makes
the historian's job complex. My concern with the past gives me hope
that we can understand that we built this world both materially and
ideologically and that we are responsible for the many skewed systems
of beliefs that cause us so much trouble.