Historians tend to sniff suspiciously at the mention of theory.  Historians
prefer to talk more vaguely about approaches or more specifically about
methodologies and interpretations.  I recall that I confessed more than a bit
of bafflement when I reviewed Patrick Joyce's Democratic Subjects for H-Review.
Yet I propose that we discuss theory in alcohol/temperance studies.  My
inspiration is the lively review article by Christopher Kent, "Victorian Social
History: Post-Thompson, Post-Foucault, Postmodern," Victorian Studies 40
(Autumn 1996): 97-133, which despite its nominal date arrived at my office this
week.  Despite its title its relevance extends beyond 19th-cent. Britain.  By
the way, the Thompson in the subtitle is E.P. Thompson, represented as the
embodiment of anti-[explicit] theory.  Kent is critical of what he calls the
"soft Marxism" interwined with the subdiscipline of social history and is
sympathetic to (a properly understood) Foucault (the F-word that terrorizes
historians).  I should add that Kent notes that marginalized historians
(those who work outside history departments such as historians of accounting
and medicine) make better use of theory in general and of Foucault in
particular.  Since alcohol/temperance historians are (or often think they are)
marginalized too, maybe we should look at theory less dimissively.  Finally, I
should mention the threat that Kent paraphrases from a more aggressive champion
of theory: "retool or retire"!
 
David Fahey (Miami University, Ohio) [log in to unmask]