It is one of the banes of the more academic sort of historian that there is a lot of pressure from funders and governments for our work to produce real-world outcomes, usually economic ones. I’ve mused here (long ago!) about what the purposes of historians’ work might be, and while I’ve tried the position that we fulfil a social function, I’ve never managed to make a case for an economic one (though it has been attempted by others).1 Nonetheless, we know that I study power and authority, and at times I have wondered if angling more towards a political-science angle in my presentation might sometimes give me a way through that particular quagmire. This is where the below came from.
In early 2020 I wrote an application that needed that question of the application of my work answering very directly. The application was a success, but subsequent world events meant that the whole thing fell through as travel became impossible and various other concerns arose in the wake of that ‘novel’ disease most of us caught. In it, however, I had to come up with an account of my “Major academic achievements, innovations and their scientific meanings; The impact of relative work outputs to the study field [globally]. (No more than 2 pages)”. This was quite a big ask, and I’m not sure one would ever see this asked of an academic in the humanities in the UK: whatever our myriad vocational uses may be, the people who hire and fire for us don’t really believe that a humanities academic could have this kind of effect on knowledge and its application. I’m not saying I have, but I had to write something, and having done so I wanted to save the prose somewhere. So this is it, with some anonymisation; this is the difference I think my work could make (albeit perhaps in the wrong hands!), if I could only do it…
My primary research interest is in authority and government in the non-industrial world, an interest which I pursue primarily in the European Middle Ages and the Byzantine Empire, approximately CE 300‒1100. I focus both on the tools of power used by rulers and their reception by the ruled, and therefore operate in a broad socio-economic framework partly founded in Marxist thought. My first major work, my doctoral thesis, was published as a book in 2010, Rulers and Ruled in Frontier Catalonia, and was runner-up for the Royal Historical Society of London’s Gladstone Prize. This developed a new methodology for the study of societies which do not preserve substantial narratives, using the extensive documentary survival from Catalonia (Spain) around AD 1000 to reconstruct social networks visible through participation in transactions. By this means I plot the associations between persons that connected the top ranks of society to those below. This book was submitted by the University of Birmingham for the UK’s national Research Excellence Framework in 2013.
Using the techniques developed in my thesis, I have put forward a theorization of medieval societies—and arguably any without electronic communication—based on social range, the geospatial distance over which a person is known and can affect decisions. In this way societies under study can be dismantled into overlapping layers of influence of different ranges. This model can be adapted to contemporary societies by the use of different measures, and has many further applications.
My work on this project also convinced me that medieval government can be understood in terms of Foucault’s concept of governmentality, whereby a ruling power defines certain spheres of social action as its own, thus excluding others from power in those areas. I believe that this was a common project of medieval rulers, and that it is the social process underlying what Western historiography describes as the search for legitimacy. Legitimacy is in fact not just something which the audience of power awards to a convincing performer; it can be asserted and even taken by a suitably confident ruler.
I now study this phenomenon particularly in frontier zones, where rulers must convince those who do not yet belong to their polity to engage with and become part of it, rather than of alternative groupings beyond the frontier. In two articles (‘Combination Capital’ and ‘La fundaciò de Sant Joan’) I have explored such strategies of rule and have developed a model of dual ideological and material engagement which the rulers I study deployed from local bases, by buying land in the communities at whose control they aimed and using the rights they held elsewhere to claim political legitimacy in these new areas. This strategy could be effective in any zone where a state engages with a locally distinct identity and is surely still used today, albeit untheorized. I now seek to develop models for such frontier interactions in comparative dialogue with scholars with expertise on other areas and periods, and have organized several conference sessions and a dedicated international conference, thanks to a British Academy Research Grant, to bring such scholars together. I intend to continue this work by testing my findings with political scientists and anthropologists. The extensive scholarly literature on frontiers, especially on those of [your country], has been extremely useful to me here, but does not anticipate my conclusions, which also necessarily study the disputed existence of pre-industrial states and the definition of the term ‘frontier’. On all of this my work offers new insight.
Because of the source material I normally use, transactional documentation dealing mostly with land, I also work on document creation, literacy, cultural understanding and memory. In this I have developed a new approach to such materials, known as ‘critical diplomatic’, and in 2013 published a volume of essays by Western and Eastern scholars on this, Problems and Possibilities; my chapter there and my recent SSCI-indexed article ‘Ceremony, Charters and Social Memory’ are some of my contributions in this field. I emphasize that such technologies of government are often used in ways not foreseen by their inventors—we see this with the Internet, but the problem is much older. To understand the effects of government, however, it is necessary to understand its uses to the people it governs. These priorities also inform my research in the area of numismatics and coinage, where again the purposes of ancient states in issuing coin were often quite different from the uses which people made of it. I have two papers currently in press… that raise such questions in the areas of forgery or imitation, also a concern in my documentary work, and of acceptance of or resistance to governmental strategy. These are concerns for all modern states and my work has messages about them for modern audiences. In particular, my emphasis on the limited control that states have over the circulation of money applies more widely to all forms of cultural broadcast; widespread issue does not guarantee widespread reception and study of ancient empires like Byzantium suggests that targeted messages directed at powerful social groups were sometimes more effective.
While my work has many points of comparison and contact with [your country at one of its peak periods], therefore, my findings and research impact reach into most periods of world history. My new understandings of ancient and medieval rulers and their aims and strategies can help to understand rulers in many other periods and present models of successful government in contexts well beyond my period of study.
I admit that I sound pretty sinister there, hence my title, and of course one always presents only certain sides of oneself in any pitch or application.2 That said, I don’t think anything I’ve said there is untrue, either, even if my impact is limited somewhat by the relatively few people who actually read my stuff (and how few of them are in government). But it obviously convinced someone…
1. Philip Kraeger, “Humanities Graduates and the British Economy: The Hidden Impact” (Oxford 2013) online here, though whether a study of Oxford graduates alone helps save the sector we may doubt; Ian Diamond, Frances Burstow, Simon Gallecher, Rita Gardner, Roger Goodman, Shelagh Green, Martin Halliwell, David Hughes, Emma Hunt, Stephen Isherwood, Ewart Keep, Neil Kenny, Peter Mandler, Anne Sofield, Catherine Souch, Allan Sudlow, Molly Morgan Jones, Harriet Barnes, Adam Wright & Tony Lyscom, “Qualified for the Future: Quantifying Demand for Arts, Humanities and Social Science Skills” (London 2020), online here, may be better balanced but has way less evidence.
2. The title, I should say, is not mine, but a line from The Brain Surgeons, “The Brain from Terra Incognita” on Eponymous (Cellsum Records 1994), online here.