Indie Auto has previously explored this question, but I would like to offer some updated and expanded thoughts. The basic problem is that the U.S. auto history field all too often feels like it was frozen in time somewhere back in the 1980s — and our knowledge about the past has not advanced much since then.
I suspect that one reason why is that the field is too heavily dominated by for-profit media outlets and publishing houses. Making that cash register ring can get a much higher priority than resolving lingering historical debates with high-quality data and analysis — and sometimes even correcting mundane fact errors.
In addition, John A. Heitmann has rightly pointed out that car-buff writers tend to present “well-worn tales repackaged with little if any critical analysis and a reexamination of the evidence.” Indeed, they often “consider the need for context and meaning to be nothing more than malarkey” (2020, p. 2).
In contrast, scholars who write about automotive history are more rigorous when it comes to documenting sources, understanding their own biases and providing context (Heitmann, 2020, p. 2). This can potentially deepen the quality of a debate compared to the barstool philosophizing more common among car-buff writers.
Auto history lacks a strong foothold in academia
The field has only a tenuous foothold within higher-education institutions. As far as I can tell it doesn’t have a single academic program that acts as a pipeline for U.S. auto history researchers. Instead, it is treated as a subfield loosely associated with disciplines such as business management, history and engineering.
One can point to groups such as the Society of Automotive Historians, but they don’t have a strong enough scholarly tilt and can lack organizational capacity.
The few scholars who write automotive history have much less support than if they were in a larger field of study. For example, political scientists can test out their analysis by presenting papers at conferences populated by scholars with at least some expertise in their topic. And once they publish a book, the scholarly reviews are more likely to offer substantive criticism than the auto history media.
Also see ‘Wheel spinning happens when car buffs and scholars don’t collaborate’
The result: Auto history books by academics tend to have more factual errors and less analytical depth than political science books.
Given all this, one of the best ways to advance American automotive history would be to create a graduate program that took the lead in developing a scholarly association, replete with a peer-reviewed journal and conferences.
This does not appear to be an ideal time to build new academic programs due to generally shaky funding. Philanthropists could be helpful, but if they are from the auto industry that could result in an incestuous relationship akin to what has traditionally existed with the car-buff media. This might be avoided by starting small and diligently protecting academic freedom.
Paradigm shifts are hard to do even in academia
This is not to suggest that boosting auto history’s presence in academia is a panacea. One of the most eye-opening books I read in my doctoral program was Thomas Kuhn’s (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He made what struck me as a counter-intuitive argument: That “paradigm shifts” in the natural sciences were most likely to occur after a generational changing of the guard.
Kuhn found that “(a)lmost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigms they change” (1996, p. 90). This is because they are the least likely to be invested in the old way of looking at things.
Also see ‘Automobile in American Life and Society is valuable but needs updating’
This challenged my long-held assumption that the scholarly realm operated under the dictum, “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.” Kuhn argued that the opposite was true. A field’s tendency was to perpetuate a “normal science” — that is, engage in increasingly fine-grained research within the existing theoretical frameworks.
When the old and new theories are debated, they can be dominated by people talking past each other. That can partly reflect what Kuhn (1996) called the “incommensurability” of the old and new theories. Each paradigm may operate from such a different set of assumptions that they can be difficult to compare.
Kuhn inspired Indie Auto in paradoxical ways
I was new to auto history writing when I started to build Indie Auto. I wanted to create my own website to have the editorial freedom to question some of the dominant assumptions — the paradigms, if you will — of the field.
I thought that this editorial freedom would be necessary because, in keeping with Kuhn’s research, I hypothesized that there would be resistance by veteran editors to questioning major assumptions. I further hypothesized that debates on more controversial topics would tend to be dominated by people talking past each other.
My experience has thus far been been that auto history operates much like Kuhn’s description of the natural sciences. So when I debate veteran writers and editors, I don’t do so with the expectation of changing their views. Instead, I write more with an eye toward readers who still have an open mind about that topic.
I also try to leave breadcrumbs for the next generation of writers — who will invariably look at the field with fresh eyes. Note that I don’t assume my takes will prevail; I merely wish for them to be given serious consideration.
I tell you all this to illustrate why Indie Auto is different. The goal isn’t to maximize readership — and ad revenue — by avoiding difficult topics. Nor do I try to repackage well-worn tales with little-to-no critical analysis. Of course, that can limit our readership and ruffle feathers. Know that I don’t do this to be annoying, but to help advance American auto history . . . if only a few inches at a time.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Heitmann, John A.; 2020. “Editor’s Note.” Automotive History Review (membership in Society of Automotive Historians required). Spring, No. 61, p. 2.
- Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd. ed. The University of Chicago Press.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- autohistorypreservationsociety.org: Volkswagen (1961)
- oldcaradvertising.com: Chevrolet (1956); Chevrolet Corvair (1966)
Be the first to comment