A source of contention
The revelation that US author Naomi Wolf had made a major historical blunder in her new book caused ripples online. ANNA WHITELOCK examined the debate on Twitter
First there was Jacob Rees-Mogg and AN Wilson squaring up on Radio 4’s Today programme over the MP’s new book, The Victorians, and then Matthew Sweet, presenter of Radio 3’s
Free Thinking, demolished the central thesis of Naomi Wolf’s latest work, Outrages.
Wolf had argued that executions for sodomy increased in the second half of the 19th century, but as Sweet – a Victorian specialist – pointed out, she had critically misinterpreted Old Bailey trial evidence: the term ‘death recorded’ meant that a judge actually abstained from handing down a death sentence. Historians everywhere performed a sharp intake of breath; the tension was palpable and tweets erupted.
For some, like Helen McCarthy (@HistorianHelen), the broadcast was an excruciating experience: “I actually can’t bear to listen,” she wrote. For braver sorts like Jonathan Healey (@SocialHistoryOx), it was essential: “Every historian should listen to this astonishing piece of radio from @DrMatthewSweet. It shows how much it matters that we know our sources, and what they can and can’t tell us.”
Sara Butler (@Sara_Canadian) went further, commenting: “Historians are seen as petty for their reaction to the Naomi Wolf experience. But let’s note: popular historians are a thing. Do we have popular mathematicians? Popular physicists? No, because everyone assumes that those are disciplines where training is required. So is history.”
Charlotte Riley (@lottelydia) rather disagreed. “Oh man, there seem to be some deeply tedious takes arguing that the Wolf debacle shows that people who aren’t ‘proper’ academics shouldn’t write books – with a subset of historians saying literary scholars and journalists shouldn’t write history – and no, just no, nope, no.”
As others weighed in, Hallie Rubenhold (@HallieRubenhold) was one among many who applauded the tone of the debate. “Class, dignity, respect and grace. No ranting, no libellous accusations, no trolling. This is how it’s done when two experts disagree about someone’s research.”
And so, let us courteously give Matthew Sweet (@DrMatthewSweet) himself the last word. “I want to thank @naomirwolf again for being generous in scholarly disagreement. It matters so much to get these things right.” With that, I think we can all agree.