Maritime history matters
Lewis Johnman, History Department, University of Westminster and
Hugh Murphy, Centre for Business History in Scotland, University of Glasgow
(First published in Dunaskin News, March 2002)
The shipbuilding and marine engineering industries were for over a century synonymous with Clydeside. Given the rapid decline of these sectors, most of which is easily within recent memory, maritime historians owe much to archival colleagues for preserving records which would otherwise have been lost to present and future generations. This brief essay, undertaken by two historians of the British shipbuilding industry who have much to thank the Scottish Business Archive at the University of Glasgow for, looks at maritime history from a research perspective, and begins with a brief discussion of economic and business history as academic disciplines.
Intellectual rigour demands objectivity, a quality that should be ingrained into the training of economic, business and maritime historians alike. Setting aside the long debate over whether business history is merely a sub-discipline of economic history, both areas of study have amassed considerable theoretical constructs, which in turn has led to increasing subjectivity as the disciplines fracture into competing camps. In today’s academic climate for example, very few economic history departments survive as such, most have been conjoined with social historians, or with wider history departments, often reluctantly, but if the discipline is still to matter, necessarily. Business history, on the other hand, after the first flush of success, has perversely suffered from the rise of business schools, where history has to a large extent taken a back seat. In the battle for financial resources, which has increasingly characterised modern academic life, both business and economic history departments face uncertain futures. Underpinning this uncertainty is the perceived non-vocational nature of the subjects. Prospective employers still ask economic history graduates, “Are you economists or historians?” Whereas, business history graduates are often assumed to have the same skills as their business school counterparts. What then, of maritime history?
Maritime history, unfortunately, still suffers from a general lack of understanding as to what the subject consists of. Many see it as the preserve of old sea dogs, enthusiastic amateurs, obsessive list compilers, dilettantes and recently retired naval officers with nothing better to do with their time. Smug economic and business historians, [yes, despite departmental closures elsewhere, there are quite a few of them still around] rather airily dismiss maritime history for being bereft of any theoretical underpinning. Considering that the majority of academics practising maritime history come from economic or business history backgrounds, this base prejudice must by its nature also reflect on them.
The sea, the original motor of globalisation, and the transport of goods thereon still plays a vital, if mostly unrecognised role in the economic health of the world. Maritime history is at once the history of the sea in peace and war, of the men, women, companies and communities on mainland and islands who owe their living to it and also encompasses a wide spectrum of economic activity. From fishing fleets, processing plants and dockyards, to shipyards, engine works, ports, wharves, warehouses and factories, shipping lines, liner conferences, commodity exchanges, insurance companies, discount houses, ship mortgage banks and labour relations, maritime history remains a fecund area for research. At another remove, maritime history also explains and informs on exploration, environmental impact, hydrography, cartography, oceanography and the movement of peoples and ideas throughout the world’s oceans. The role of Government, naval warfare, piracy, shipping firms, safety at sea, mercantile marines, passenger liners, ships crews, and church missions to name but a few subjects, have all been topics of rigorous research.
On the research side the situation is far from gloomy. In Glasgow, for example among the University’s Scottish Business Archive, the broadly defined (never mind narrowly defined) maritime historian could pursue a life’s work and career. One could always, of course, ply this course in the guise of economic or business history. Perhaps, once again, the fracturing of disciplines needs to be addressed: maritime history, as with economic and business history, is simply history. Even so, the historian who wishes to centre her/his research in a maritime subject is well served around the country. Outside of Glasgow and its various repositories a whole range of centres - Edinburgh, Newcastle, Liverpool, Warwick, Southampton, Hull and London - to say nothing of private or company papers, offer the researcher a wealth of opportunities. We can only hope that in future years that these opportunities will be exploited.
Established academic journals such as the International Journal of Maritime History, the Northern Mariner and the Great Circle, and closer to home, the Mariners Mirror strive to bring maritime history to life to a wider audience. Despite this, however, maritime history has yet to achieve the status of a mainstream academic activity. Recently, a Greek maritime historian who reviewed the history of the discipline acknowledged the role of the late professor Frank Broeze and others in attempting to theoretically underpin what is a vast area of research. Her conclusion was that maritime history had moved from the provinces to the suburbs of mainstream history. Indeed, maritime history has a wide appeal to prospective students, and dedicated courses in maritime history are thriving at the Universities of Exeter, Greenwich and Hull, and in many other universities in other countries. Yet much work needs to be done if the discipline is to continue to move forward, and the haemorrhaging from universities of older academics who have brought much to the discipline but are never replaced needs to be addressed.
New researchers are the lifeblood of all academic disciplines, and as such deserve to be supported; nevertheless, a declining pool of universities containing maritime historians hardly augurs well for the future of the subject. Critical mass is not, of course, an indicator of quality; however, the move by some maritime historians to publish outwith maritime journals and the wish of others to embrace a more interdisciplinary approach to the subject is to be applauded. As a discipline, maritime history can ill afford to stand still. There remains a vast constituency of potential converts to be won to the discipline, only a united approach and continuing quality research and the setting aside of narrow intra and extra university sectionalism will ultimately save maritime history.