#37 - Deep Hanging Out

 This week I want to talk about another interesting Doing History idea. I had read the post when it came out in 2019, but saw it floating around Twitter recently. It is the idea of Deep Hanging Out, written by Samuel J. Redman. He is a Professor of History at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, specializing in cultural heritage, the history of museums, and cross-cultural interactions in North America. The post I want to talk about is “Deep Hanging Out as Historical Research Methodology: The National Anthropological Archives at the Smithsonian Institute.” I found it here and you can follow Redman on Twitter at @samueljredman

Redman wrote the article as a short think piece on how he found the sources for his first book Bone Rooms: From Scientific Racism to Human Prehistory in Museums. I haven’t read his book, but it sounds really fascinating. I bet you can get it from a local bookstore. He was working at the Smithsonian and had started to ‘hang out’ with archivists, collections managers, and curators during breaks and lunches. They would have informal discussions about their specific collections which ended up leading Redman to the Army Medical Museum records which in turn ended up being the main source for his book. He claims that only by this ‘deep hanging out’ with other people in other roles at the Smithsonian was he able to connect with colleagues in a way that facilitated sharing of resources.

Redman’s comments at the end of the article, about the invaluable work of archivists and how that work is often overlooked in historical scholarship reminded me of two previous posts - Slow History and Archivists, Historians, and Librarians, Oh My!. In Slow History, I mostly talked about the difference between Mary Lindemann’s idea of slow history being a luxurious, rich, stewing process and my idea of slow history as a mindful process balancing progress with other commitments with permission to wallow as needed. I tangentially talked about Lindemann’s relation of slow history to archival work, which was basically that archival work is necessarily slow and meticulous and thus slow, which should inspire the ‘doing history’ phase. I think in combination with Redman’s post, slow history and deep hanging out are of a similar idea, that is, take time to revel in the sources and those who know the sources best. I bet if Redman had isolated himself from those archivists, collections managers, and curators, that he may never have found the Army Medical Museum records for his book. Networking is everything, right? So, by being ‘slow’ in his method of hanging out, Redman was able to really embrace and dig into the records while building relationships to facilitate access and assistance for his project. 

In Archivists, Historians, and Librarians, Oh My! I talked about two articles from the American Historical Association which talked about the friction between the archive & library and historians. I felt most of this friction came from a dissolution of clear boundaries between the roles of archivists, librarians, and historians. In Redman’s article, he almost talks about archivists as guides, as equals, to historians. I like this. Archivists have the subject matter knowledge of their collection while Historians have subject matter knowledge of their specific time period or topic. So, when a historian develops a question, they better go to the people who know what records or objects could have the answers. I have always felt, considering the number of archives, libraries, and museum’s I have worked out, that the most important thing about being interested in history no matter your job title is knowing your strengths and when you need to go find an expert in something you are weaker in. You need to know when you need an adult, when you need to find someone to lend you their expertise. 

You never know what is out there if you don’t ask.