history of capitalism – Page 2 – Organizational History Network

Conference: Histories of Capitalism, v2.0

CALL FOR PAPERS

Histories of Capitalism, 2.0

Cornell University

September 29 to October 1, 2016

In 2014, Cornell’s History of Capitalism Initiative hosted a conference on the “Histories of American Capitalism” to showcase the deep connection between traditional subfields of social history (race, gender, sexuality and class) and the new history of capitalism. Building on the success of that conference and on developments in this rapidly-growing field, we invite proposals for panels that continue to illustrate the diversity of the histories of capitalism(s) through a variety of perspectives, including intellectual, legal, gender, environmental history, as well as the history of science and technology.

We hope that the previous conference’s focus, which sought to bring social and cultural history categories into dialogue with capitalism, will continue to infuse the conversation this year. We would also especially like to see panels and papers that incorporate non-U.S., regional, transnational, or global histories.

For the 2016 conference we are open to all proposals and particularly encourage submissions on:

Science and Technology
Migration
Unfree Labor
Family and Home
Environment and Built Environment
Criticizing, Defending and Defining Capitalism
Regulation and the State

Plenary Speakers include:

Jedidiah Purdy (Duke)
Marcus Rediker (Pittsburgh)
Emma Rothschild (Harvard University)
Juliet Walker (University of Texas-Austin)

Submission:

Our invitation is open to scholars at any stage of their careers. We will accept both panels and individual papers.
- For each panel, please include a 500 word description of the panel, a 250 word description of each paper in the panel and a short c.v. for each paper giver.
- For each paper, please submit a 250 word description of the paper and a short c.v.
To submit the paper proposals please go to http://hoc.ilr.cornell.edu/fall-2016-conference
Submissions are due by March 1, 2016

Call for Papers

We are currently accepting proposals for the 2016 conference.

Propose a paper

Register for the Conference

Registration to attend the conference has not yet begun.

Please contact Rhonda Clouse with any questions or concerns.

History of Capitalism has been an influential take on analyzing the history of business and society in the USA in recent years. However, it has also been criticized as an approach for its failure to clearly define its key concept, capitalism. Recently, the issue of slavery and capitalism has been discussed again as an important issue in order to understand the nature of capitalism (and management, an argument made by Prof Bill Cooke of the University of York).

The following blog by Tom Cutterham picks up these debates in this blog post:

It’s been two and a half years since the new history of capitalism marked its arrival with the full red carpet treatment in the New York Times. So it’s about time we saw some serious and constructive critiques of the project. Robin Blackburn’s lengthy review of Empire of Cotton goes some way to bringing that Bancroft-winner back down to earth, particularly by scrutinising the concept of “war capitalism.” But what I particularly want to share with Junto readers today is an article by the NYU sociologist John Clegg recently published in the Chicago-based journal, Critical Historical Studies.

Anyone who has read Beckert, Baptist, and Johnson, or is eagerly awaiting the forthcoming volume on Slavery’s Capitalism, ought to read what Clegg has to say. In earlier posts at The Junto, I’ve pointed out the way new historians of capitalism have made a feature out of their resistance to defining the primary term. Clegg puts that resistance at the centre of his critique. “None of them,” he writes, “seem interested in asking what capitalism is” (281). As a result, he argues, “these authors fail to explain how the various features of the antebellum economy that they identify form part of a coherent capitalist system” (284). That makes it very difficult for them to “engage scholars in other fields and contribute to contemporary political and economic debates” (282).