Scholarship as “Intellectual Kinship”: Richard Bushman’s Vision for the Academic Community

By September 5, 2011

In order for the “Mormon Moment” (however you define it) to be successful, there must be able explicators. In the last half-dozen years, there have been few better faces of Mormonism than Richard Bushman. (See, for instance, the recent write-up here.) Whether the topic is Joseph Smith, religious fanaticism, or even the “Book of Mormon” musical, Bushman has been a go-to voice for reporters, and his insights are often poignant and insightful. He is the perfect blend of approachability, reasonable credentials (many of the highest academic awards, prestigious chair at an Ivy League institution), and brilliance. What makes him so likable in the public sphere is not just what he says, but how he says it.

Importantly, that is also one of the things that makes him so likable in academia. Long before Richard Bushman was the media darling and “chief explainer” of Mormonism, he was the Bancroft-winning, paradigm-changing historian of early America. In honor of his academic career, Grant Underwood put together a blue-ribbon panel of respected scholars to reevaluate Bushman’s works at the 2011 annual conference of the American Historical Association. Panelists included Harry Stout (Jonathan Edwards Professor of American Christianity at Yale University), Gordon S. Woods (Alva O. Way University Professor Emeritus at Brown University), Catherine E. Kelly (Associate Professor of History at the University of Oklahoma), and Laurie Maffley-Kipp (Professor and Chair of the Religious Studies Department, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill). All of these presentations, along with Bushman’s response, were published in the most recent issue of Dialogue, and I encourage everyone to subscribe so you can read it ASAP.

While there are numerous parts of the roundtable that deserve to be highlighted—and perhaps I will try to highlight other portions in future posts—I wanted to touch on on specific point Bushman brought up. (A point that he echoed in his remarks at this summer’s conference in his honor.) After thanking Underwood for organizing the panel and for the panelists for taking part, Bushman said this:

I want to use the occasion to reflect a little on what this all means. At the Harvard commencement, the president welcomes the new graduates into the company of educated men and women. Today I wish to celebrate the company of men and women historians. I have been teaching American religion at Claremont Graduate University this past year, and it has brought me great pleasure to find how many of the books I assign were written by people I know. I know their styles, a few personal idiosyncrasies, and something of what matters to them. Although I see them only occasionally, I still feel that we constitute a circle of friends as well as group of scholars. Perhaps one of the most important parts of becoming an historian is to be initiated into that circle.

In forming these academic friendships, our books are our surrogate selves, commonly our initial introductions to one another. I rode up in an elevator at a convention once with David Hall; and glancing down at the nametag of another conventioneer, David snapped out two titles. There was instant recognition. Had there been time, there could have been conversation. In this company of historians, person and writing merge. As we become better acquainted, we begin to hear personality coming through the words on the printed page. That?s so like her, I say to myself. Knowledge of the person helps us to understand the writing better, and the writing opens up the person. The combination creates a kind of intellectual kinship that is one of the great rewards of our profession.

Such is the tone and respectability that has made Bushman both a media darling and such an imposing (albeit generous) figure in Mormon studies. His vision of the academy is the composition of friends working together in better understanding the past. This better explains his comments in Journal of American History a few years ago: both his description of the New Mormon History as “a peace mission, expressing a desire for intellectual commerce with a nation that had once seemed like a wall of enmity to Utah Mormons,” as well as his desire to define (and, interestingly, chastise) Mormon apologetics:

The apologists still feel that they are living in a hostile world. The church has real enemies, they firmly believe, and war has to be waged. Not all of the apologists write pugnaciously, but they all write defensively. If not exactly at war with an enemy, they are certainly engaged in debate…The apologists zealously propound rational arguments to counter the critics of Joseph Smith and accumulate piles of evidence to demonstrate the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Every educated Mormon knows of these battles and watches their progress with interest…The apologists wonder why the historians do not spring to the defense of the faith when Joseph Smith comes under attack. The apologists want to war with the critics; the historians ask them out to lunch.

This is contrasted with Bushman’s vision of the future of Mormon history, which is to be written by scholars “less defensive, more open to criticism, [and] more exploratory and venturous”—in short, scholars who are more open, genteel, and generous in their approach.Scholars who are not so interested in battling against the broader world but engaging with it. When scholarship turns into a forum of battle, as seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s, scholarship often falls apart. The best insights often result within an environment of free, open, and supported inquiry, a community of friends working together no matter their different perspectives. Perhaps Mormonism is too fraught a field to accomplish such an Eden, but Bushman is dedicated to at least give it a try.

For Mormonism to enter an “Age of Cultural Power”—as he remarked at the 2011 summer conference—it must first be dedicated to a better interaction with its surrounding culture. Writing in a way that encourages an “intellectual kinship” is an important step in that endeavor.


*Richard Bushman, “What’s New in Mormon History? A Response to Jan Shipps,” Journal of American History (September 2007): 517-521.

Article filed under Book and Journal Reviews Conference/Presentation Reports Historiography Methodology, Academic Issues State of the Discipline


  1. Excellent work Ben. Reminiscent of Stuart Parker’s essay on Bushman’s methodology of generosity at the summer conference in Bushman’s honor. Also, Bushman’s remarks from that same conference: “”All books and articles we write are acts of friendship. Every piece of scholarship is a yearning to join a broader group of friends.”

    Love that.

    Comment by Jacob B. — September 5, 2011 @ 9:18 am

  2. It may be worth noting for JI’s readers, or, for that matter, for anyone interested in writing about history, Bushman’s 7 rules (taken from the DN article of Sept. 4) for “talking with the media”:
    1. Be generous, not defensive.
    2. Acknowledge problems.
    3. Find new ways to say things.
    4. Remember reporters [and readers] want to get it right.
    5. Don’t try to prove, try to tell the truth.
    6. Who you are is part of the message.
    7. Speak [write] from the heart.

    Comment by Gary Bergera — September 5, 2011 @ 10:26 am

  3. Nice, Ben! I vaguely remember a distinction that Aristotle (or Plato or some Greek guy) makes about kinds of friendships. One is an intellectual kind–people with whom you dialogue and value their criticism. A classics scholar could probably help here, but the general concept falls in line with Bushman’s general approach to historians and history (a generous, actor-centered approach).

    Comment by David Howlett — September 5, 2011 @ 10:33 am

  4. Ben–

    Thanks for this. Prof. Bushman’s concept of “friendship”–especially in this day and age when “friend” has a very different meaning–as well as “faithful history” should be guiding lights for us all.

    Comment by Max — September 5, 2011 @ 11:18 am

  5. In my dealings with Bushman, I can say he practices what he preaches. However, having been on the receiving end of the apologists? barbs, I must say that I?m not that put off by them or threatened. I think there has been some unnecessary roughness, but I think they definitely have a role in the scholarly community. I don?t wish to marginalize any group that is trying to contribute to our knowledge, because that would limit my chances for growth.

    Comment by Dan Vogel — September 5, 2011 @ 11:37 am

  6. Very nice, Ben. Richard spoke on this them at the AHA meeting session devoted to his work. His remarks are in the Fall issue of Dialogue, but here’s a link for non-subscribers:

    Comment by Kristine — September 5, 2011 @ 11:40 am

  7. Thank you Ben for the write-up.

    My personal experience with Dr. Bushman has been very positive. I have found him gracious and engaging.

    I completely agree with what Dan has written; that it is counter product to ones life to marginalize any group. I think Dr. Bushman has built and continues to build many bridges between groups.

    It is very good to see people acknowledging Dr. Bushman’s contributions.

    Comment by Joe Geisner — September 5, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

  8. Non-subscribers? Surely there are no such creatures who read the JI…

    On a smaller scale I’ve experienced what Richard talks about at gatherings such as MHA. That personal interaction and friendship make all the difference in the world.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — September 5, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

  9. Well said Dan. It’s unfortunate how often heat pops up in apologetic discussions. (Sadly even I have been guilty of it in the past)

    Comment by Clark — September 5, 2011 @ 10:17 pm


Recent Comments

J Stuart on Roundtable on Quincy Newell’s: “Thanks, Janiece. I'm fascinated by the community dynamics in 19C Mormonism. So much has (rightly) been made of insider/outsider mentality, but I'd love to see…”

Hannah J on Roundtable on Quincy Newell's: “Thanks for this Joey - I really liked the idea you explored here that epistemological uncertainty is key to exploring underrepresented histories!”

Jeff T on Roundtable on Quincy Newell’s: “Thanks, JJohnson!”

Jeff T on Roundtable on Quincy Newell's: “Thanks for this, J. I love that you highlighted language and method and thought historiographically, here. Lots to chew on. I can't wait to read…”

J Stuart on 2020 Mormon History Association: “Good point, Quincy! There's no reason to send in an all-male panel. There is plenty of time to network with women.”

Hannah on DH and the Woman's: “Thanks for this great post and run-down of topic modeling. Cheers Jeff!”