What is the aim of this book? (synopsis part 1)

Following this week’s blog post, Linde Lindkvist asked me how I crafted my synopsis. It turned out that this question required a fairly long answer. In fact, even a two-part answer. My synopsis has in fact emerged over a number of years. There are embryos from 2016 and onwards. However, other commitments have emerged from time to time. I’m happy about that today. My thought and writing process has benefitted from this extra time.

The actual research process, however, has been long and winding. Starting in the fall of 2014, I have studied the breakthrough of environmental issues in various projects. I started with the intense Swedish debate on the future in the spring of 1972, after which I mainly focused on the emergence of environmental concern in the second half of the 1960s, in particular the fall of 1967. This, I would argue, is when the major breakthrough occurred in Swedish society. This is also one of the key points I want to make in my book. 

The bulk of my results are published in peer-reviewed journal articles. Quite a few people have read one or two of these. But I’m reasonably sure that only a handful of people have read them all. I probably know all these readers personally. This is obviously not optimal. If I want my most important findings to reach more people, then the journal article format won’t do. I need a monograph. 

During the course of the research process, I have thought a lot about whether to write in Swedish or English. In terms of my CV and career, the choice is simple. A monograph published by an international publishing house greatly increases your chances of getting permanent positions and receiving future research grants. In light of this, I read the book Thinking Like Your Editor (2003) in the spring of 2017 and started to prepare myself to write a book proposal. One of the things this book highlighted for me was a clearer audience focus. Who do I want to read my book and why? And what do I want the book to do to me? Who do I want to become? 

These are not questions with simple and obvious answers. As I see it, however, it’s important to carefully consider them before starting to craft a synopsis. Because a book is written to be read by others. It also does things – and not just to its readers. Books may result in academics being perceived, and treated, as experts. But in which areas do you want to be an expert? What do you want to do in such a role? And what do you want the finished book to result in? Do you want to continue doing research and writing in the same field? Or do you want to pursue a different path? 

The answers to these questions are key for crafting a synopsis. In addition, it’s obviously necessary to take into account what you can actually say something substantial and reasonably original about. The book must be based on your research, your knowledge and your ability. Otherwise, it will never be written. 

So, what do I want my book to do? Who do I want to read it? Well, first of all, I want the book to put an end to my research on the breakthrough of environmental issues. I have spent more than five years on this theme, and I am now ready to move on to new fields of research. There are 5–6 larger points I want to make. I want to offer these as a comprehensive contribution to the field of environmental history. My hope is that other academics will relate to and build upon these points. As far as I am concerned, I am – at least for the foreseeable future – done. I will have said what I can on this topic. 

Second, I want the book to illustrate the intellectual potential of the new history of knowledge. Simultaneously with my research on the breakthrough of environmental issues, I have tried to establish and develop this field together with a growing group of close colleagues. In my second book, I would like to give a concrete example of how a history of knowledge approach – with a focus on social circulation of knowledge – impacts how we write history. History of knowledge is not just a new name for things historians have done for a long time. Here, I want my second book to constitute a convincing case in point. 

Third, I believe that the topic of my book is not only current but also relevant to society, which, in turn, requires me to write for a wider audience than just my peers. Environmental and climate issues are no less topical today than they were in 1970. However, medium-term temporal perspectives are uncommon in the public and political debate. I find this problematic, as these are the intervals where lives are lived, decisions taken, systems built, policies made and changes occur. May we in fact learn from the historical experiences made during the last fifty years? Not impossible. 

These are the three things I want my book to achieve. The readers I address are thus both the scholarly community – especially environmental historians, historians of knowledge and post-war historians, but also academics in the environmental humanities. In addition, I write for a general public interested in societal issues and caring for the environment, some of whom have personal memories from the years I focus on.

For these reasons, I also write in Swedish. I think this gives me the best opportunity to be read and understood by both of these groups. Eventually, however, I still hope that the book will be translated into English so that it may be read by the international scholarly community. 

This post has already turned out to be quite long, which is why I end it here. In the next part of this series, I discuss how I proceeded from these more overall goals and ambitions to craft a synopsis.

---------

Do you want to sign up for the blogs mailing-list? Send an e-mail to david.larsson_heidenblad@hist.lu.se