It’s nearly impossible to look at Brooklyn College’s Department of History without encountering the lasting influence of David Troyansky. A renowned scholar of European and French social and cultural history, as well as the history of aging, Troyansky joined the faculty in 2005 and quickly became a cornerstone of the department, Brooklyn College, and the CUNY Graduate Center.

His research explores the intersections of culture, memory, aging, and identity—bringing nuanced perspectives to the classroom and the broader academic world. Over the years, his work garnered numerous accolades and contributed to a more complex understanding of the historical experience of aging and the ways societies remember their pasts.

Troyansky served in a number of leadership roles at the college, including chairing the Department of History and helping to steer academic programs. But his work helping bring top faculty to the department might be his most impactful contribution that is still paying dividends.

With history and the humanities facing serious political and technological challenges, and with Troyansky having retired from teaching after the spring semester, he talked about the state of history and the strengths of the department.

Why does history—and your particular focus—still resonate today?

History is about change and continuity. We’re constantly experiencing it, and it only becomes comprehensible in retrospect. It can be source-driven, a matter of discovery and interpretation of documents, and it can be problem-driven, an approach that is often connected to how we understand our present. France isn’t the great power it once was, but French social, cultural, and political histories provide lenses through which to make sense of modern and postmodern realities. And the French republic, born in revolution, offers a convenient parallel and contrast to the American republic in which we live. Both have virtues; both have flaws.

As for the history of old age, there wasn’t much when I was among the pioneers in the field, but we seem to be experiencing a renewed interest as people think about demographic aging, intergenerational relations, and the future of work, retirement, and social security.

What first sparked your interest in your areas of expertise?

If the area of expertise is Europe, that interest goes back to childhood in the New York City of the mid-20th century. Growing up in Brooklyn, I was aware of my family’s connection to the European past and European culture.

If the area is France, that goes back to a childhood visit to Paris in 1968, just weeks after the student revolt. But it probably has more to do with the influence of a professor, Carl Weiner at Carleton College, who introduced me to French history and, perhaps more importantly, French ways of doing history that had ramifications worldwide.

And if the area is the history of aging, it goes back to a seminar in graduate school at Brandeis University that focused on the history of the family. In retrospect, my interest in old age goes back to a childhood in which I had close relationships with all my grandparents. (Listen to Troyansky discuss the history of aging on the International Horizons podcast courtesy of the CUNY Graduate Center here.)

You have been credited with helping identify some great faculty who are still teaching at Brooklyn College. How did that come about?

When I arrived here from Texas Tech University in 2005, the department had been facing some challenges—partly professional, partly political, and partly personal. I was tasked to create a more cooperative and trusting environment, to hire well, and to mentor those new hires. A quick succession of retirements meant that I oversaw the appointment of eight faculty—half the current faculty arrived under my watch. They are terrific teachers and scholars, as are the faculty who greeted me upon my arrival and are still here: Associate Professor Philip Napoli (oral history and New York City, and current Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences), and professors KC Johnson (U.S. political), Andrew Meyer (Chinese intellectual), Steven Remy (Germany), and Gunja SenGupta (race and gender in the United States and comparative history).

In terms of dedication to students and range of teaching methods, contributions to scholarship, and service to the college and the profession, I can’t imagine a better department.

Who in the department do you feel is continuing your legacy?

Everyone. We rebuilt this department together, and I’m confident that my colleagues—friends, really—will maintain their devotion to students, their fields of research, and the college. I regret that none of the current personnel will be continuing to offer French history, but modern Europe is in the capable hands of Steven Remy and Brigid O’Keeffe; my course on early modern Europe, “Love, Death, and Magic in Europe, 1500–1800,”will become Professor Lauren Mancia’s to develop as she likes; and Professor Swapna Banerjee will be carrying on my interest in family history.

What do you feel is the strength of the department?

The breadth of the faculty’s interests in both time and space is breathtaking, and this has implications for teaching as well as research. Hires during my chairmanship permitted us to maintain strengths in South Asia through faculty member Swapna Banerjee, Latin America through Christopher Ebert, Russia through Brigid O’Keeffe, and the Middle East through Louis Fishman.

We were also able to reach out to fields we hadn’t covered before. We had had no one teaching environmental history, now being taught by Professor Michael Rawson, the history of public health (Professor Christian Warren), ancient material culture (Professor Karen Stern), or the history of emotion (Professor Lauren Mancia).

And since I stepped down as chair in 2013 to return to the full-time teaching faculty, the department has reinforced traditional strengths in the American Revolution and New York City (Benjamin Carp) and branched out into the history of Asian diasporas (Alvin Khiêm Bùi). We can offer a real feast to our students.

How would you respond to someone who questions the relevance of studying history to achieving career success in today’s world?

Let’s not ignore the non-economic benefits of the study of history—a chance to dig deep into subjects that are fascinating for their own sake, to explore family and community heritage, and to situate ourselves in the world—but the more practical benefits are multiple. Students come away with both skills and content knowledge. The skills involve research and writing, oral communication, and the ability to recognize patterns over time and the complexity of major social, political, and cultural issues.

As for content, whenever we speak of liberty and constitutionalism, inequality and struggle, or work and progress, we are rooting ourselves in history. We must not think that we’re always reinventing the wheel. Even in dealing with artificial intelligence, we might think back to earlier revolutions in communication and the dissemination of knowledge.

Many of our students go on to careers in law and teaching, library and information science, government, and business. Students with more “practical” majors may more easily land the first job, but eventually they may find that their employers, like so many CEOs and labor and political leaders, were history majors.

Read more about the faculty in Brooklyn College’s History Department here: