Customer Reviews

In Defense of History

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

There has been an ongoing and vigorous debate in the philosophy of history for the last thirty or so years concerning the ways in which postmodernism should or should not impact the writing of history.
In this delightfully polemical book, Richard Evans does not try to engage the writings of the major postmodernists. Do not expect to find counterarguments to the writings of Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard or de Certeau. It is in the writings of thinkers like Hayden White, Frank Ankersmit, Dominick LaCapra, Keith Jenkins, Elizabeth Ermath, Joan Scott, etc. that the major claims of the postmodernists have been made for history in the English speaking world. It is with their writings that Evans engages in debate. This does not, however, put him in the camp of conservatives like Gertrude Himmelfarb, John Vincent, David Harlan and Keith Windschuttle.
Evans is arguing for a middle position- one that emphasizes the recalcitrance of the "facts", i.e., the historical records. Evans denies that all of history is interpretation and that no one interpretation is better than any other. He believes that careful and honest shifting of the historical record will show some or one interpretations to be better grounded in that record than others. On the other hand, he is excited by some of the possibilities for history that have been opened up by those working historians whose work he admires and who are identified with the postmodern camp, e.g., Simon Schama, Theodore Zeldin and Orlando Figes.
One of the main points of his critique is that Evans feels that postmodernism removes the possibility of any sort of critical perspective- he reiterates the old point that if there is no grounds to prefer one interpretation over another, if there is no such thing as a fact than there is no reason to prefer the views of the standard histories of the Holocaust over those of a denier, e.g., David Irving.
This is not the best of the books I have read recently on historiography. Berkhofer's Beyond the Great Story retains that distinction. It does have the advantage of being very well written, very clear in it's presentation and quite enjoyably feisty. Evans' style is like that of a good lightweight- constantly circling, jabbing his opponents, sensing a weakness and then throwing the combination.
If you think my pugilistic metaphor to be inappropriate, ... for a series of short essays Evans wrote in reply to his many and equally nasty critics. This site is probably the best way to figure out if this book is for you.
As for me, I have come to realize that this is a debate without end. Evans did not really settle anything for me. Neither has anyone else I have read lately. He does give you a lot to think about and he points the reader in the direction of a lot of interesting work done by other people.

I came across this book purely by chance as someone with a BA in history (from almost 40 years ago) who remembered much enjoying EH Carr's What Is History. Well, although he is prone to repetition, I think Evans writes wonderfully well and most persuasively, matches his views with those of a succession of historians, some well known to me and others not at all. As a jury trial lawyer, I relished the similarities and differences in our two professions--as, for example, Evans's reference to Flaubert who said that a historian drinks an ocean only for the purpose of producing a cupful of piss.

+AH4-A most enjoyable and stimulating review of the purpose, methods and practice of history. Professor Evans is most adept at exposing fallacies and contradictions in the post-modern critique of history; while at the same time pointing out how some concepts of postmodernism can bring a breath of fresh air to history. His discussion of sources is excellent. He colorfully reviews individual historians and their methods and thoughts; not holding back where criticsm is needed. His analysis of the Paul+AH4-+AH4- De Man controversy seemed right on the money. A wonderful overview of the current state of history with emphasis on postmodern attacks, with a staunch and stout defense of the classical, objective center.+AH4-

This book is a sensible (if meandering) defense of mainstream historiography against the claims of post-modernists. I gave the book four stars instead of five because Evans is defensive to a fault and too respectful of post-modernist hype. Post-modernism is surely one of the dopier intellectual fads of the late 20th century. Good historians have always been careful to read documents critically; they have always known that interpretations of source material can be shaped by extra-historiographical considerations. This element of "looseness" is an invitation to rational discussion of the historical record. It is not proof that rational discussion is impossible or that historians are condemned to irreducible subjective bias. Working historians should treat post-modernism the way working scientists do: by ignoring it and going about their business.

Richard Evans is a British historian. In this book he sets out a considered course for the practice of history, one that aims to pursue a course between the twin evils of overly conservative, objective positivism and a left-leaning, liberal postmodernism. The book has been billed as a defence of history against its more postmodernist abusers but I don't think this is true. Evans attacks the sterility of fellow British historians Sir Geoffrey Elton and E.H. Carr (and American historian Gertrude Himmelfarb) as much as he attacks a Hayden White, Keith Jenkins or Frank Ankersmit (all devils in disguise to conservative historians).

For all this I don't think that Evans says much for all the ink he has spilt. What perseveres through Evans' prose is nothing more (but perhaps nothing more is needed) than Evans' belief that we can do history, we can get at what happened in the past and we can deal critically, and beneficially, with the materials at our disposal. Evans writes what amounts to a defence of "doing history" as oppsed to theorising about history. Indeed, Evans is not hot on theory (he should perhaps steer clear of it in future) and his less than ample interaction with his opponents of the postmodernist persuasion in this book suggests to this reader that he is more of a distant acquaitance of their work than an intimate. A historian's rule of thumb comes into play here: if they mention something but don't interact with it to any great degree then assume they don't really know much about it.

Evans is largely an irenic and uncontroversial supporter of a broadly conservative historical approach. He is in defence of all the traditional (that is, post-Enlightenment) things such as "facts", "objectivity" and "truth" whilst espousing a weak acceptance of some postmodernist proposals. Evans' usual trick here is to claim that actually the benefits of a lightly-worn postmodernism (such as accepting that historians affect and colour their own historical researches) are actually things that all real historians knew all along anyway. This is a neat, if obvious, trick and sometimes he almost gets away with it.

I have one major complaint. Evans repeatedly refers to "postmodernist hyper-relativism" but he never tells us what this is either briefly or, which would be more satisfactory, in detail. Once again, Evans might be proffering a phantom menace. At the very least it allows us, story-like, to conjure up our own historical demon to fight against as we read. In the end one is left with the conviction that theorists should theorise and historians like Evans should get on with DOING history. Personally I think that Evans' history books are a better defence of "history" (whatever that is, again he never defines) than this book turns out to be.

I have read more memorable and more exciting history books than "In Defense of History." However, I will always regard it with affection. This book in its small way is the reason I decided (over 2 years after reading it) to major in history and become a(n) historian. I had always enjoyed history, but not so much the dry history tomes students are often required to read. Evans book was accessible and witty and downright interesting. If you are interested in historiography or the philosophy of history, something few students are exposed to except at the Ph.D level, this is a great introduction. At the time I read this I did not even know it could be considered a rebuttal to Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man." I hadn't even heard of Fukuyama then. Once I realized this, I loved history even more. Some books shape us not by their contents, but by ours. Any book can be a life-changing one, if you let it.

Evans is an historian that loves his job. He writes clearly and soberly, giving to the reader an outstanding set of arguments against "post modernism" that challenge the possibility of write history itself.
This is a book for historians and general public, with two messages for the researcher: (1)be humble with the past and (2)be rigorous in your task. In the end, there is no old or new history, but good or bad history. Excelsior!

Richard Evans' book analyzes history as a discipline and tackles subjects as objectivity, causation, history vs science, sources and discourses. I was assigned this book for a graduate course on historiography. Evans presents his thesis and supports his arguments well. In Defense of History is a good companion to David Fischer's Historians' Fallacies, Davidson and Lytle's After the Fact and Mark Gilderhus' History and Historians.

Interesting but not engrossing refutation of the alleged post modern attack on the discipline of history. It probably seems more important if you take the post modern attack seriously to begin with, and I don't. It is true that historians write only their interpretation of history, and not the actual fact of history, but this is something that all historians worth their salt are keenly aware of, and while it is a fault of the discipline in a very real sense, it is also one that cannot be overcome. Everything is filtered through people, that is simply the nature of our existence, this does not mean either that history is meaningless or even that all interpretations of history are equally valid, it simply means we must read widely and critically to arrive at the truth of what happened and what the events mean. If the post modernists are correct, then Holocaust denier's versions of WW2 are just as valid as those relying on the facts of what happened, the notion is, of course, absurd. The deniers' position, based on prejudice in the service of a political agenda is not just as valid as that of true historians, no matter how biased the latter may be. Further, some things did happen, no matter how much we might enjoy musing about the illusionary nature of realty and Evens is right to point this out. The book is on the whole worthy, engagingly written in Evens usual accessible style, but given its intellectual obsessions is of perhaps limited interest to those outside the discipline of history. Of course, there is quite a bit of talk of historiography, which might be of interest to some.

Each generation reflects on the sense and non-sense of history - and a historian ambitioning to be a "master practitioner" sooner or later succumbs to the urge to write a book on this topic. By stepping in the footsteps of E. H. Carr and Sir Geoffrey Elton, the author stakes out the claim. This urge is given urgency by post-modernism, which (in the author's view) is savaging the discipline. In so doing, the author has simply written a tract. All tracts (as all incidental matters) in the end disappoint. This book is no exception: it is rather dull, repetitive, and meandering, and in the end, too self-consciously self-important.

The basic reason for this is the author's failure to look outside the tea pot of history writing (and its tempests) for advances in epistemiology, philosophy, and logic as well as sciences. Had he done so, he would have realized that many of his positions are plain untenable. Below but a few - one could extend the excursion to areas as diverse as evolution, consciousness, and anthropology.

Take this statement on p. 110 (which may stand for other versions of the same thought elsewhere in the book): "...interpretations really can be tested and confirmed or falsified by an appeal to the evidence..." Had he read Karl POPPER he would know, that "confirmation" is logically impossible, and that anyone believing this is in the thrall of "confirmation bias". Evidence may disprove a conjecture - I hate the word theory, which is used malappropriatedly in the social sciences (a case of p-envy with respect to physics) - but never confirm. Add to the principle point the fact that history is a middens: facts have been thrown into it pell-mell, and many have gone under, either fortuitously or by design. We may never be sure that all the relevant facts have been preserved or discovered. Finally, the "facts" and "sources" are dodgy at best. When Ranke writes that the sources can tell us "Geschichte wie es wirklich war" - one can only burst out laughing. Wirklich, Herr Professor? Having participated in the construction of archival evidence of my government I know, for one, that the record seldom reflects the motivations of the deciders, and is often only a running screen behind which the real horse-trading of power takes place.

Another example of weak argumentation is the right-wing argument against relativism: "Once postmodernist hyper-relativism's principles are applied to itself, many arguments begin to collapse under the weight of their own contradictions" (p. 190). Self-referential arguments have been debated by philosophers on and off for most of the XXth century. We know by now that they cannot be used to self-invalidate - see the long litany of philosophers who have grappled with it (from Russell, to Gödel, and beyond). Some arguments may simply not be decided - so the argument is inherently insipid. An amusing example of "self-referential statements" that cannot be decided is the note Kant wrote to himself, and found among his papers: "Forget Lampe". Lampe was a servant, Kant had been fond of, but had to fire on grounds of theft.

A third example is the messy treatment of causation in history. On p. 113 the author makes light of A.J. P. Taylor's view that "tiny causes have vast consequences". Alas for Dr. EVANS, this is indeed so, as complexity theory has proven. If a butterfly can trigger a hurricane in New York (and it might do just that, as we know) it is impossible to go back and identify which butterfly was the culprit. Causation is a fickle master, and there is no easy relation between the two.

The author rejects the idea that "narratives do not exist in the past itself but are all put there by the historian" (p. 120) and points to "the narrative is there in the sources, lived and thought by the people we are writing about: German or Italian unification...". Lived through in the case of Italy? One is left wondering: 2% of Italians spoke the language! Italian historiography is tentatively emerging just now from the nationalist drall that has transformed a civil war after the occupation of the Kingdom of Naples into "banditism". And the mainstream history-writing about WWI still has to face up to the fact that "irredentism" was a sham for a few politicians' ambition to create an empire in the eastern Mediterranean. Even mainstream American history is not devoid of glaring selectivity in the presentation of the "the evidence". The role of slavery in the US Constitution is hardly properly mentioned (or the 3/5 rule); the pivotal role of Spain in the Revolutionary War is seldom referred to, for it detracts from Yorktown; the indirect yet critical involvement of New England in the running of the Caribbean sugar economy is forgotten; and there are more instances of "gaps"...

A final point about "minority issues": reading ancient Chinese history one hardly finds reference to the economic role and importance of silk weaving - yet taxes were partially paid in silk. Textiles in the ancient Mediterranean are hardly an issue for the "ancient economy" - despite the fact that probably over 50% of household effort was devoted to textile production by women. One is left to wonder whether this "oversight" is not linked to the fact most historians are men...

Admittedly many of the claims of the hyper-relativists are fatuous, and best forgotten. Their impenetrable jargon is enough justification for ignoring them. Any "argument from principle" is in any case vacuous, particularly in history, which deals with material reality - albeit a reality long past. But many points are valid, and recent history writing has been leavened and livened by their reflections. History writing hovers precariously between fact and fiction: it is never final or finished - yet it teaches us to understand and cope with humanity's as well as life's unending diversity. There lies its value - and any historian who, honestly, undertakes to illuminate diversity, complexity, and life's contradictions should be encouraged - provided he writes in plain language.