![]() On the contrary: he cites several distinguished recent works of historical scholarship-Simon Schama's Citizens on the French revolution and Orlando Figes's A People's Tragedy on the Russian revolution-as examples of post-modernist history. But nowhere does he claim to refute the whole approach. ![]() True, Evans shoots down the more extreme advocates of post-modernist relativism, turning the arguments of "vulgar" post-modernism against its own practitioners to deadly effect. Evans wishes to engage in a dialogue with the post-modernists because he is convinced that-although "the theory of history is too important to be left to the theoreticians"-working historians such as himself have something to learn from post-modernist thinkers such as Hayden White. This is not quite how the author himself sees his task. ![]() Some reviewers of In Defence of History have seen it as a tract against post-modernist attempts to subvert conventional history by treating it as merely one "discourse" among others. It is not clear what or whom he is defending history against nor is it certain that defending the scholarly habits and practices of his own generation of historians is the same as defending the discipline of history itself. As a polemicist, however, Evans is more problematic. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |