opfplanet.blogg.se

In defense of history richard evans
In defense of history richard evans




in defense of history richard evans in defense of history richard evans in defense of history richard evans

However, Hayden White is noticeably absent, and there is only a brief mention of Foucault. The title suggests that a heavy dose of Foucault would be contained with the work.

in defense of history richard evans

It would appear Evans is not a postmodernism expert, but he does possess specific preferences and opinions. Ĭlearly, these alleged disparities are critiqued mercilessly. To this extent, postmodern critique has not only been successful but also liberating. What has happened, undeniably, is that is has lost, or is in the course of abandoning, its universalizing claim to be the key to the whole of historical understanding. Evans writes:ĭespite all the various pronouncements of its demise by postmodernists, social history is not dead. The book suggests there are various versions, if you will, of postmodernism. Evans` In Defense of History intends to protect the mainstream belief of historiography, as historian Lawrence stone proclaims, to call “upon historians to arm themselves to repel the new intellectual barbarians at the disciplinary gates.” Moreover, the focus is upon the Lacanians, semioticians, Foucaudaldians, etc. Evans - In Defense of HistoryĢ0171_HIST_6030_01_1: Graduate Historiography "Essential reading for coming generations."-Keith Thomas.​ Richard J. Evans brings "a remarkable range, a nose for the archives, a taste for controversy, and a fluent pen" (The New Republic) to this splendid work. Evans defends this commitment to historical knowledge from the attacks of postmodernist critics who see all judgments as subjective. To materials that are frustratingly meager, or overwhelmingly profuse, they bring an array of tools that range from agreed-upon rules of documentation and powerful computer models to the skilled investigator's sudden insight, all employed with the aim of reconstructing a verifiable, usable past. Evans shows us how historians manage to extract meaning from the recalcitrant past. In his compact, intriguing survey, Richard J. Carr's "What Is History?", a classic introduction to the field, may now give way to a worthy successor. A master practitioner gives us an entertaining tour of the historian's workshop and a spirited defense of the search for historical truth.






In defense of history richard evans