In Defense of History

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!

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.

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.

Dr. Evans produced an enlightening, thorough defense of history against its post-modernist opponents. We gain further insight into how professional historians work. We learn how they manage to assemble a useful, accurate version of the past from meager, convoluted, or disintegrating sources.Of special interest to students of history like myself is the section "The History of History." This chapter chronicles and examines the various historical methods such as Rankean document analysis.Evans mounts a thorough defense of history by exposing post-modernism's inherent contradictions. For instance, post-modernism crumbles when its reliance on relativism is applied to itself. For example, if absolute relativism is correct, Holocaust deniers and racists construct history just as accurate as anyone else. Furthermore, post-modernists criticize historians for using the past to advance their own agendas while at the same time doing likewise! One need only look at how "black studies" makes ludicrous, historically implausible claims presumably in an attempt to raise African American student's self-esteem. However, I think that Evans may be too respectful toward the post-modernists. These so-called scholars are intellectually dishonest. Their supposed contributions to the close examination of documents have been around for nearly two centuries (1830).Please consider "The Truth of History" by C. Behan McCullagh and "The Killing of History" by Keith Windschuttle for additional reading.Note: I use the term post-modernist, but similar terms like "post-structuralist", "cultural studies", and so forth mean the same thing. Academic fashion among post-modernists helps brush critiques of post-modernism aside (e.g. "post-modernism is out of date").

+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-