All Categories
    Filters
    Preferences
    Search

    Richard J. Evans' In Defence of History

    £5.85
    £6.50
    Price-Match is available in-store for recommended titles in CCCU module handbooks
    ISBN: 9781912128778
    Products specifications
    Attribute nameAttribute value
    AuthorPiercey, Nicholas
    Pub Date15/07/2017
    BindingPaperback
    Pages108
    Publisher: Macat International Limited
    Ship to
    *
    *
    Shipping Method
    Name
    Estimated Delivery
    Price
    No shipping options
    Availability: Out of Stock
    Postmodernist thinkers consider history to be not very far removed from a work of fiction, something dependent on historians' own interpretations of the past. Evans, however, argues that we can trust history and it is possible to be objective about what happened and what caused it to happen.

    Richard Evans wrote In Defence of History at a time when the historian's profession was coming under heavy attack as a result of the `cultural turn' taken by the discipline during the late 1980s and the 1990s. Historians were being forced to face up to postmodern thinking, which argued that, because all texts were the product of biased writers who had incomplete information, none could be privileged above others. In this reading, there could be no objective history, merely the study of the texts themselves.
    While In Defence of History addresses all aspects of historical method, its key focus is on an extensive evaluation of this postmodern thinking. Evans judges the acceptability of the reasoning advanced by the postmodernists - and finds it badly wanting. He is strongly critical both of the relevance and of the adequacy of their arguments, seeking to show that, ultimately, they are guilty of failing to accept the logic of their own position. All texts are equally valid, or invalid, they suggest - while insisting that the products of their own school are in fact more `true' than those of their opponents. Evans concludes by pointing out that this same argument could be advanced to suggest that the works of Holocaust deniers are just as valid as are those of historians who accept that the Nazis set out to commit genocide. So why, he demands, is no postmodernist willing to say as much? A devastating example of the usefulness of relentless evaluation.