In Defense of History

Like most historians, Evans confronts accusations that history is either dead or mere ideology designed to prop up bourgeois institutions by answering that the past "really happened, and we really can, if we are very scrupulous and careful and self-critical ... reach some tenable conclusions about what it all meant." Evans defends time-honored methods for proving the validity of facts, upholding faith in the notion that causality can be reasonably deduced from the proper chronological arrangement of events. Verification and causation, he points out, do not simply mean that change is initiated by singular people or monolithic institutions, and he rebukes those who portray recent writing in social history in such medievalist terms. Unlike conservative diatribists against postmodernism, Evans believes that the "linguistic turn" can help break historians from the narrowness of theoretical orthodoxy. While critical of postmodern excesses, he supports conjoining various methods of intellectual inquiry so as to deepen the relevance of history in an overly skeptical age. "Why should we not too," he asks, "raid the various genres of historical writing which have been developed over the past couple of centuries to enrich our own historical practice today?" --John Anderson

---

All Customer Reviews
Average Customer Review:
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Interesting, but Limited Appeal, 2008-09-09
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.


0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

In Defense Of History-Good Book, 2008-09-07
The book was received in excellent time and great condition!

Richard Evans is a very engagng historian.


0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:

Good critic, nice message, 2008-09-01
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!


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Important book for me, it could be for you too!, 2007-03-02
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.


0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

How to Write History....., 2006-06-18
Richard Evans attacks a controversial topic on the world of history today -- how to write history. There are many schools of theory in the historical profession which can affect the way historians view historical sources. Evans particulary narrows his viewpoint to those historians known as "post-modernists." He does this beccause post-modernists are perhaps some of the most controversial historians, not to mention the very theory itself, in the profession today. He also ponders what place post-modernists do have in the historical profession.

Evans explores how some historians have gotten into trouble with how liberally they took their sources -- concentrating on one scholarly work about the Holocaust.

This book is sure to continue the debate that continues to this day. It is thought provoking and will lead to more debate, to be sure.

Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.