>>Sorry to be cheeky, but the English are really not the world's best historians.
what's your reading of the Cambridge gang: Christopher Hill and company? Hill's history of the Luddites and other radical movements is an interesting text http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/hill1.html and, what's your take on Joseph Needham? (well, not a trained historian, but) abhishek On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Indrajit Gupta <bonoba...@yahoo.co.in>wrote: > > Read me at: > > > --- On Fri, 15/10/10, Pranesh Prakash <the.solips...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Pranesh Prakash <the.solips...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective? > > To: silklist@lists.hserus.net > > Date: Friday, 15 October, 2010, 17:52 > > On 2010-10-14 14:07, Deepa Mohan > > wrote: > > > This thread is getting as abstruse as its > > subject....ABHISHEK! what is > > > historiography?? > > > > Two excellent, lucid, and short introductions to > > historiography are E.H. > > Carr's *What is History?* and Keith Jenkins' *Re-thinking > > History*. > > (And surprisingly, I find myself aiding thread non-drift, > > at least > > vis-à-vis the e-mail subject, by copy-pasting the > > following paragraphs > > on historiography.) > > > > From an review by Christropher Kent of *On "What is > > History" : From Carr > > and Elton to Rorty and White* by Keith Jenkins: > > > > > "What is history?" asked E.H. Carr. His answer, terse, > > lucid and dogmatic, made his book of that title the best > > selling introduction to historiography that it still remains > > nearly forty years later. Several generations of historians > > have cut their teeth on it. Chief among its few competitors > > has been Geoffrey Elton's The Practice of History (1967), > > almost as terse, lucid and dogmatic, and aimed directly at > > Carr whose unabashed Whiggism, with its presentist and > > determinist tendencies, is confronted with the Toryism of > > historicism, history for its own sake, and suspicion of > > social scientism. Pairing these two books for teaching > > purposes staged a satisfying contest between history's two > > most basic theoretical positions. An additional attraction > > was the contrast of intended audiences between Carr's more > > generalized "intelligent reader" -- Carr was a professional > > diplomat and editorial writer for The Times as well as an > > historian -- and Elton's more exclusive attention to the pr > > actitioner of academic history. Carr emerged on top, by the > > verdict of the market place, not least because his emphasis > > on the social and his left of centre progressivism were in > > tune with the upsurge of social history in the 1960s and > > 1970s. Elton is out of print: Carr remains profitably in > > print at forty times the price of the first Penguin edition > > of 1964, having sold over a quarter million copies. > > > > > > But nobody has yet published a book titled "What is > > Historiography?"-- rather surprisingly, given that > > historiography is currently all the rage among publishers. > > Whether historians are all that interested is another > > matter. A fairly recent survey of the profession in the U.S. > > found that only one percent of historians considered it > > their primary or even secondary field.(1) One reason for > > this attitude is perhaps that historiography is considered > > vaguely parasitical. As literary criticism is to literature, > > so is historiography to history: "doing it" is surely > > superior to writing about how it is done. Real historians do > > it in the archive: with primary sources: like Ranke. A > > related reason for historiography's slightly dubious > > reputation is that it promotes self-consciousness, a > > characteristic historians tend to view with suspicion, as > > encouraging at best an unhealthy subjectivity and at worst a > > debilitating preoccupation with matters ontological ("What > > is Reality?) and epistem > > ological ("What is Truth?") that are the philosophers' > > business, not ours. From this standpoint, the pat answer to > > "What Is Historiography?" is "Trying to answer the question > > `What is History?'" > > > > > > There was a time when historiography did not seem to > > matter much. At any rate, I never encountered an > > historiography class throughout my entire student career, > > from 1959 to 1968. The terra, if it meant anything, usually > > meant surveying the prior historical literature on a given > > topic or field -- a "state of play" report. Or it might be > > used as a near synonym for research methodology. One might > > read Carr's irresistibly titled (and short) book, or even > > R.G. Collingwood's more tantalizingly titled and much more > > demanding The Idea of History, in the interests of becoming > > "well-rounded." One might even participate in a debate over > > whether history was an art or a science -- whatever that > > meant. But matters seemed fairly clear cut. Everyone seemed > > to know what history was: it was what historians did. Other > > disciplines confirmed this belief, making it very clear that > > they did not do history. Literature was still committed to > > the "new criticism," strongly antihistoricist in its emph > > asis on the eternal aesthetic achievement of the > > masterpiece, firmly fixed in the canon and untrammelled by > > temporality. Social sciences were militantly anti-historical > > as if their very identities depended on it, as historically > > they indeed had. Philosophers were generally scornful of > > history, which offered few questions of serious interest to > > the dominant analytical school in the Anglo-American world. > > Epistemologically, historical knowledge was deemed inferior > > due to its lack of rigour. Well meant efforts by a school of > > philosophers to elevate it to the higher standard of > > properly scientific knowledge by forcing it into the > > Covering Law Model of explanation proved unconvincing -- the > > type of generalization that resulted was as inelegantly > > encumbered with qualifications as was Ptolemaic astronomy > > with epicycles. At bottom, it had to be admitted, history > > told stories, and what could be less scientific than that? > > > In fact, it is stunningly on topic. If a discussion of GCS' work is not > ultimately a discussion about why historiography seduces a philosopher who > started with literature, it is nothing. > > Whole generations of historians have been wrecked psychologically by the > obdurate insistence of history teachers on avoiding any mention of > historiography. Ludicrous; as if it were not the most important thing, > something to be internalised before being allowed anywhere near a > professional programme of learning history. Professional programme is an > important qualifier; I like reading Alex von Tunzelmann or C. V. Wedgwood > without thinking about the historiographic aspects of their work. > > Sometimes, the historiography shines through; usually, it doesn't. I've > already mentioned Partha Chatterjee's book, and since this is the second > reference I am making to it, I shall now go look it up. > > And here it is: A Princely Impostor: The Kumar of Bhawal & the Secret > History of Indian Nationalism. Unfortunately, it isn't a good first read; a > J. Alfred Prufrock type is liable to have read and re-read it, blogged about > it and tucked it away in the recesses of his mind for frequent allusion. For > those unexposed to at least a first reading of the times and society in that > part of India, it might be heavy going. For some others, as mentioned, it > would have been a breeze and the fun would have been to sense the nature and > composition of society that is revealed, sometimes explicated, but most > often left in implicit terms, and finally tied up in a perorative portion. > > Reading E. H. Carr is good; for the uninitiated, it is probably the most > accessible. Unfortunately, it tends to get overwhelmed by Marxian analyses, > and something different is needed, a post-Marxian reading, if that makes any > sense. > > Again, apart from that, it is clear that most of our discussions are > disastrously narrow-minded, and are restricted to old controversies which > are really not considered very important in the larger order of things; the > moment we use Whiggish and Toryish, we are shown up to be oldish, English, > Oxbridgeish, not even redbrick, just plain old refectory and clerestory and > architrave and flying buttress. > > Sorry to be cheeky, but the English are really not the world's best > historians. Never were, never will be. Only those that we get to read > because everybody we know, everybody we read about, is reading them.I > continue to use them, to dig heavily into them, but unfortunately, from > Ranke down, the others were better. Not just the Germans; the French and the > Italians too, massively so, before everything was swamped by the Russians > and the Americans. > > > > >
