History and postmodernism

[Mrogreturns]

I have brother who is keen on history (actually he helped edit a book that will be used as a text in one of the most prestigious univerities in the U.S).

Anyway, he is forever complaining that there are few history departments left in universities around the world as "most are now full of postmodernists posing as historians"

I imagine many of you here have or do study history at tertiary level- do you think your education was moulded by post-modernism? If so was it for better, worse or niether?

I invite comments on the impact of postmodernism on the study and teaching of history.

 

[Richard III]

I think postmodernism is rot, and agree wholeheartedly with your brother's assessment. It's amazing how many profs and grad students nowadays get away without ever having to do even a day's worth of honest primary research.

 

[Porphyrogenitos]

Philosophical theories and movements have always shaped the way history (and any discipline) has been viewed. Post-modernism is just another one in a long line of philosophical movements. Educators, for the most part are the products of the education they receive and the theories they choose to follow later on in life. Whether for better or worse is hard to say. Personally I have never met anyone posing as a postmodernist historian. Most simply adhere to a hodge-podge of ideas and influences. What makes a good historian is hard work and research, and even adherents of post-modernism do this. What makes a bad historian therefore is not the theory they espouse but rather their degree of professionalism and their commitment to their work (as goes with all occupations).

 

[Moss]

Originally posted by Richard III
honest primary research.

What would you consider to be honest primary research?

 

[Thuloid]

I think you've got to be very careful as to what you mean by postmodernism. If you aren't sure what modernism in the field of history is, then you can't say much about postmodernism as a reaction to it.

There are quite probably a large number of garbage historians these days, no few of whom might identify their approaches as in some sense postmodern--they may or may not be using the word appropriately.

Personally, I see some rather deep flaws in modernism as an approach to history--we can't just assume that all of history should be described in a single grand narrative, all just a symptom of the same underlying principle (which then becomes our true field of study). I don't think postmodernism is entirely successful, either--but the reasons for that are a bit more complex than many critics realize.

 

[Mrogreturns]

I may be misrepresenting him, but I beleive hin main objection ti PM is the rejection of the idea that there is an objective past- that certain things actually happened and that it is the business of history to, as far as possible, ellucidate it.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Moss321

What would you consider to be honest primary research?

Well, it speaks for itself, doesn't it? E.g. a paper or thesis that has primary research as an important foundation for its premise, rather than a paper or thesis speaking entirely from the perspective of "analysing" secondary sources through a postmodern theoretical lense to "deconstruct" a particular existing "discourse."

I don't mean to be insulting, I just don't know: you do understand what I mean in professional historical terms when I say "primary" vs. "secondary" sources, right? Foucalt writing about criminal justice history is secondary. A court record or eyewitness account is primary.

R.III

 

[Thuloid]

I think you hit on one of the main problems in postmodern approaches to history, Richard 3 (the Revenge)--postmoderns tend to severely blur the primary/secondary source distinction on metaphysical grounds, and as a result show much more ability to work with criticism of criticism of criticism than to employ primary sources. There is a use for such scholarship (assuming it doesn't become too metaphysically weighted and leave history behind entirely, which happens all too often), but it certainly can't be relied on exclusively.