Customer Reviews
Excellent book - By: PhilosopherKing, 18 Nov 2008 
This books discusses history from a philosophical standpoint & defends it as a science.
A wide range of topics is discussed from whether history (in the sense of changes throughout time) can be explained by means of grand narratives & theories on the one hand & the nuts & bolts of carrying out researchin archives & other sources of information on the other.
Great reading for history students & perhaps others e.g. philosophers.
A Strong Defence - By: D. A. Hadley, 21 Oct 2008 
The dreary trite pseudo-`insights' of post-modernism reappear again; this time with their feeble attempts to turn history into just another `text'. However, as Evans so splendidly puts itin this, his robust defence of history:
"Auschwitz was not a discourse. It trivializes mass murder to see it as a text. The gas chambers were not a piece of rhetoric. Auschwitz was indeed inherently a tragedy & connate be seen as either a comedy or a farce. And if this is true of Auschwitz, then it must be true at least to some degree of other past happenings, events, institutions, people as well."
History as Evans argues has a long established methodology, which is itself constantly under scrutiny - as this book itself demonstrates by its own existence & its long line of antecedents - for establishing the veracity of historical events & the value of historian's attempts at explaining the relationship between those events.
As with all other areas where postmodernism has tried to elbow itself into, there is little - if anything - that postmodernism itself can add to history, or history's self-examination that is not trite, superficial or painstakingly obvious before the weight of postmodernism's own contradictions smother it's pseudo-profundities & irrelevances.
Postmodernism et al, of course, grew out of the failure & collapse of Marxism & all the theories & suppositions which had grown from it. Marx's own idea that history had a purpose (or - at least - discoverable laws) & direction was - of course - destroyed by Popper (among others), & - most tellingly - by the course of history itself.
History does not make the claims that postmodernists accuse it of - of being the absolute truth about past events - & so their destruction of this strawman is not the masterstroke they seem to believe. Historians, & those of us who read their work, know that there is always more to the story than we get from any history book. History is not a sciencein the strong sense of that word, but it does have a rigorous methodology, enough to make both historians & their readers feel confident that they do get as close to truth as they can within the limitations of history itself. For example, historians are very aware that historical documents are written by fallible human beings, often for a variety of reasons conscious or unconscious & take into account many other factors like the context of the document, the nature of the document & so on. So the postmodernist claim that a document, or `text' as they like to call it, can no longer be regarded as having one fixed meaning which is bestowed upon it by its author at the time of writing. As Evans says, though `it is doubtful whether anyone,in fact, has ever believed that meaning can be fixedin this way.' He also demonstrates the falsehood of po-mo's claim about the arbitrariness of language, demonstrating that language evolves through contact & interaction with reality, rather than just being about itself. In fact, Evens states `...the postmodernist concentration on words diverts attention away from real suffering & oppression & towards the kinds of secondary intellectual issues that matterin the physically comfortable world of academia.'
Of course, a great deal of po-mo - pace Foucault - is rather simplistically obsessed with what they like to see as power relationships between various actors within societies, but, Evans points out, this could be more a case of the po-mo academics themselves trying to claw back some power & influence for themselves. Hence, with postmodernism's disdain for truth & reality:
"The past no longer has the power to confine the researcher within the bounds of facts. Historians & critics are now omnipotent. To underline this, the postmodernists have developed a new level of specialized language & jargon, borrowed largely from literary theory, which has rendered their work opaque to anyone except other postmodernists. The enterprise thus seems not only self-regarding but, ironicallyin view of its criticism of hierarchy & prioritization, elitist as well. Its narcissism & elitism can both be seen as compensatory mechanisms for the loss of real power, income & status suffered by its academic practitioners over the past ten to fifteen years."
Constantly, throughout this book Evans - like so many other critics of postmodernismin many other areas beyond history - demonstrates that po-mo must always fail because of its inherent contradictions. For example, if all theories are equally valid, then why give any special credence to po-mo, rather than more realist theories? If all knowledge is relative, then why bother believingin po-mo & its practitioners? Why `privilege' postmodernists over anyone else?
Evans, doesin the end allow po-mo some limited roomin the practice of historical scholarship, but onlyin terms of the way it makes historians more aware of the limitations of their approach & areas of study, but that is what a good historian should do anyway, it seems.
Anyway, postmodernism is well on the wane now,in areas beyond history. So soon, books like this will become objects of historical curiosity only, like books on or about so many of the ideologies that came promising so much & -in the end - delivered little or nothing of any lasting worth. Just like so many theories, ideologies & other `grand narrative', po-mo became quasi-religious & ended up talking only to itself about itself within constraints that it engendered itself which kept out so much of the awkward reality that cannot be held within those constraints without the whole edifice crumbling to dust.
In Defence of History is a very good, readable, book that ought to be read by more than just historians & those with an interestin how history comes about. It is a strong defence of academic rigour & a warning that, without that rigour -which postmodernism tried so hard to undermine - if the academic, or indeed any, mind is left too open, then anything could crawl in.
The day I fell in love with Science... - By: A. Tatton, 18 Aug 2007 The day I fellin love with Science was a funny day, weirdin that I don't remember it. We had an on-off relationship going on for a while, for so long I don't remember. And we had a child eventually. We called her Time. Time went off & did her own thing & me & Science split up, not before he unfortunately become impotent somewhat & we had another two kids with uncertain patronage who we called Richard & Richard (Dawkins & Evans). Then I met another woman, Art who I fell head over heels for. She had everything: beauty, passion, communication skills to die for. You name it. I was still on speaking terms with Science. And he'd rather miraculously regained his fertility. Generously, (perhaps he too was bowled over by the beauty of Art) decided to donate his sperm. And we had four more kids. Born not long after the birth of Time. Love, Postmodernism, Now & Nextweek. Science had buggared off to have an affair with Money so me & Art brought them up.
And my name ?... History.
On a more serious note, Evan's book is a masterpiece. I don't agree with his lambasting of postmodernism on the whole, & rather than being a defence of history it's more of an attack on postmodernism. History,in my opinion, doesn't need defending, especially not from postmodernists, who seem to have added a lot to it, as Evans indeed argues particularlyin the last chapter. But the book is so well written it's an absolute classic. He presents the themes extremely clearly, summarizing all the main historical theories & players so well. I personally think he starts tying himselfin knots when attempting to defend `facts', `events', `morality' & `objectivity'. It's correct for historians to now, as we do under the influence of postmodernism, say what our influences are or could be. To suggest that we'rein some sort of bubble, immune from the present day is preposterous. For example I'm about to start historical research into age discrimination & on page 156 Evans says `In the end, therefore, time does pass, a fact we experience only too painfullyin the process of human ageing' - surely an ageist comment? Evans spends quite an amount of time criticizing other historiansin terms of getting their `facts' wrong - eg Carr & Paul de Man. And he says `Where do we draw the line between all this & legitimate reinterpretation?' Well who says what is `legitimate'? By trying to define facts, events, morality & objectivity Evans is himself taking on this legitimizing role. And perhaps he's up to the job (especially if he acknowledges that ageist commentin the next edition!). My view is that we are actuallyin the postmodern era. So we're all postmodernists now - & I believe Evans has proved thisin the strength, power & persuasion of his writing, as he himself says: `One thing which the postmodernist treatment of history as a form of literature has done is to reinstate good writing as legitimate historical practice'.
A great defence of history and a great defense of the truth. - By: Sean Gainford, 04 Mar 2007 Somehow postmodernist theory has gotten into the main stream of academia. Their grand, intricate, convoluted theories, that when applied, actually don't work, are being preached by English Literature teachers & cultural & critical theorist to young eager mindsin university who unfortunately don't know any better & soak up the information. These postmodernist theorists are creating an atmosphere of nihilism, where young people have stopped entering debates, stopped searching for the truth, & have actually stopped believing that there is a truth. The young now, even more so, retreat into their over stimulating computer games & televisions & forget about what is real, & about truth altogether. This seems to be fine with some people, & fine with the postmodernist theorist, however some, like Richard Evans, believe that there are serious problems with the above type of passivity. There are serious consequences to postmodernist ideology,in which it gives a license to anybody who wants to suppress, distort, or cover up the past, & thus the truth.
Some postmodernist claim that there is no real difference between history & fiction. It is true not every linein a historian's text is fact. There are only so many facts left behind by history, & for the rest, the historians have to fillin the gaps with their best judgment. However historians cannot simply impose any meaning they want to either, & just come up with fiction. They are limited by the facts & by the words a document contains, words which are not, contrary to what postmodernists claim, capable of an infinity of meaning. The historian Richard Evans states that doing historical research is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where some pieces have been destroyed. However if the pieces you do have `only fit together to produce a steam-engine [...] it is no good trying to put them together to make a suburban garden: it simply will not work.' So it is correct that not everythingin a historian's text is absolutely true & objective, however there are objective facts & truths involved. Historians then are not always providing the absolute truth, & most of them would not claim to, but altogether, are providing the probable truth,in which they have done their best to establish by following the rigorous rules of evidence.
Richard Evans book In Defense Of History brilliantly reasons out & destroys most of these absurd postmodernist claims, which really should never have got to the stage of where millions of university students are learningin great detail their theories, as if they actually were correct & have high standing. What should be happening is that great books like Richard Evans In Defense of History should be mandatory reading for university courses & studiedin great detail, & postmodernist theories only brushed upon. That would create a better environment & would be altogether better for humanity.
There is a truth, a reality, & it can be, & there needs to be, an attempt to discover it. If revisionist historians have their way then present & future generations will suffer, for people will not get the truth & will not be able to learn from it. And as history has taught us, if you don't learn from the past, then you arein danger of repeating it.
A brain-saving study - By: Sarah Webster, 23 Jan 2005 I have re-read this book several times whilein education, & it has restored my enthusiasm for academic work at times when the prevalence of post-structuralist theoryin universities has left me thoroughly despondent. Evans is an acute critic, generous as well as exacting, & his writing is entertaining even when covering the most arcane philosophy. This book successfully unites a keen awareness of the theory of history with a pragmatic appreciation of its practice. Members of any disciplinein which reading & writing are important (I come from an English literature background) can learn a lot, & take a lot of reassurance, from this rebuttal to relativism. Incidentally, the final chapter of the revised edition,in which Evans takes on his unfriendly critics, is one of the funniest shows of debunking available. A splendid book.
