Macksee
9-9-03
History 600
Richard J. Evans. In Defense of History. London and New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999. Pp. 287.

Professor Richard J. Evans’s In Defense of History serves a twofold purpose: first, to describe to his readers the nature of the work that historians undertake, and second, to defend his craft against recent attacks by those who subscribe to the postmodernist theory, which claims that all knowledge and truth is subjective; that practicing history with an objective view is impossible; and that, subsequently, a history monograph is no better than a cheap novel.
Evans begins his book with a chapter that highlights the “history of history.” In this chapter, he wishes to show the reader the events that led up to the development of today’s postmodernist thought. Also, by showing how certain ideas in historiography (such as Fogel’s cliometrician approach, for example) have failed to produce the exalted, discussion-ending interpretations to history that they have claimed, Evans succeeds in planting a seed of doubt concerning the similar claims made by the postmodernists.
The next chapter, entitled “History, Science, and Morality,” delves into the discussion of whether history is a form of science or a form of art. Evans presents various arguments against the thought of history as a science and then proceeds to dismantle them. For instance, when some commentators claim that history cannot be a science because historical knowledge is not cumulative, Evans counters by saying that “…the materials left to us by the past are so extensive that all the historians who have ever worked have done little more than scratch the surface…” The very fact that historians discover new documents all the time kills this argument. Evans’s opinion on the matter is very agreeable: history has shades of both a science and an art. To Evans, history is a science in that it is an organized body of knowledge which comes through research; it is an art because it can be written, if one is able, in beautiful language and form. A fascinating argument Evans makes which seems to shut the mouths of the postmodernists is that when it comes to experiments, it is nearly impossible to perform them in the “science” of astronomy. However, Evans notes, there isn’t any postmodernist complaining that it isn’t a science.
The next chapter concerns itself with the concept of “historical fact,” which Evans points out is “…something that happened in history and can be verified as such through the traces history has left behind.” To the postmodernist claim that historians simply take any source, especially a primary source, at face value, Evans retorts that historians do indeed know that there are contexts that need to be heeded, such as the social institutions and practices involved, as well as the author’s bias.
Chapter four, “Sources and Discourses,” presents the postmodernists’ claim that critiques over evidence are bunk; one interpretation of the past is no better than another. Evans gives a great example of how this is not the case. A book written by a young American historian in 1981 was first praised by his colleagues, and then condemned when it was discovered that he was extremely careless with his research. This interpretation was not “better than another,” for he based his interpretation on faulty detailed evidence; mistakes ran into the hundreds.
The next chapter discusses “causation.” To the claim, made by historian E.H. Carr, that the study of history is the study of causes, Evans charges that “…historical explanation is not just about finding causes for discrete events…. Historians are just as interested in what events or processes decide….” Postmodernists, highly influenced by advancements in physics, have an opinion of the concept of time itself in that it is not even or regulated; a narrative written as such is folly, they say. Evans makes a humorous point that if that were indeed the case, the very name “postmodern” is in direct conflict with the postmodernists’ views. Evans also goes on to say that postmodernists fail to realize that historians sometimes present their work in a different version of “time,” for instance, when they move in reverse. Actually, says Evans, the postmodernists flatly ignore it.
The chapter “Society and the Individual” takes a look at two different forms of history: political history and social history. Political history dominated early and into the nineteenth century, with social history really taking off in the latter part of the twentieth century. It is the latter that postmodernists take issue with. One main argument is that since many societies were unable to read or write, the history of them is unsound. Evans counters by saying that historians have been able to work around this problem by referring to reports about them written by the state or by superiors. Another argument offered by postmodernists is that the very term “social” is a creation from the nineteenth century. Evans notes that it seems that postmodernists concentrate more on “linguistics” and other secondary issues. Evans does, on the other hand, state that it would not do to eliminate the individual from historical work. He states that “it is precisely the interaction between the individual and the circumstances that makes the study of people in the past so fascinating.”
Towards the end of the book, Evans takes up the topic of objectivity, which the postmodernists have denounced as impossible. He himself denounces the claim that objectivity has ruled over history with an iron fist by claiming that reaching objectivity is extremely difficult to do; saying that it ruled history makes it sound like it was an easy level to reach. Evans says it can be reached by “…a detached mode of cognition, a faculty of self-criticism, and an ability to understand another person’s point of view.” Evans ends the book by remarking that even though postmodernist thought should force the historical profession to rethink its assumptions and justify itself, postmodernism is merely a theory; it is not the be-all end-all it claims to be.
Michael Evans succeeds in presenting his views in a clear and concise manner. Numerous criticisms of his profession are shot down using examples and logic; Evans also isn’t afraid to tackle any area of history that postmodernists feel liberty to assail. In addition, Evans presents a fascinating picture of how the historian operates. To those riding the fence on the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity, this book will definitely convince them of the ascertainment of the former.