Rating: 
Summary: Intellectual Complains About Other Intellectuals
Review: This is a book for a very specific audience. Windschuttle lays out a well-researched debunking of the current politically correct fads in the discipline of history. You'll find this book useful if you're interested in the esoteric differences among structuralism, poststructuralism, modernism, postmodernism, postcolonialism, relativism, tribalism and a long parade of other isms, not to mention a few stragglers like semiotics and hermeneutics. Certainly these theories and schools of thought have become popular among historians, much to the detriment of strict historical study at the expense of real "facts." As Windschuttle nicely sums up, these disciplines start with ill-defined theories then bend the historical facts to fit the theory. A prime example is the shifting treatment of European explorers and the uncritical praise of non-Western viewpoints. Unfortunately this book merely becomes an intellectual catfight that is better left to the obscure halls of academia. Windschuttle fails to explain what true historical "facts" really consist of, and how his own strictly traditionalist approach is morally or literally superior to the new disciplines. In fact, Windschuttle shows many indications of a frustrated right-winger fighting back against the left-wing fads, with no possibility of compromise in the middle, and no possibility of admitting that his approach may have some weaknesses as well. This is most evident in the effort Windschuttle expends in painstakingly debunking some very minor works by minor academics, such as Greg Dening in Chapter 3 and Paul Carter in Chapter 4. This book merely shows one intellectual complaining about his peers, with little effort to explain how this applies to the non-academic world. Such disputes have little connection with the general public and are suspiciously personal in nature, as Windschuttle has merely expanded these very doctrinaire disputes with his colleagues into book form.
Rating: 
Summary: A decisive critique
Review: This is a superb book, one that not only deflates the arguments of postmodern theory, but gets down to cases, demonstrating the flaws of postmodernism's pomps and works in treating discrete episodes of human history. This is not a screed, but a carefully and meticulously argued case. Armed with common sense and hard facts Windschuttle demonstrates the emptiness of those methods which proceed without them. The book is weighty and detailed, but Windschuttle writes with a light touch and a sure hand. The writing is exceptional and the results decisive.
Rating:
Summary: Postmodernism - the poison touch
Review: Why should anyone care about historiographical issues, especially when they're described with great big words like historiography? For those of us with a deep interest in history, isn't it enough that we get good history books that are enjoyable to read and perhaps give us some idea of what happened in the past? How important are these deep issues that are discussed primarily by professionals and graduate students? The answer, I would say, is quite a lot. This is also the answer Keith Windschuttle has reached in The Killing of History, a sustained but surprisingly soft-spoken attack on literary theory and post structuralism in the study of history. I say surprisingly soft-spoken because I expected something with a harsher tone and more examples. I am pleased, repeat, pleased that this was not the case because it makes the work ultimately more satisfying and useful. The book is not, for example, full of stories about leftist professors teaching garbage in the classroom. It is about postmodernists and poststructuralists and literary theorists butchering the idea of proper historical methodology in print. It is about the practice of history and how many so-called practitioners are failing in their duties (though they probably see it as their duty to do what they're doing). Windschuttle begins by defining what he is writing about. The big words like postmodernism et al are described, so the reader knows what Windschuttle means by them. Then he begins a sequence of chapters devoted to particular fashionable themes and how they are failing. Specifically, these words and ideas have no place or history in the study of history. Many are borrowed from literary theorists (so we can blame the English departments), and others from French philosophy (Foucault and his cronies). The idea, according to them, is that language is everything. Nothing exists outside language, and we ultimately have only texts to learn from. The idea of facts existing independently of texts is an odd concept to the literary theorists. Therefore, since we can never have absolute, rock-solid, unquestionable and ultimate certainty about some aspect of our past, we really don't know anything. This is, of course, an extremely abrupt way for me to put it, but is essentially what Windschuttle is attacking here. Chapter by chapter, the theme I noticed most often is not that these other ideas are so flawed as to be worthless. Windschuttle himself points out many times that they bring up ideas worth thinking about and can sometimes direct our attention in new directions. The emergence of Aboriginal history in the seventies is a good case in point for the Australian Windschuttle. The biggest problems are firstly that the postmodernists are guilty of rather sloppy research, and secondly they have to make heavy use of factual data to tell us that there is no factual data. The first point is clear as we read a series of case studies of a particular historical topic - the mutiny on the Bounty, the exploration of Australia and North America, and Captain Cook's death all figure prominently. In these cases we clearly see that a particular prevailing view can be easily refuted by further research - historical research of the sort that is typically done by historians, not philosophers. And in the process of deconstructing the deconstructionists, we see that their reasoning (if I may use that word with them) simply does not support proper historical research. They have preconceived notions that must be supported, and once sufficient data has been gathered to support a book length thesis, they go to print. I do wish to pause and make a point of contention with Windschuttle's analysis. I do find it troubling that the issue with which I am most familiar is the one in which I should find trouble with the book. Namely, I refer to his discussion of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper in the sociology of science. This is a long chapter, and he discusses these two at some length, giving a not unfair (at first) but ultimately not satisfying description of their ideas. This leads into a comparison of them with Paul Feyerabend, a noted hack who fits in quite well with other authors discussed here. There is no time to discuss Kuhn in any length here, but his statement of note is that science advances through paradigm shifts, when ideas change very quickly (think about quantum mechanics versus classical in physics, DNA in biology, or plate tectonics in geology). This is not unreasonable. I've read Kuhn, and I am a scientist. There are problems, but his basic thesis is not radical. Kuhn, in his life, denied the very charge of relativism. I don't see it. Likewise, Windschuttle points out that Popper's ideas were endorsed by Einstein during his life. Yet Windschuttle acknowledges this and still tries to lump them with hacks. Why? On the whole, however, this is a good and solid piece of work. Although it's just a pet peeve of mine, I was also glad to see that Windschuttle does not throw around the term `leftist' all the time, the way some people do. And how could he, since he points out that so much French philosophy is based on the work of Martin Heidegger, who spent the last few decades of his life bemoaning the defeat of the Nazis. Heidegger died in 1976. Particularly, three French philosophers - Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan - are heavily indebted to his works. Think about it. It would certainly explain the intolerance and mind-set of the postmodernists. It would be unfair to refer to this trio as Nazis, but Heidegger was no hack, and the link can't be just dismissed out of hand. If we're to condemn an intellectual for having six degrees of separation from Marx, then four degrees of separation from Hitler can't be ignored. This is a steady and reasoned work, and it shows that history is best done by historians. Someone researching the past should believe that an actual past exists.
|
