Postmodernism and Holocaust Denial (Postmodern Encounters)

Rating:
Summary: A timely work.
Review: A beautifully and clearly written little book explaining the
Postmodern
ideas on History in general and they relevance to the phenomena of
Holocaust denial in particular. Starting with, and having as a
guiding thread
the case of Irving vs. Lipstadt, the book clearly and sucintely
states the
postmodern positions on the issues of objectivity, impartiality, and
History
genre rules. As the author states (pg 51) "[S]ome writers,
categorised as
postmodern, have indeed written rather foolishly on history and no
one
should defend bad scholarship or lack of thought." This work
certainly
does not belong to either of those categories and can be read with
much
pleasure.

Rating:
Summary: Conventions vs evidence
Review: Another book in the Postmodern Encounters series where the author presents an argument against Holocaust denial that is based on a postmodernist perspective. Essentially, what the author is arguing is that the court case between Irving (a holocaust denier) and Lipstadt was about a breach of a genre of writing particular to historiography; not the fact that Irving failed to be objective. According to the author, one of the conventions employed by historians in writing history is in the use of evidence and consulting the historical record but Irving, having failed to provide proper evidence (by misrepresenting or misinterpreting it), failed as an historian. He violated the conventions of what historians would consider valid history writing: he wasn't doing history at all as his biases overwhelmed any attempt at doing it.

Because postmodernism has supposedly cast doubt on the whole notion of objectivism--and on the notion of anyone producing objective historical accounts--the idea of objectivity is more or less treated as a myth along with the traditionalist empirical account of history. Eaglestone therefore dismisses Lipstadt's accusation about Irving failing to be objective. What he ultimately sees as being wrong with Irving's arguments is that he failed to conform to the generic conventions of history as set by historians.

I think the author's main premise (that Irving broke with the generic conventions of historiography) sidesteps the essential role that evidence plays in this whole debate. What was at stake in Irving vs Lipstadt was not a violation of genres, or a style of writing or a breach of historical conventions. It was something much more fundamental: it was an ontological issue. Did the holocaust happen or not? The evidence says it did. Interpreting the historical record or arguing about the details is magnanimously different that arguing about whether some event took place or not.

The fact that evidence in the end ruled in the court case is confirmation for accepting the traditionalist empirical methodology of writing history. Using credible evidence to support your claims is what being objective is all about. This, I think, is one of the main points that Lipstadt made. Evidence is the sine qua non factor that is essential to producing valid historical accounts and I would say that evidence plays a much bigger role in historiography rather than simply being one of many check-box factors (such as writing in the third person) that makes up a set of history writing conventions. It is not simply a matter of following generic rules as in a game or a genre of writing. Irving was beat by evidence. In a different time and place where the conventions of history writing do not require the use evidence at all, would Irving's claims become true when the evidence and the historical record say otherwise? Irving's account is not history not because he happened to break with historian agreed-upon conventions necessarily; It's not history because the evidence overwhelmingly falsifies the claim that the holocaust never happened--independent of who makes the claim, what their beliefs are or what the conventions of history writing happen to be at the time. Even if there was nobody on the planet after the Holocaust happened, Irving would *still* be wrong.

To summarize, the book is well-argued but the main argument has sidestepped the real issue; if you don't have evidence, credible evidence on your side, you really have nothing.

Rating:
Summary: A Thoughtful Argument
Review: As other reviewers have suggested, Robert Eaglestone appears to be as concerned about postmodernism as he is about Holocaust denial. They are, he implies, diametrically opposed. As a result, he suggests that employing postmodern strategies can indeed help historians confront denial. To make clear his point, Eaglestone refers to the 2001 case of David Irving versus Deborah Lipstadt, in which Irving was suing Lipstadt for libel.

Now, some people think that it was up to the judge to decide whether the Holocaust did or did not happen, but that is untrue. Because the trial took place in England, it was Lipstadt who had to prove the truthfulness of her statements about Irving (ie. that Irving "is a Hitler partisan wearing blinkers.") If she could not, then Irving's status as an historian would have been secure. Surely, it would also have been a victory of sorts for Holocaust denial in general. But Lipstadt's team did prove her case. In fact, Irving was destroyed during (and later, because of) the trial. As Eaglestone suggests, this was not simply the result of Irving's not having been objective in his writing. Objectivity is, of course, simply a long-cherished myth. No, the author makes it clear that Irving did not follow the proper conventions of history, ergo, he was (and is) not an historian at all.

How does postmodernism fit in to all of this? Postmodernists' having been so successful at exposing the inherent subjectivity in historical writing, what better "genre" than postmodernism to help expose the goals and motivations of Holocaust deniers? Just to make this abundantly clear, never does Eaglestone suggest that there is no such thing as "truthful" history, and that ONLY postmodernism can successfully confront Holocaust denial. On the contrary, he states explicitly that there is a bedrock/foundation on which histories are built. Unfortunately, arguing with Holocaust deniers on the basis of the evidence alone is a fruitless task, for they and their arguments simply aren't reasonable. Historians must go deeper, and expose deniers for who they really are, and for HOW, not just what, they write. Employing postmodernism as a corollary to evidentiary means should help do exactly that. It will assist in making readers aware of deniers' goals, motivations, and strategies. Only then will readers, many of whom simply aren't familiar with Holocaust studies and might then be coerced by denial literature because of its scholarly appearance, be confronted with a stark reality: Holocaust deniers aren't interested in the truth at all. Holocaust denial is simply a way to disguise their anti-Semitism, display the Jewish conspiracy theory in which they seem to believe, and portray their work as legitimate. Eaglestone's book is important because it makes evident the imperative to combat deniers by making these things clear to all readers alike.