Beyond the Great Story: History As Text and Discourse

Rating:
Summary: On the (F)utility of Postmodern History
Review: I apologize for the title of this review but it gets at some of my reaction to this book. Consider the following quote from the final chapter: "A new form of reflexive history would resolve the dilemma by...seeking to operate in the conceptual spaces posed by the contradictions between textualism and contextualism, between social and rhetorical construction of reality, between normal history and metahistory." (p.266)
I consider this quote important because Berkhofer is actually trying to practice what he preaches in his writing in this book. He is summarizing the results of the critical work done in history in the last thirty or so years by at least two major schools of criticism. The schools are (roughly) 1. deconstructionist (or textualist or rhetorical) and 2. oppositionist (which includes social constructionist or multicultural or feminist critiques).
The critical approaches are as rough on each other as they are on what Berkhofer calls normal history, i.e., history as practiced by professional historians. Therein lies the rub. Berkhofer is not trying to sort out the arguments for us. He points out all the possible ramifications of these critical schools he can think of in regard to a particular topic and does not really even indicate which he thinks is the most correct.
Berkhofer wants readers and historians to start thinking deeply about the way they construct histories. He wants us to examine the rhetoric employed to express arguments or to emplot narrative, to what extent history is shaped by the institutional practices or the politics of the profession, what theory of social groups or of individuals does the author use and what is the author's theory of time (cyclical, degenerative, progressive, pastiche, etc.). What is the author's epistemology, how does s/he see the structure of power within both their own culture and the one they are writing about (are they liberal, radical, republican, conservative and how does that reflect on the history they write)? As a personal aside, if you think this is not an issue with truly professional historians then you should read some in the liberal/republican/protestant debate that rages about the Revolutionary and/or Federalist periods in American history.
The above is about one third of the issues that Berkhofer feels that historians and their readers need to start thinking deeply about if we are to face up to the challenges presented by the critical schools mentioned above. Along the way, he summarizes the work of dozens of scholars and practices some of the type of reflexive criticism he is suggesting on many others. However, he very much leaves open the avenues that "reflexive history" should explore. The last thing he wants to do is impose his own hegemonic regime on the new field.
I have a mixed reaction to the book. I have learned quite a bit from it. I am going to make a conscious effort to read histories in the future in some of the ways he suggests to see how helpful or revealing it is.
However, it is also an annoying book. It is full of jargon (how many times do we have to see hi/story to get the point?), it could have used an editor that read it a little more closely and ultimately I think Berkhofer should also have let us know his own thoughts on many of the issues between the contextualists and the textualists. He has no trouble letting us know the inadequacies of liberal pragmatist historians like Thomas Haskell or James Kloppenberg. Why not do the same for Hutcheon, Rooney, Carrard, de Certeau, White, etc.? He is fond of suggesting the use of different typefaces as a means of demarcating different voices in a text. Perhaps he could do the same in his own book- one allowing for the "spaces of contradictions" in the arguments of others and another for his own thought?
One final thought- somewhere in the book, Berkhofer tells us the story of a Native American student of his who refused to read an assigned text because the author referred to the theory that the ancestors of the American Indians came across the Bering Straits thousand of years ago. This did not jibe with what he had been taught in the creation myths of his heritage. The student felt that if the author got that wrong, how could he be trusted at all? To which I say- too bad. Am I supposed to include everybody's creation myth (including the Bible) each time I write a text of evolutionary theory? We do not all have the responsibility to preserve everybody's traditions. At some point all we have to do is say what we ourselves think.
This is not a book for everybody. Most casual readers of history do not need to read it. In spite of one of the reviewers below, you will not be washed aside (by what-the vanguard of the radical deconstructionist historians?). Those of us who do like to read our histories critically, with a suspicious eye, would do well to study this book. It is a difficult and annoying read but I, for one, have not read anyone else who raises so many important issues in one volume.

Rating:
Summary: getting to the heart of the story of history
Review: I must disagree with the above reviewer; despite the fact that Berkhofer uses terms such as "discourse", which is a perfectly valid term of analysis if properly discussed, this is not a boring book it all. It is NOT a history, but rather a discussion of historiography and the theoretical and discursive underpinnings of the practice of history. Berkhofer is trying to outline how histories are constructed, and how the contours and demands of the genre effect its subject matter. Berkhofer wants historians to be reflexive and to get past the urge to make their narratives part of "the great story." All too often historians link their work to metanarratives that shade their work in perhaps unintended ways. Berkhofer is calling for more awareness of how histories are put together; he is also trying to give his readers some tools to take those histories apart and see them with more critical understanding, in essence to see how the metanarratives influence the creation of histories.

For this and a number of other reasons, this is an excellent book for students of history. Yes, it does get plodding in places, but it is a worthwhile book to engage and ponder.

Rating:
Summary: History and us
Review: I must disagree with the above reviewer; despite the fact that Berkhofer uses terms such as "discourse", which is a perfectly valid term of analysis if properly discussed, this is not a boring book it all. It is NOT a history, but rather a discussion of historiography and the theoretical and discursive underpinnings of the practice of history. Berkhofer is trying to outline how histories are constructed, and how the contours and demands of the genre effect its subject matter. Berkhofer wants historians to be reflexive and to get past the urge to make their narratives part of "the great story." All too often historians link their work to metanarratives that shade their work in perhaps unintended ways. Berkhofer is calling for more awareness of how histories are put together; he is also trying to give his readers some tools to take those histories apart and see them with more critical understanding, in essence to see how the metanarratives influence the creation of histories.

For this and a number of other reasons, this is an excellent book for students of history. Yes, it does get plodding in places, but it is a worthwhile book to engage and ponder.

Rating:
Summary: History and us
Review: If the term "discourse" is jargon to the previous reviewer, he is bound to find precious little to read in the area of scholarly thought since the Saussure-to-Foucalt-to-White infield lined up to bat; and if he is a historian who is choosing not to pay attention to the dialogue into which Dr. Berkhoffer is here inserting himself, then he is bound to be washed aside in very short order. If he were interested in a pursuit of history and went in search of critical focus, methods and language adequate to the task, then he might see that the book which he so harshly renounces constitutes considerable progress in that direction. "Jargon", it would seem, has become the new catch-phrase of choice among those for whom the pace of erudition has become too ambitious.