Ik ken weinig milieus waar de tenen gevoeliger zijn en de na-ijver intenser dan het academische milieu. Dat blijkt uit de enorme polemiek die dit boek heeft losgeweekt. Richard Evans, gerenommeerd prof geschiedenis in Cambridge, publiceerde dit in 1997. Het is een beetje een halfslachtige poging om een nieuwe synthese te schrijven van waar de geschiedenisstudie voor staat, ruim dertig jaar na de basiswerken daarover van E.H. Carr en G.R. Elton. Evans zet zichzelf min of meer in het midden tussen die 2 voorgangers, hij looft hun beider sterke punten maar hakt ook fel in op hun zwakheden. Dat is best boeiend, maar geleidelijk aan verschuift zijn blik, of beter zijn mikpunt, in de richting van wat hij de postmodernistische golf noemt die sinds de jaren ’70 huishoudt in onze cultuur, en die de fundamenten van het historisch metier heeft ondergraven. Evans neemt vooral de meest radicale postmodernisten Hayden White en Frank Ankersmit onder vuur en hun stelling dat de werkelijkheid alleen maar talig is, alleen maar een tekst, en dat we dus nooit bij de échte werkelijkheid geraken, kortom dat er geen waarheid mogelijk is en dus alle stellingen juist, een compleet relativisme dus. Evans stelt daar de praktijk van het historische metier tegenover, die stelt dat de waarheid wél benaderbaar is, mits toepassing van de correcte methoden en mits begrepen als voorlopige, voor herziening vatbare waarheid. Ik ben geneigd Evans in deze te volgen, maar ik moet wel toegeven dat zijn voorstelling van de postmodernisten geregeld erg karikaturaal is, en dat hij zijn stellingen soms nogal vaag verwoord. Het hoeft dan ook niet te verwonderen dat Evans na de publicatie van dit boek (1997 dus) zowat het hele historische establishment over zich heen kreeg. In deze editie is een zeer lijvige nawoord (70 blz) van hem te lezen, waarin hij de kritiek probeert te pareren. Dit nawoord maakt pijnlijk duidelijk hoe moeilijk het blijft in het geschiedkundig metier concepten en visies af te bakenen en duidelijk te verwoorden. Het versterkt alleen maar mijn indruk dat conceptfetisjisme absoluut onzalig is en we voorrang moeten geven aan de praktijk, een praktijk die meteen duidelijk maakt dat elk concept tegelijk een rekbaar en dynamisch begrip is, voortdurend onderhevig aan aanpassing en herziening. ( )

Taking as his basepoint the theoretical overview provided by E. H. Carr's What is History?, Richard J. Evans writes a robust defence of 'traditional' history against the misguided and self-congratulatory theorising of postmodernist scholars. He argues that history can be objective in its interpretations and ambitious in its scope, whereas the postmodernists argue that history is always inscrutable and biased and consequently cannot provide real 'truth'. (I've always wondered at this: if they think it is valueless why do they deign to study it?) He does not say history can provide all the answers – he acknowledges that we will always view the past 'through a glass, darkly' – but he does assert that past events are knowable and understandable, given application on the part of the historian.

But Evans is no reactionary or grumbling conservative pining for the days when history was simpler and less fragmented. He is an advocate for pluralism and diversity in the academic study of the subject; in fact, one of his main arguments is against the self-satisfaction and arrogance of postmodernists who believe that their way and only their way is the way forward, which Evans believes leads only to narcissism, pretentiousness and solipsism (pp200-1). This would be very damaging for history, both in terms of its academic rigour and its broader appeal.

It is this commitment to rationalism and academic rigour that Evans is seeking to maintain, not an old-boys' clique. He supports the growth and diversity of historical disciplines (even as he warns against fragmentation) and suggests that there is much to recommend in, say, women's history or gay history or black history. What he doesn't support is the idea that only women could write about women's history, or homosexuals about gay history (pg. 211). This is an important point, because there is a growing acceptance in our society of the suspect idea that people's experiences are defined by the labels we put on them, not as individuals. A gay black woman, for example, only needs to go through life judged as a Gay Black Woman if she chooses to define her identity with such labels; I for one would rather see her as Carol, or Sue, or whatever her name might be. Returning to history, we would find ourselves in a position where only Vikings could write Viking history, or Romans Roman history. As Evans says, in the end there would be no history, only autobiography (pg. 213). And this would be the death knell for historical objectivity: people would only put forward their own favourable views and ignore those of people who are seen as 'the other', regardless of academic merit.

We can already see this politicised and cavalier approach to history on university campuses – supposedly the bedrock of our intellectual future – with contemptible pleas for 'safe spaces' and the obscenely ignorant self-satisfaction of the Rhodes Must Fall campaign. Consider the following passage from Evans, where he debunks the shoddy argument of a postmodernist who suggests belief rather than rationality defines truth:

"Does he really want to live in a society where the evidence for an argument counts for nothing and the moral (or immoral) force behind its advocacy for everything? Surely the duty of an intellectual or an academic is to fight blind prejudice…" (pg. 300)

Hear, hear. And history is a bulwark against this unwitting anti-intellectualism as well as a battleground. It is a fantastically stimulating subject that encourages autodidactic learning, strives for objectivity and is increasingly aware of its limitations. (One of the positive things Evans says about postmodernism on page 248 is that it has forced historians to become more self-critical.)

This is one avenue that I wish Evans had embarked on more: whilst he concerns himself with defending history from the overcooked and yet paradoxically half-baked theories of postmodernism, he rarely addresses directly the threat to history from wider society. History – despite, as I have said, being an incredible subject – is increasingly devalued in the face of more superficially impressive degrees in STEM subjects. When I graduated from university with a history degree, I found many doors closed to me that should have been open to someone trained in objective analysis, self-awareness, meticulous researching and who was encouraged to constantly seek out new information and revise conclusions accordingly.

Evans occasionally touches on some points relevant to this argument. He notes that the view of history is often decided more by popular culture than academic historians (pg. 259), which perhaps goes some way in explaining why many ordinary people wrongly think history is something anyone can do. He also touches on the limitations of social history, which at its worst reduces people to mere statistics (pg. 189). History is in essence a study of the human condition; it sees problems (and solutions) as human-shaped and not number-shaped. In this respect the subject – as with all the humanities – provides a necessary counterbalance to those in thrall to numbers and the bottom-line, by showing that there is more to life and society than ones and zeros, credit and debit, essential and nonessential. What an unpleasant, robotic world we may one day live in if the humanities continue to be undermined.

I've gone off on a tangent here and I apologise, for Evans doesn't discuss such things in depth. In Defence of History is largely concerned with a fight between different types of historians within the castle walls rather than defending it against those without. Even the lengthy Afterword – added to new editions – concerns itself with Evans responding to individual criticisms from academic reviewers in exhaustive detail. This was unnecessary, not only because it seems overly-defensive and could have been mostly cut, but because In Defence of History is robust enough on its own to withstand such criticisms without Evans wading in to protect his creation. The book felt like a missed opportunity in showing the sceptical world why history matters, but it still does plenty to suggest there will be many bona fide historians who won't go down without a fight. ( )

An excellent rejoinder and rebuttal of postmodernism and its adjuncts. ( )

An excellent rejoinder and rebuttal of postmodernism and its adjuncts. ( )