Scan barcode
sense_of_history's review against another edition
Two things I appreciate about this book: Gaddis' pragmatism and his attempt to put the writing of history back on the scientific map.
His pragmatism builds on a very post-modern vision of history: the past is a foreign country, we can only represent it, by giving meaning to the remnants of the past in terms of what they explain. It's like making a map of a landscape: also a selection, but a quite useful one. Just as there can be different maps of the same landscape, there are also different descriptions (Gaddis chooses the word 'narratives') of the past possible; all of which are "true", as far as they lean as close to reality as possible. No relativism with Gaddis ("there is truth"): the past is not irremediable gone, it is definitely out there, open to questioning by us in the present, and even sometimes actively adjusting our look on it: "the history these representations represent has not changed. It’s back there in the past, just as solidly as that still imprecisely measured coastline. It’s this reality that keeps our representations from flying into fantasy"(p.125).
Precisely because there are different ways of mapping the landscape of the past, we must be open to methodological tolerance, that too is pragmatism: "Within a single narrative we can be Rankeans, or Marxists, or Freudians, or Weberians, or even postmodernists, to the extent that these modes of representation bring us closer to the realities for which we're trying to account. We're free to describe, evoke, quantify, qualify, and even reify if these techniques serve to improve the 'fit' we're trying to achieve. Whatever works, in short we should use."(108). And finally, it is the continuing debate among historians (and non-historians) on the outcome of these different approaches, which may lead to a consensus about the past, albeit a provisional one.
Second merit: history indeed is a science! Historians according to Gaddis are scientific experimentalists par excellence, they constantly test their conclusions on what sources say. Thus they do exactly what the "hard" scientists more and more do, in an ongoing revision of intuitive, practical and theoretical approaches, "fitting things together". He even offers a bold reversal of thought: Gaddis refers to the chaos and complexity theory to suggest that the hard sciences gradually move in the direction of what historians have long been doing: approaching reality as a complex system, a web-like thing where everything is connected to everything. Obviously he doesn't focus on the scientists in their laboratory, but rather on geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, evolutionary biologists etc.
I'm not so pleased, though, with Gaddis' quite crude attack on social sciences, and their supposed reductionism: "The methods of historians are closer to those of certain natural scientists than to those of most social scientists- because too many social scientists in their efforts to specify independent variables have lost sight of a basic requirement of theory, which is to account for reality. They reduce complexity to simplicity in order to anticipate the future, but in doing so they oversimplify the past "(p.71). That tempts him into outright derogatory statements: "Historians are in much less demand than social scientists when it comes to making recommandations for future policy. We have the consolation in contrast to them, though, of more often getting things right"(p.58). Perhaps that is true for certain trends in the social sciences, but I think Gaddis here is generalizing too much and perhaps more expresses a personal inferiority complex as a historian.
Anyway, Gaddis is right that when historians adhere to their pragmatic methodology, they are building a sound scientific view of reality, different perhaps, but as meritorious as that of other sciences. And that is no small achievement. I really loved this little book.
His pragmatism builds on a very post-modern vision of history: the past is a foreign country, we can only represent it, by giving meaning to the remnants of the past in terms of what they explain. It's like making a map of a landscape: also a selection, but a quite useful one. Just as there can be different maps of the same landscape, there are also different descriptions (Gaddis chooses the word 'narratives') of the past possible; all of which are "true", as far as they lean as close to reality as possible. No relativism with Gaddis ("there is truth"): the past is not irremediable gone, it is definitely out there, open to questioning by us in the present, and even sometimes actively adjusting our look on it: "the history these representations represent has not changed. It’s back there in the past, just as solidly as that still imprecisely measured coastline. It’s this reality that keeps our representations from flying into fantasy"(p.125).
Precisely because there are different ways of mapping the landscape of the past, we must be open to methodological tolerance, that too is pragmatism: "Within a single narrative we can be Rankeans, or Marxists, or Freudians, or Weberians, or even postmodernists, to the extent that these modes of representation bring us closer to the realities for which we're trying to account. We're free to describe, evoke, quantify, qualify, and even reify if these techniques serve to improve the 'fit' we're trying to achieve. Whatever works, in short we should use."(108). And finally, it is the continuing debate among historians (and non-historians) on the outcome of these different approaches, which may lead to a consensus about the past, albeit a provisional one.
Second merit: history indeed is a science! Historians according to Gaddis are scientific experimentalists par excellence, they constantly test their conclusions on what sources say. Thus they do exactly what the "hard" scientists more and more do, in an ongoing revision of intuitive, practical and theoretical approaches, "fitting things together". He even offers a bold reversal of thought: Gaddis refers to the chaos and complexity theory to suggest that the hard sciences gradually move in the direction of what historians have long been doing: approaching reality as a complex system, a web-like thing where everything is connected to everything. Obviously he doesn't focus on the scientists in their laboratory, but rather on geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, evolutionary biologists etc.
I'm not so pleased, though, with Gaddis' quite crude attack on social sciences, and their supposed reductionism: "The methods of historians are closer to those of certain natural scientists than to those of most social scientists- because too many social scientists in their efforts to specify independent variables have lost sight of a basic requirement of theory, which is to account for reality. They reduce complexity to simplicity in order to anticipate the future, but in doing so they oversimplify the past "(p.71). That tempts him into outright derogatory statements: "Historians are in much less demand than social scientists when it comes to making recommandations for future policy. We have the consolation in contrast to them, though, of more often getting things right"(p.58). Perhaps that is true for certain trends in the social sciences, but I think Gaddis here is generalizing too much and perhaps more expresses a personal inferiority complex as a historian.
Anyway, Gaddis is right that when historians adhere to their pragmatic methodology, they are building a sound scientific view of reality, different perhaps, but as meritorious as that of other sciences. And that is no small achievement. I really loved this little book.
marc129's review against another edition
4.0
John Lewis Gaddis builds on the work of Marc Bloch and E. H. Carr, two renowned historians that have eloquently put into words where the writing of history actually stands for, what its own epistemological criteria and methodological rules are. Fortunately, Gaddis has integrated - 50 years later - the profound changes that have happened in the meantime in historiography and in the sciences in general.
This is, in the first place, postmodernism and especially the "cultural turn" of Hayden White and others. Gaddis rightly points out that historiography only gives a representation of the past, in the form of a story (a narrative), and not the past itself. At the same time he fiercely defends the value of that representation, provided that it fits as close as possible to reality (supported by sources) and leaves room for questioning so that a final consensus can grow between professional and non-professional observers of the past. Gaddis has a very pragmatic view, he constantly compares the writing of history to the making of a map (in which the past obviously is a kind of landscape); he firmly rejects relativism, because according to him there is indeed a reality of the past that continually allows querying by us (every time from a different present).
Gaddis also devotes many pages to the question whether history actually is a science, a question that has intrigued and divided historians and non-historians since the beginning of the 20th century. Surprisingly, Gaddis argues that history leans much more to some of the hard sciences than the social sciences do. He zooms in on elements of the chaos- and complexity theory that have pushed the hard sciences to take into account the uncertainty principle in complex systems. History did so much earlier, he states, because ultimately the past is an extremely complex system. That is a worthy argument, with which historians finally can get rid of their frustration and minority complex. But Gaddis drives his thesis too far, especially in his provocative stance on the social sciences. According to him social scientists are stuck in earlier (positivist) thinking patterns, and in their obsessive quest for independent variables they only end up with models that barely touch reality. Interesting and to some extent correct, for sure, but to my feeling not quite fair for the social sciences in general.
In short, this is definitely an interesting book, which apart from a number of provocative statements, finally puts historiography back on the "scientific" map.
This is, in the first place, postmodernism and especially the "cultural turn" of Hayden White and others. Gaddis rightly points out that historiography only gives a representation of the past, in the form of a story (a narrative), and not the past itself. At the same time he fiercely defends the value of that representation, provided that it fits as close as possible to reality (supported by sources) and leaves room for questioning so that a final consensus can grow between professional and non-professional observers of the past. Gaddis has a very pragmatic view, he constantly compares the writing of history to the making of a map (in which the past obviously is a kind of landscape); he firmly rejects relativism, because according to him there is indeed a reality of the past that continually allows querying by us (every time from a different present).
Gaddis also devotes many pages to the question whether history actually is a science, a question that has intrigued and divided historians and non-historians since the beginning of the 20th century. Surprisingly, Gaddis argues that history leans much more to some of the hard sciences than the social sciences do. He zooms in on elements of the chaos- and complexity theory that have pushed the hard sciences to take into account the uncertainty principle in complex systems. History did so much earlier, he states, because ultimately the past is an extremely complex system. That is a worthy argument, with which historians finally can get rid of their frustration and minority complex. But Gaddis drives his thesis too far, especially in his provocative stance on the social sciences. According to him social scientists are stuck in earlier (positivist) thinking patterns, and in their obsessive quest for independent variables they only end up with models that barely touch reality. Interesting and to some extent correct, for sure, but to my feeling not quite fair for the social sciences in general.
In short, this is definitely an interesting book, which apart from a number of provocative statements, finally puts historiography back on the "scientific" map.
keimre734's review against another edition
I read this book for a History course at my university.
the3romes's review against another edition
reflective
fast-paced
3.0
The concepts and arguments are interesting, but the overuse of metaphors holds the book back.
thefoxparadox's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.25
Gaddis wrote a book that achieved what he aimed for it to do; which was to understand history as a scholarly study by many branching faces. The pace is dragged down exponentially by the obnoxious amounts of metaphors used, however he addresses this fact himself late in the book. While I read this for a history course, it honestly is not a bad read and often gives the time to fully wrap around an argument before moving to the next. It is a good way to expand your understanding of the reasons why and how history has become a scholarly study so important to society.
heregrim's review against another edition
5.0
A great overview and introduction to the historian's craft. More importantly, clear enough written for a layman to understand the ins and outs, which was much of his stated goal. Plus, comparisons with both the social sciences and the hard sciences.
tristanpej's review against another edition
4.0
The. Book is a series of musings on historians, what they do, and how we fit in the academy. It proposes that history has more in common with certain sciences like palaeontology, geology, astronomy, or evolutionary biology rather than the social sciences. He breaks this down over several chapters. Definite required reading for the budding historian.