That Noble Dream
That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity" Question and the American Historical Profession. by Peter Novick. Published by Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, UK, 1988).
If you want to be wowed by someone's intellect and intestinal fortitude to analyze and critique one hundred years of the American Historical Profession, then read this book. Novick, a historian at the University of Chicago, analyzes the interpretations of history that American historians have employed for the past one hundred years and the political nature of the historical profession throughout that time period. What then does all of this have to do with the "objectivity" question in the title. Basically, Novick argues that "objectivity" and "truth" are constructs of the historical profession. Objectivity was decided to be synonymous with impartiality. Truth was decided upon by the consensus of the historical profession. However, Novick finds these constructs to be very problematic because those definitions become exclusive to those who agree with that consensus. Those who do not agree are seen as "impartial," "unobjective," or "untrue." The book finishes with a bit of nihilism, stating that truth cannot be achieved, only approached very closely. In addition, Novick is very cynical of the historical profession, especially after the incident in which the profession killed the career of one of his students, David Abraham. It is a very thick book, very heady. Give a try someday if you want.
If you want to be wowed by someone's intellect and intestinal fortitude to analyze and critique one hundred years of the American Historical Profession, then read this book. Novick, a historian at the University of Chicago, analyzes the interpretations of history that American historians have employed for the past one hundred years and the political nature of the historical profession throughout that time period. What then does all of this have to do with the "objectivity" question in the title. Basically, Novick argues that "objectivity" and "truth" are constructs of the historical profession. Objectivity was decided to be synonymous with impartiality. Truth was decided upon by the consensus of the historical profession. However, Novick finds these constructs to be very problematic because those definitions become exclusive to those who agree with that consensus. Those who do not agree are seen as "impartial," "unobjective," or "untrue." The book finishes with a bit of nihilism, stating that truth cannot be achieved, only approached very closely. In addition, Novick is very cynical of the historical profession, especially after the incident in which the profession killed the career of one of his students, David Abraham. It is a very thick book, very heady. Give a try someday if you want.


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home