Philip Levy wrote:

> I would submit that Appleby et la are not the best judges
as they spend most of their
> page time defending the social history orthodoxy they were
part of creating. The
> stridence of their opposition to theoretical approaches
(particularly postmodern) is
> really the sound of one generation lamenting the trends of
the next.

In a sense you're doing the same thing, but in reverse;
lamenting the trends of the past generation.   :)   If
there's one thing we have all learned from history, in
particular the historiographies of our varied disciplines,
it's that one 'trend' (paradigm shift, theoretical school,
what have you) follows another.  It is only a matter of
time, perhaps only a generation, before the postmodernists
will in turn flee to the intellectual hills, holding high
the banner of old fogeyism.  (er, to make liberal use of the
metaphor <g>)  We should recognize the value and benefits of
our epistemological heritage.  We may not have much call,
for example,  for environmental determinists these days, but
they blazed the trail for modern environmental historians.
Of course, I'm assuming that the past shapes the present . .
.     I don't know exactly where I'm going with this other
than to say that we can benefit from an openness to many
theorhetical schools of thought and disciplines.  Does each
orthodoxy that comes along  necessarily have to kill and
nullify the one(s) that preceded it?   That sounds so
Freudian,  . . . or Oedipal...,

>  The old belief in achievable objectivity has faded in all
but the most hide bound of
> histories.

I have a question about this.  I graduated in 1978 with a
B.A. in anthropology and since changed disciplines.
Presumably my training was in the 'old school' of thought.
I don't recall that objectivity was ever touted as something
completely attainable; rather it was a goal to strive for.
It was understood that no one could be totally objective,
whether studying another culture or one's own past.  In
practice, this often boiled down to a restrained
subjectivity, nonetheless the aim remained the same.  What
has taken the place of objectivity?   Has the baby been
tossed with the bath water?

Next, you'll tell me that there is no such thing as
discernible historical facts.  :)

Marty Perdue
[log in to unmask]