There has always been a core in modern history going back to the great
German historian Ranke which has been highly anti-theoretical- though
Ranke himself was to into the spirit of the age stuff and German
destiny. Indeed today Germany is still a bastion of anti-theory in
archaeology- partly due its 19th century inheritance and I also suspect
a reaction to the subject's intimate involvement with the SS (The
immediate boss of one famous post-war professor was hung at Nuremburg).
However, German _Volkskunde_ (folk studies) gave up its descriptive
phase in the 60s. Most sub-sections of history which broke off from
constitutional history such as economic, social, local embraced theory
in one form or another. The _Annales_ school of the interwar years took
up geography and sociology, there were huge numbers of post-war Marxist
historians, and the new social history of the 60s was highly influenced
by anthropology. Indeed some of the roots of American archaeological
theory lie via Frans Boas in German _Kulturgeschicte_ (culture history)
of the 19th century. Modern history is awash with theory though there is
still a strong anti-theoretical element.

Historians do tend to be historical materialists. They mostly accept
subjectivity of approach as inevitable but believe like Marc Bloch that
the past is real and not changed by the present. Few historians find
merit in determinist or over arching explanations - this was a debate
played out earlier this century. Theory for its own sake is also less
favoured. A well known British historian recently complained to me that
archaeologists at least in universities saw more merit in a paper
written on a Saturday night after a few pints to work based on years of
data collection. However, historians come in all shapes and sizes.
I recommend Peter Burke’s _History and Social Theory_ or the _The Truth
about History_ by American Joyce Appleby et al. on theory in history.




In message <[log in to unmask]>, Michael Strutt
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Dear list members.
>
>I heard about an argument that I would like the list to comment on.
>
>A friend was arguing with an historian, trained in folklore, who states
>that only historians are objective enough to study history because they
>do not have any theoretical bias. She asserts that because anthropology
>and sociology create models to understand cultural change they have an
>inherent bias, whereas their lack of theory makes historians objective
>(which I find interesting because I think many historians would agree
>that there is no such thing as true objectivity). Moreover because
>historians simply look for facts and then present them without any
>biases or models it makes history a humanity and not a social science.
>It also makes history the only discipline able to study history,
>culture, cultural change, etc.
>
>I know that someone was putting together a session at the SHA's on the
>differences between history and  anthropology, are any of the speakers
>interested in commenting?
>
>Michael Strutt
>Center for Historic Preservation
>Middle Tennessee State University

Paul Courtney
Leicester UK