There are many definitions of what History is, and what it means for different sections of society at different times. E. H. Carr’s primary argument is that the interpretation of history from certain historians is dependent upon their position in society, and indeed are formulated by society’s view of the period. One historian writing in the 1950’s may have a totally different interpretation of events that, say, a present day historical writer. IT IS TERRIBLY DIFFICULT to write well about historiography and historical method.
In order to do the job effectively, the author needs a panoptic gaze, so that comments say about industrialisation can include Latin America as well as Europe, while historiography to be effective should avoid the same tired old cast and show an awareness of other national traditions. Tone is also a problem. All too frequently, writers on these subjects are, or at least manage to sound, pompous and self-regarding, convinced that their own approach (and friends and allies) are correct, and others sadly wanting. Neither of these two volumes is free from these problems, but there is also much that is interesting, fresh and well-written about both. Furthermore, it is inherently valuable to see what these two groups of noted historians have to say. There is a particular freshness about the Cannadine volume, reflecting its origins in a series of lectures at the Institute of Historical Research, although the absence of noted revisionist voices is a serious limitation, and contributes to a lack of debate within the book.
The Essay on Bias in Historical Description
The article reviewed was Behan McCullagh’s Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation in which he gave a brief but thorough outlook on the manner to which historical accounts are peppered with biased analysis and his opinion on how historians would be able to diminish, if not fully obliterate, from the nature of recounting past events. Why History is Biased McCullagh started ...
The coverage attempted by each is also a serious limitation. As an editor myself, I know how the range of books of essays often reflects the willingness of authors to contribute (and indeed to fulfil their contracts), but in these two collections it appears rather to be the case that there have been deliberate acts of omission. Thus we have gender in both, but military history in neither. Such traditional staples as constitutional and legal history are also clearly not fashionable among those who seek to set the agenda. It is impossible to cover everything, but the many omissions help to give both collections a somewhat ephemeral and partisan character. There is also the problem that the welcome call to contextualize Europe, provided by Linda Colley in her thoughtful and wide-ranging ‘What is Imperial History Now?’ , is not adequately matched by most of the other contributors.
As the fortieth anniversary of the publication of E. H. Carr’s What is History? is the departure point for the Cannadine volume, it is unsurprising that there are some interesting passages on Carr’s intellectual world and subsequent changes, by Cannadine and, more fully, Richard Evans. Evans argues that Carr never completely resolved the tension in his mind between his belief in the subjectivity of historians and his utopian hope that they could do better. Evans also briefly reviews the pervasive character of modern historical consciousness. The Cannadine volume goes on to provide the useful perspective of an ancient historian, Paul Cart ledge, on social history.
He urges us to ‘resist all hegemonic disciplinary claims’, but also emphasises the reality of class as a classification, as well as the need for social history. Given the topic of political history, Susan Pedersen focuses on that of Britain and the British empire. She criticises British historians for failing to think comparatively but says virtually nothing about many of the societies of the world. In this respect, Christopher Bayly’s essay about British historical writing about Asia in the Burke volume is instructive.
