Metahistory
04/14/2009 18:14
I read Hayden White’s Metahistory. Okay, I admit, I only read some of it.
I remember reading articles of White’s in historiography class (seems like a long time ago -- only 2 years!). He seemed to be the voice of reason, set against the irate ravings of Arthur Marwick. And the position he took seemed eminently reasonable.
White does make some good points in his introduction. He raises some interesting questions about the nature of narrative, how story forms and archetypes can function as interpretive prompts for the reader (and maybe for the historian). But then he goes off on a wild, ridiculous, nearly unreadable tangent for about 400 pages, before he concludes that since all knowledge is basically invalid, you can believe any type of history you want.
Needless to say, I skipped most of those interminable 400 pages.
I reread the beginning of Marwick’s article, where he responds to White. I’ll have to look at them more closely, but it seems a shame that clear, plain-language writing frequently advocates reactionary politics, while radicals who have a legitimate case against the status quo often let themselves become lost in their rhetoric.
My thoughts on White in more detail here.
I remember reading articles of White’s in historiography class (seems like a long time ago -- only 2 years!). He seemed to be the voice of reason, set against the irate ravings of Arthur Marwick. And the position he took seemed eminently reasonable.
White does make some good points in his introduction. He raises some interesting questions about the nature of narrative, how story forms and archetypes can function as interpretive prompts for the reader (and maybe for the historian). But then he goes off on a wild, ridiculous, nearly unreadable tangent for about 400 pages, before he concludes that since all knowledge is basically invalid, you can believe any type of history you want.
Needless to say, I skipped most of those interminable 400 pages.
I reread the beginning of Marwick’s article, where he responds to White. I’ll have to look at them more closely, but it seems a shame that clear, plain-language writing frequently advocates reactionary politics, while radicals who have a legitimate case against the status quo often let themselves become lost in their rhetoric.
My thoughts on White in more detail here.
