Stuart,
Keith Jenkins (who has published a series of four extraordinarily valuable
books over the last ten years, providing interested parties with a way into
this discourse from the ground up) has a section on Richard Evans in his
newest, _Why History?: Ethics and Postmodernity_ (Routledge, 1999).
Jeff
----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: History of ...
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:20:47 -0000
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeffrey
Lots of things i could say to this - given that my first degree was in
politics and modern history, i know first hand the suspicion of historians
to Foucault's work. I've just picked up a copy of Richard Evans' The
Defence
of History, which was heavily discounted :o) A 'pretty much as you'd
expect'
attempt by a 'traditional' historian against the 'poststructuralist'
assault... I've had a quick look through, and it looks pretty superficial.
Why is that historians (such as Keith Windshuttle a few years back, and now
Evans) berate these poststructuralists for their lack of work with the
'sources', the archives, and their reliance on 'discourse' and then so
patently fail to read the people they criticise??
Evans for example, reading the cover blurb and the chapter heads looks to
be
tackling F head on, but his sense of what he is about is incredibly
superficial. A few generalisms about power knowledge and discourse. Why do
these historians neglect the very basics of intellectual history???
Stuart
Keith Jenkins (who has published a series of four extraordinarily valuable
books over the last ten years, providing interested parties with a way into
this discourse from the ground up) has a section on Richard Evans in his
newest, _Why History?: Ethics and Postmodernity_ (Routledge, 1999).
Jeff
----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: History of ...
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:20:47 -0000
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeffrey
Lots of things i could say to this - given that my first degree was in
politics and modern history, i know first hand the suspicion of historians
to Foucault's work. I've just picked up a copy of Richard Evans' The
Defence
of History, which was heavily discounted :o) A 'pretty much as you'd
expect'
attempt by a 'traditional' historian against the 'poststructuralist'
assault... I've had a quick look through, and it looks pretty superficial.
Why is that historians (such as Keith Windshuttle a few years back, and now
Evans) berate these poststructuralists for their lack of work with the
'sources', the archives, and their reliance on 'discourse' and then so
patently fail to read the people they criticise??
Evans for example, reading the cover blurb and the chapter heads looks to
be
tackling F head on, but his sense of what he is about is incredibly
superficial. A few generalisms about power knowledge and discourse. Why do
these historians neglect the very basics of intellectual history???
Stuart