Simon Schama: Michael Gove’s history man
Posted on Wednesday 6 October, 2010
Filed Under Education
THE Coalition has declared war on educational inequality, Michael Gove told the Tory conference yesterday. But its decisions to scrap Labour’s schools rebuilding scheme and pass the socially divisive Academies Act can only increase it.
The education secretary’s insistence that young teachers are his ‘heroes and heroines’ was cringe-inducing, and I could have lived without the rewrite of the Monty Python four Yorkshiremen sketch on which he closed.
But there was one thing Gove said that even I agree with, and that is his call for a return to the teaching of straightforward narrative history in British schools.
Simon Schama has been appointed an advisor to this end, he added. My guess is that a lot of lefties will have a problem with this.
Many argue that history is inherently ideological, and therefore cannot be taught in a neutral way. They point to such controversies as the rival functionalist and intentionalist readings of the Holocaust, or the debate between Great Tradition and soft revisionist accounts of the French revolution.
But history at this level is way beyond most kids’ pay grade. In any case, nobody can understand such quarrels without a thorough grounding in kings and battles and dates, of the type I was provided with in a 1970s grammar school.
Schama’s lengthy take on 1789 and all that was way too small-c conservative for my taste. But he is no raving rightwinger, and probably not a Tory. He is openly supportive of Barack Obama, and donated to Oona King’s unsuccessful bid to secure the Labour nomination for mayor of London.
He has real talent as a populariser, and is far too smart to fall foul of the pitfalls of partisanship. I’ll need to see what he comes up with before offering a final verdict, but let us wish him well.
<<Go back
Comments
159 Responses to “Simon Schama: Michael Gove’s history man”
Leave a Reply
I’d also like to add that I found remark about the Labour Government ‘opening its legs to anyone’, rather crude and anti-feminist. Makes me wonder if you still live with mummy and daddy and are waiting for your 72 virgins/grapes in Paradise.
I will now ignore Sewers pathetic attempts to deflect from anything approaching a rational debate.
Jimmy asked for an example of Sewers racist filth and then Sewer asked for a concrete example of her racist filth. I have to say that was not the hardest task I have ever been set!!
This thread provided an example though this site is littered with her racist, bigoted muck.
Here is what she said earlier in this thread which typifies what she has added to this debate:
“To be honest, if I saw a Middle Easterner on fire in the street these days, I wouldn’t cross the road to piss on him/her.”
To which Boilermaker responded:
“Can I just point out for the record that not all cockneys are filthy bigots like Sue R?”
And Modernity responded
“Sewer Rat’s constant xenophobia is exceedingly tedious and makes you wonder what she actually learnt whilst in the IMG?”
Now Sewer probably doesn’t think this is a concrete example of racism but then again racists never do recognise their racism do they.
By the way I am a socialist party supporter.
I am undone!!! What about the sexism? Why use rape metaphors or metaphors about loose women? is that what you think of us? And, yes, all you can find is one example, supported by the same people you slag off endlessly as having no judgement. Socialist Party or not, you’re still a tosspot.
Sewer,
I am now beginning to feel sorry for you.
Please tell us more about Marxist history, I want to hear your views.
Couple of interesting articles on the internet. ‘Fraid I don’t know how to put in links, but the references are ‘Renegade Eye’ and ‘Charnel House’. Renegarde Eye reprints an article about the Marxist position on support for reactionary ‘resistence’ movements. I was pleased to note that Lenin agrees with me on support for Islamacism. He was against it, seeing it as reactionary. In fact he writes that Marxists should be aware of the political programmes and demands of ‘resistance’ movements. @The Charnel House’ site has an interesting article that is a discussion in Marxist analysis of Columbus. It would appear in America that one day a year is designated ‘Columbus Day, this was originally the Republican Party in the nineteenth century trying to win the Italian vote. In recent years, with the rise of ‘post-colonialism’ there have been protests about this. The writer goes through why opposition to Columbus Day is wrongheaded, or raather an irrelevance. Quite illuminating.
Columbus is a nonentity. The real explorers were Drake and Raleigh (fags and spuds). The British found and stole more land than any other nation in existence. Makes you proud enough to stand to attention and whistle Col Bogey.
I think the point Engels and particularly Marx makes about the ‘discovery’ of the new world is how the primitive accumulation of capital was built on murder, slavery, genocide, robbery, land grabbing etc etc etc. The so called ‘traditional’ history had always presented the early capitalists as just smart, with an eye for an opportunity and had left out of history the murder and butchery.
What they didn’t want to do and what some sections of the left now see as a mission is to justify this murder, slavery, genocide, robbery, land grabbing etc etc etc and translate that into tacit support for all present and future imperialist adventures. The article you cited, though undoubtedly it contains some interesting points, is clearly of that ilk. Very sad that some tiny sections on the left have turned into cheerleaders for ‘primitive’ accumulation. A subject on which Marx couldn’t be clearer. See for example his articles on wood theft, which undoubtedly allowed capitalism to flourish but which Marx viewed critically and led Engels to comment “I heard Marx say again and again that it was precisely through concerning himself with the wood-theft law and with the situation of the Moselle peasants that he was shunted from pure politics over to economic conditions, and thus came to socialism.”
Contrast that concern for the oppressed with today’s leftist cheerleaders for the oppressors.
But well done Sewer you have actually prompted intelligent debate, now start working on that racism.
Jimmy, that’s a very two dimension appraisal of British colonialism.
Dean,
Leaving aside Marx and Engels for the moment, have you actually read *any* history books recently?
If Dean left aside Marx and Engels his mattress would collapse.
Jimmy: The whole point about understanding history, and I think Shane will agree with this, is that it is not an exercise in morality. You use emotive word such as ‘stole’ to discribe the primitive accumulaton of British capitalism. Apart from the generalised philosophical position that ‘Property is Theft’, it does not really enter into an analysis of the situation. Nature does not have moral categories, it is man/women who ascribe morality to nature. This is known as ‘the naturalistic fallacy’ in philsophy. Let’s put it like this, what happened, just is. I think that was also the point in the two articles I cited. That Columbus was the first European to draw the Americas into the European trade network is true. The Norsemen visisted Newfoundland, one of their major cod fishing grounds was located there, and there is evidence that they also made landfall in other parts of America (the Vineland map), there is an ancient legend that the an Irsih monk, St Brendan sailed there in his coracle, that teh Welsh prince Madoc set up a community there, that the Sultan of Mali visited America etc but as the Charnel House article makes clear, all of these stories have no archeological evidence (apart from the Vikings). A well known attempt to claim that teh Chinese visited America was scuppered on teh fact that at that date (1400s), they did not possess the technology to build a sufficiently pwoerful ocean-going junk. Marx and Engles did not scruple to point out that exploitation is based on violence (they weren’t daft), but as the Charnel House article points out, the societies that were being conquered were equally as vicious. Now, this is where morality and ethics come into play. It’s a political decision whether you think the end justifies the means or whether things should be left well alone. That is where Lenin comes in. He theorized that ‘Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism’, we all know that, we imbibed it with our mother’s milk. It was through the development of the productive resources that the seeds of a new society was planted. Marx took the moral decision to be scandalised by the German law of wood theft, because he knew it was not inevitable. I mentioned earlier that I had just read Engles ‘Peasant War in Germany’ and I must say that I was shocked by the severity of the fuedal obligations on the German peasants. I do not think they were quite as onerous in England, but of course the problem in Germany was that it was many little principalities whereas England was a unified kingdom.
By the way, on a technical point, you cannot ‘steal’ land. You may illegally occupy it, or take possession but in English Law, you cannot steal land. (It is not removeable.). That’s just a silly point and by no means the gist of my argument.
SewerR. Taking what does not belong to you whether movable or not is stealing. English Law means nothing here in Scotland. Our ancestors were making laws here while you were hiding in the Dark Ages. You seem to be on a roll today SewerR.
Larceny is an incorrect term when discussing territory. Suffice to say, you haven’t said anything of real depth, you’ve just proffered an emotive quip.
“Our ancestors were making laws here while you were hiding in the Dark Ages.”
I’m baffled, if I’m to be honest.
Sewer Rat,
Same question, leaving aside Marx, Engels, Lenin and other of your political heroes for the moment, have you actually read *any* history books recently?
By that, I mean someone who is considered to be a scholar, historian or an expert in that field?
So have you read any history books recently, if so which?
Why’d you want to know, Modernity? Wht’s it to you?
I am curious if people that discuss history actually *read* any history books.
Surely, that was obvious?
modernity. Stalingrad by Antony Beevor is a good read. SewerR is away cranking up the Thames Barrier to keep the fuzzies oot.
Having studied 17th century History I have read a wide range of books relating to that period, mainly non Marxist. Though my university studies were in economics and maths and my work requires more reading on financial matters. But I feel I know enough to challenge Shane’s views.
One of my problems with Shane’s view is that it is too harsh on non marxist history – though his belief that Marxist history left out facts was rather strange. Though at least he has now set up the differences not as Marxists believe in informal history v non marxist believe in individuals but as informal history v History that asserts the individual. But I further reject this difference. I cannot think of a single historian who doesn’t use both informal and I guess we could call it formal narratives. Incidentally just to hammer home the idea that Marxists also highlight the role of the individual the article Sewer referenced includes a passage from Engels where he basically credits Columbus with doing away with then existing society in Europe through his ‘discovery’ of America!!
If you know of any historians who do only use formal or informal history Modernity please enlighten me and I will look to read it. It is clear you accept Shane’s views, maybe you need to explain why and cite refernces, which is what I did with Stephen J lee and his ideas on the renaissance etc.
So Modernity instead of playing your usual tired mind games try actually sticking your kneck above the wall and actually giving us your view on the topic backed up with logic and facts.
I don’t think it is fair to say that Columbus is singlehandedly credited with doing away with the old order in Europe. Ehat the charnel house article argues is that the shift in social relations brought about by the discovery of the New World, and the wealth released into the Old World had far-reaching consequences. Let’s not forget, that if it hadn’t have been CColumbus, it would have been someone else. His mission was to find the North West Passage so that the traditional trade route through across land to India would be redundant and the Spanish could control the wealthy trade of spices, silks and other Eastern goods. It has nothing to do with any personal qualities possessed by Columbus. You might be on firmer ground with the ‘great man’ view of history when you are dealing with exceptional military men such as Nelson or Napoleon. But, I am a great believer in ‘cometh the hour, cometh the man’. Something that can never be proven or tested one way or the other.
Dean,
Where did you study economics? I’m surprised that you left formal training in that discipline subscribing to such a heterodox view.
“though his belief that Marxist history left out facts was rather strange”
That’s just an utter, pure, unadulterated lie. It’s actually impossible to leave out facts in any form of historicity: ‘the Battle of Hastings occurred in 1066′ is a fact, it’s synthetic and once understood undeniable. So why on earth would I say Marxist historians avoid facts? Simply put, I didn’t say that: you’re making that up.
“Though at least he has now set up the differences not as Marxists believe in informal history v non marxist believe in individuals but as informal history v History that asserts the individual.”
What’s ‘informal history’? You’re just making up terms.
“Incidentally just to hammer home the idea that Marxists also highlight the role of the individual the article Sewer referenced includes a passage from Engels where he basically credits Columbus with doing away with then existing society in Europe through his ‘discovery’ of America!!”
False. A Classical Marxist would say that Columbus was a product of context, economy, and society at that given moment: if those impersonal forces hadn’t fashioned the historical character we call ‘Christopher Columbus’ then it would have done so to somebody else; simply put, Columbus is not unique in anyway, but the an agent that is propelled by something external to himself.
“If you know of any historians who do only use formal or informal history Modernity please enlighten me and I will look to read it. It is clear you accept Shane’s views, maybe you need to explain why and cite refernces, which is what I did with Stephen J lee and his ideas on the renaissance etc.”
You didn’t cite anyone on the Renaissance, infact, forgive me for saying so but your replies didn’t evince any great learning on the subject at all. I gave lists of actual contemporary writers: men I’ve actually read. But all this talk of ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ history is pure nonsense.
The Sewer Rat. The man that cometh to England arrived in Brixham 1688. Silly monarchs that thought they were appointed by god and gave allegiance to the perverts in Rome came to an end. The present British constitution was formed. And he led from the front. A lot of people seem to have a dislike for him!
“Silly monarchs that thought they were appointed by god and gave allegiance to the perverts in Rome came to an end”
You might want to look up ‘Act of Supremacy 1534′.
Shane. And what is your point.
“So Modernity instead of playing your usual tired mind games try actually sticking your kneck above the wall and actually giving us your view on the topic backed up with logic and facts.”
Dean,
I already have, but you weren’t interested, look above in the thread.
“Having studied 17th century History I have read a wide range of books relating to that period, mainly non Marxist. Though my university studies were in economics and maths and my work requires more reading on financial matters.”
Fascinating, it shows a lot of skill to hide that supposed knowledge.
But you failed to answer the question with any honesty, the truth is you probably don’t read any history books nowadays.
You have read them, once, when required by a University, file them away in your mind and that was sufficient.
And that’s where we disagree, I tend to read history books, books in general, as I like knowledge.
But you, Dean, don’t.
You have a rigid lower-middle-class mentality, a condescending mannerism, and a profound inability to engage with your interlocutors.
In short, you talk *at* people, not with them.
It is a common affliction among the remnants of the last century’s Left.
Not that you will understand anything I’ve said, your grasp of the working class experience is minimal, you don’t understand us, you talk down to us but fortunately we don’t care
I am more than happy to write you a booklist, it would take some time I’ve got a lot of books, just drop me an email.
I like helping middle-class thickos out of their intellectual slumbers. But it is not as easy as it seems!
I have a confession SR. Yes I have been to one, just the one, SWP meeting. In the Eighties. As expected full of ‘toss pots’. They spent more than half the meeting discussing whether they should have an agenda. I still see a few of them now. Most are now more right wing than Cameron.
I have never joined a political party in my life. Maybe I am more like the other more humerous Marx. ‘I would never join a club that would let me into it’. A little humour can go a much further way at times than even a work of Marx (The Elder)
Sorry comrades got to say this. Some debates here remind me of that meeting. Why is the mindlessly selfish, now Murdoch right, still winning? Because since the eighties, and before, we are far better at tearing each other apart than we are at tackling the common enemy. Naked Capitalism.
We are so often playing ‘their game’. Divide and rule. It works every time. Old against young. Women against men. Straight against gay. Public Sector against private. Comfortable against the economically uncomfortable. (Hmmm)It is endless.
Anyone spot the one thing missing……. Rich against poor and visa versa. That is a debate ‘they’ most definately do not want us to have. Eh! Who knows? It could mean we could realise we cannot have one without the other. Shock, surprise.
Please temper the abuse, offensiveness and sillyness. I can do it too I know. Silly. ‘Counter revolutionary’ if I can use that term.
My CV? I have read the the first 2 pages of ‘Capital’. More than once. Each time I stopped after the expected incomprehension on my part. (Engels does a good story though).
My politics comes from the streets around me and my day job. It just happen’s every day they seem to confirm Marx, as I understand him through his illustrious interpreters was right. Way ahead of his time. Monopoly Capital. Sowing the seeds of it’s own destruction. Takng you and me down with it.
As for my sexism SR? That accusation does not even warrant my time on a single word from me, never mind a whole sentence. Though I will. If women had ruled this planet even half as long as men. We would not be in this mess maybe.
Fight the right enemy good people
Modernity makes me laugh. His comment to Dean reminds me of a comment my husband’s first boss made to him when he started work. My husband too is a Public Sector Accountant (like I believe Dean is?) and the Borough Treasurer said to him when he started on his first day, ‘You must understand that the lower grades have clerical minds, while we, CIPFA men, have professional minds.’. We still laugh at it to this day.
Matin: What can anyone anywhere say in answer to that speech. You are so totally right.
I said I was going to leave this nonsense alone!!
Shane said way back when,
“Normative questions of history are ancillary to descriptive facts because without knowledge of the later the former is precluded, as such it stands to reason that a familiarity with a narrative of this country is necessary to yield any sort of ability to concoct arguments from a normative perspective.”
You levelled this accusation against Marxist historians, which I believe is a straw man and also false. For example Schama when looking back at the French revolution tends to describe the actions of Robespierre as morally bad, i.e. he forms an opinion or a normative 20th century liberal bourgeois view and projects it back to past events. This normative view isn’t a Marxist one but has more to do with the ‘revisionist’ trend you say took over history from the 60’s. Though it should be noted that one part of so called ‘revisionism’, namely the attempt to look at history from ‘below’ was something Christopher Hill welcomed.
Then you said way back when,
“All the questions you raise are ancillary and certainly moot if you lack an understanding of historical facts.”
Now who the hell could possibly disagree with that?? Straw man!!!
Then you claimed Marxist history was outmoded because of “the idea that history is solely shaped by impersonal forces: be they social or economic.”
Straw man number 2. My probing established this was a complete fabrication.
Then you added to the contrast with this
“that Marxist historians point to impersonal forces as the defining characteristic for the effectuation of any given event; contrasted to that is the traditional school of thought that avers the importance of individual agents in the development of history”
Which again I questioned doggedly until you finally accepted it was incorrect and decided the contrast was not to be found between Marxist and non Marxist schools. Now you are even saying talk of informal and formal history is nonsense even though you raised it and I said it was nonsense!! The problem is that you may have read many books on history and I don’t doubt that but you know next to nothing about Marxism. Actually the biggest critics of the history you seem to be defending –narrative so called ‘traditional’ (though I am unclear on that) are non Marxist historians. The anti Marxist Kenyon regarded early 20th century history as ‘disarmingly straightforward and sentimental’ and a distillation of ‘200 years of Whiggism, topped up with Liberalism’. He actually makes the point that too much emphasis was placed on political matters and that the emergence of ‘Economic and social history, of demography, sociology and even anthropology, has thrown a clearer light on some areas’.
Shane said in response to my economics training,
“I’m surprised that you left formal training in that discipline subscribing to such a heterodox view.”
Can you repeat this in a language I would understand?
As for Modernity, it doesn’t really warrant a reply but if you have read all these history books then you are in a good position to back up Shane’s position with some logical argument and facts – please do so.
Sewer – for my sins yes, a public sector accountant!! Which will give clues to how well my university studies went!!
I don’t think my husband would be too pleased with your last remark Dean. he choose to become a Public Sector Accountant at a time when jobs were plentiful. He could have gone into the city and earned a fortune like many of his college mates, but he, through ideological persuasion wanted to work in the public sector. He is no less committed to the public sector now, although he is in despair as to what has happened to it, and we will be hammered by the cuts and tuition fee rises. It’s the attitude of seeing pubic service as second best that allows the boss class to get away with a lot of what they get away with.
‘Opening its legs to capital’? Just a degendered image is it, Dean? You really should stop revealing your psychosexual problems this way. Or, seek treatment.
Dean,
“You levelled this accusation against Marxist historians, which I believe is a straw man and also false.”
To be candid, you’ve misunderstood what I’ve wrote. As I said above, it’s impossible to not deal with facts when writing history.
“For example Schama when looking back at the French revolution tends to describe the actions of Robespierre as morally bad, i.e. he forms an opinion or a normative 20th century liberal bourgeois view and projects it back to past events.”
Unless you’re an utter fool anyone can say ‘murder is wrong’ – who would deny the validity of that? Schama isn’t delving into the intricacies of ethics: he’s making a comment on something we all accept as true, that ‘murder is wrong’ is a true proposition; normative questions in history, rather than ethics, are something akin to: ‘the French Revolution was GOOD for France’.
“Then you claimed Marxist history was outmoded because of “the idea that history is solely shaped by impersonal forces: be they social or economic.”
Straw man number 2. My probing established this was a complete fabrication.”
No offence but you didn’t and you haven’t. I’m astounded that a Marxist would react to the statement above: this shouldn’t be a tendentious statement. If the philosophical basis of Marxism is Dialectical Materialism, which is essentially materialism as we understand the term today, then the impetus stems from anatomising those forces in history that directly affect communities, as I say, be they economic or otherwise (but primarily economic). Further….
You talk of the English Civil War, but I think the best debate that pertains to that was between Edward Carr (a socialist historian) and Geoffrey Elton (a historian in the traditional Rankeian method): the previously mentioned saw it [Civil War] as an inevitable consequence of socio-economic factors (those impersonal forces that I referred to earlier), Elton, utilising the traditional methods of history, saw it as a product of poor Kingship on the part of the Stuarts: so here we have individuals as the prime movers for any given event juxtaposed with socio-economic (impersonal) forces. When this debate was raging it was seen as a traditionalist Vs. Marxist affair because the tools that were used by each were being critiqued by the other.
“Which again I questioned doggedly until you finally accepted it was incorrect and decided the contrast was not to be found between Marxist and non Marxist schools.”
You just make things up, Dean. See my point above – I’ve sufficiently dealt with this.
“Now you are even saying talk of informal and formal history is nonsense even though you raised it and I said it was nonsense!!”
‘Formal’ and ‘informal’ history is nonsense lexicon.
“Actually the biggest critics of the history you seem to be defending –narrative so called ‘traditional’ (though I am unclear on that) are non Marxist historians.”
Another fabrication. I’m not defending anything – I’ve been quite explicit about that.
Fair point Sewer in regard to public sector. Actually an experience of mine ties into the other thread on higher education. Now I got my job in the public sector because some local authorities had Accountancy trainee posts specifically for graduates, when I got my job the bar was set pretty low. As New Labour policies meant more people going to uni the bar was set higher, so in actuality I would not have been considered for the post today. Now that higher education is being cut it will be interesting to see if the bar is lowered again.
On the sexism thing, well my comment was actually showing empathy with the oppression women have to suffer in a patriachal society. If you read my full comment I was making the point that we are all in the same exploitative position in relation to capital that women historically have found themselves in. So not sexist at all but sympathetic.
Dean,
As for my other comment I meant this: that Marxism is heterodox economics so I’m wondering why you became a Marxist. I.e., I doubt you would have been taught Marxism, certainly wouldn’t have in place of Neoclassical economics.
I didn’t misunderstand you, your basic premise was that Marxists ignored the facts, dropped the narrative. If you have now changed your mind good.
“Unless you’re an utter fool anyone can say ‘murder is wrong’ – who would deny the validity of that?”
Historians? What is your view of Hiroshima? Some historians claim the dropping of the Atom bomb was justified, others say it was designed to frighten the Soviets.
“I’m astounded that a Marxist would react to the statement above: this shouldn’t be a tendentious statement.”
That is because you know nothing of Marxism. Many books have been written about individuals in history, they are a contribution to the overall picture. That doesn’t mean said historian ignores the so called informal history to use your term or that other historians ignore the individual. In fact so called ‘traditional’ history’ built up a mountain of informal forces, humanism, Lutheranism, puritanism, the parliamentary army etc etc etc etc. It is a silly juxtaposition. I am astounded that someone with your knowledge would raise this as a fundamental issue.
The main debates around the Stuarts that I am aware of is whether they were incompetent and feckless, imposing ‘unEnglish’ despotism or whether they were a ‘natural’ development of government. So the ‘Puritan’ history condemned them and the later history redressed the balance. The other debates I am aware of are around where to best stand to view history. In relation to 17th century England, should it be viewed from the centre out to the provinces or from the provinces back to the centre.
It should be noted that Marx himself was an avid reader of traditional history and some later historians regarded so called traditional history and Marxist history as teleological. Though later historians have argued that Marxism was an attempt to replace the so called ‘traditional’ history. Obviously I reject that story.
“Formal’ and ‘informal’ history is nonsense lexicon”
I agree but it is a lexicon YOU introduced!!!!
“I’m not defending anything”
Your comments began with Marx is outmoded, you were attacking Marx and defending the ‘current’ school, whatever that is.
“As for my other comment I meant this: that Marxism is heterodox economics so I’m wondering why you became a Marxist.”
I was exposed to Marxism and Hegelianism for that matter due to my dads union activities. Obviously many great Marxist economists have been taught ‘orthodox’ economics and some not so great ones like me! So I find that a strange question to be honest.
“I didn’t misunderstand you, your basic premise was that Marxists ignored the facts, dropped the narrative. If you have now changed your mind good.”
What kind of faux psychology is this? You’re such an arrogant man. I did not say that Marxists ignore facts – don’t presume to divine my thoughts, especially when I’ve clearly laid down what I believe in the points above.
“Historians? What is your view of Hiroshima? Some historians claim the dropping of the Atom bomb was justified, others say it was designed to frighten the Soviets.”
False. Historians don’t delve into ethics for the simple fact they’re not ethicists. What they may do, however, is contexualise, which is different to normative ethics and metaethics.
“That is because you know nothing of Marxism. Many books have been written about individuals in history, they are a contribution to the overall picture. That doesn’t mean said historian ignores the so called informal history to use your term or that other historians ignore the individual. In fact so called ‘traditional’ history’ built up a mountain of informal forces, humanism, Lutheranism, puritanism, the parliamentary army etc etc etc etc. It is a silly juxtaposition. I am astounded that someone with your knowledge would raise this as a fundamental issue.”
I’ve dealt with this in my posts above. I’m infuriated by your stubbornness. How much clearer can I present a philosophical fact? As I said above, the philosophical basis of Marxism is Dialectical Materialism, which is materialism as we understand it today, the consequence of that is a strict material determinism (absolute cause and effect: an irrevocable causal chain) – this appertains to those impersonal forces: that history is propelled by this causal chain in a strict deterministic fashion, this necessarily precludes individual agents, or human agency, it precludes the contingency that resides in individuals in their exercising free choice. That’s why Marxist historiography is predicated so firmly on impersonal forces: it is intrinsically entwined with the philosophical underpinnings of their world-view; the Elton/Carr debate excellently demonstrates that. What else can I say on the matter so you understand? The greatest intellectual historian of the last century – and in my opinion he hasn’t been surpassed – was Isaiah Berlin, he contributed to the philosophy of history and in particular you should read his work ‘Historical Inevitability’ which deals with these very questions: that is, the importance of individual agency Vs. impersonal forces.
“The main debates around the Stuarts that I am aware of is whether they were incompetent and feckless, imposing ‘unEnglish’ despotism or whether they were a ‘natural’ development of government.”
Completely missing the point…
“I agree but it is a lexicon YOU introduced!!!!”
No it isn’t. As you can see above, I’ve used the precise terms: individual agency and impersonal forces.
“Your comments began with Marx is outmoded, you were attacking Marx and defending the ‘current’ school, whatever that is.”
Yes, I attacked Marx but I didn’t defend anything.
Why is it? The era of sophisticated Marxist economists is well and truly over.
Shane said,
“Schama isn’t delving into the intricacies of ethics: he’s making a comment on something we all accept as true, that ‘murder is wrong’”
then said,
“Historians don’t delve into ethics for the simple fact they’re not ethicists.”
These somments seem contradictory. Schama said the actions of Robespierre could not be defended!! That is ethics pure and simple. It is also a normative approach, which I think is a very tricky subject for historians (and economists also).
“the consequence of that is a strict material determinism”
This simply isn’t true, you really need to educate yourself about Marxism. You are obviously a clever chap so i would suggest you start reading up on Marxism and the debates surrounding it. I would say though that your view of ‘Dialectical Materialism’ is a crude view that Engel’s admitted had been partially the fault of himself and Marx due to their attacks on Proudhon. So those with only a casual acquaintance of Marxism will easily fall into that trap. The point is if you are going to set yourself up as a critic you really should have more knowledge about the subject you are criticising.
My own take on impersonal forces v individual agency, which is a very old argument that I have heard many times before though not as a Marxist non Marxist construct, is that it is not real, though I will seek out the text you kindly referenced.
“The era of sophisticated Marxist economists is well and truly over.”
Well to the ill informed that would certainly appear to be the case.
Shane: Dean is obviously not one quarter as educated or open to debate as he presents himself. Have you noticed that he can never been wrong, he will twist his words and other people’s words to claim he is right. The ‘informal/formal’ debate is a prime example of this. One suspects that he was a beneficiary of equal opportunities to get a training position in a local authority, which he now repays by slighting the public sector. Unfortunately, this site is haunted by inconsistant figures who reveal themselve to not be what they claim. jimmy Galsgae is another one. The only thing to do is ignore their provocations, unless you are in the mood for a bit of sport. I hope you continue visiting this site, because I for one enjoy reading your contributions, but I would understand if you thought you had chanced upon the Mad Hatter’s Teaparty.
“As for Modernity, it doesn’t really warrant a reply”
Dean,
As I have pointed out before, you are contemptuous of others and insecure intellectually.
That’s why you can’t engage (or barely read) what other’s write.
You are, essentially, a conservative wrapped up in pseudo-radical rhetoric.
Many of the ideas that you put forward have be gained from the half digested thoughts of others, your mental rigidity means that you don’t think anew or like taking in new ideas.
Any facts that you have on history is the product of tuition and cheap pamphlets, not any quest for knowledge or a real desire to think about the issues.
You stick with an intellectual status quo simply because you can’t think beyond it, or anything else.
In short, you are an expression of the immature lower middle classes, small wonder the rest of us, the working classes ignore you.
Sewer,
come off it, comments blogs are not the place to have academic debates. There are people like you around for a start who like Modernity (who you just criticised) just throw around accusations. Now that I have answered your sexist accusation you have quickly moved onto another. Pathetic really.
But to be clear – you accept Shane’s criticsms of Marx and his definition of ‘Dialectical materialism’?
Also the informal/formal debate is apt, if you have informal forces then that presupposes the formal. The juxtaposition of Shane is informal v formal, Marxist is informal, non Marxist is formal. This is absolutely incorrect.
“In short, you are an expression of the immature lower middle classes, small wonder the rest of us, the working classes ignore you.”
Again nothing to actually say on the subject just wild speculation!! Actually if you read above some such as Igor and Sean were listening to the debate and were pissed off with the diversions of you and Sewer.
You really do need to get over the fact that I am an anti Zionist. Let it go man!
Dean,
“Schama isn’t delving into the intricacies of ethics: he’s making a comment on something we all accept as true, that ‘murder is wrong’”
then said,
“Historians don’t delve into ethics for the simple fact they’re not ethicists.”
These somments seem contradictory. Schama said the actions of Robespierre could not be defended!! That is ethics pure and simple. It is also a normative approach, which I think is a very tricky subject for historians (and economists also).
They are not contradictory. I have to explain what normative ethics and metaethics is:
Normative ethics asks how one should act, so, assuming you’re not a noncognitivist or emotivist, it would be based on what moral propositions are true or false, such as ‘murder is wrong’ is either true or false.
Metaethics deals with questions such as whether morality can be stated as propositions or what IS good (noncognitivism and emotivism are metaethical ideas).
Historians don’t delve into metaethics and they certainly don’t attempt to frame true normative ethical questions, so Schama wouldn’t ask questions on the validity of the proposition ‘murder is wrong’: this is the realm of ethics. What he might do, however, is make a passing comment on whether, as an example, the Tyranny in France was wrong in their condemnation of so many French ‘citizens’. Schama is actually notorious for his ignorance in philosophy of history, and his blanket remark is poor, but he can be forgiven: contextualism is part of the Cambridge School of Historical Thought, so a contextualist would ask what ideas prompted the Tyranny, in much the same way as they contextualise the dropping of the atomic bomb. Normative ethics is different to normative questions in history: you have to understand that.
“This simply isn’t true, you really need to educate yourself about Marxism.”
I’m sorry, but it IS TRUE. And I’ve already explained why it is true in Marxism – I’ve even given reference to an infamous debate on the subject. You have to be willing to LEARN, Dean, as Goethe once said: ‘communication is a universal trait, learning to accept what’s communicated is an acquired art’ – stop being so dogmatic and obstinate and actually try and be willing to learn.
“You are obviously a clever chap so i would suggest you start reading up on Marxism and the debates surrounding it.”
I have.
“So those with only a casual acquaintance of Marxism will easily fall into that trap. The point is if you are going to set yourself up as a critic you really should have more knowledge about the subject you are criticising.”
This is just a diatribe at what I wrote. There is nothing of substance here.
“Well to the ill informed that would certainly appear to be the case.”
It’s true…
Maybe someone else can help me out here: am I being ambiguous and unclear in what I write? Does anybody else, apart from Dean, understand what I’m writing, or do my points seem incoherent…
Shane: There’s none so deaf as those who will not hear, Shane. Dean is amusing himself at our expense. I think he has a code of ‘ethics’ ie violent sexual imagery is ok, anti-Zionism is good, public sector is second best and he can not recognise any subtleties. He has invented a nonsense term ‘informal/formal’ about history and refuses to accept that no such term exists. I would doubt he is a member of the Socialist Party, although he may have read one of their leaflets once.
“Again nothing to actually say on the subject just wild speculation!”
What subject? It is just a non-argument from you.
I have already said my piece above, but you ignored it as you probably couldn’t understand my point.
Christ, another confession coming. You lot are turning me into a Catholic. Never thought I would see the day when I could see some point in book burning. Shame on me I know.
Maybe, just for a few months perhaps, we could politely leave them on a special shelf. Then spend as much time as we do reading them, going out and putting some of the stuff into practice.
If we on the left do not change the habits of a lifetime, certainly the last 30 years, we may as well join the ‘Cheshire Hunt’ (Engels actually did apparently – and had shares) and vote Tory. (He would not do that)
I love a blazing brazier on a picket line. How about you?
First book on it is the 97 Labour Manifesto or you are a sissy!
Cheers
Shane. I think you have knocked it aff with the old Muppet SueR.
Boiled beef and carrots, jellied eel and all that. Nudge, Nudge! nod is as good as a wink tae a blind parrot. She may have a free bus pass that allows a companion.
I was bored so……
Shane claims that Marxism is entirely reliant on impersonal forces and that it ignores the individual agency because of a deterministic materialism. He further claims this is in hostility to a school of ‘individual agency’, though he hasn’t told us if this school is as dogmatic as the Marxist school, i.e. he hasn’t said if this school is entirely reliant on individual agency but I guess we must assume that it is. Even if this so called individual school existed in reality, Shane has already indicated that he doesn’t support individual agency when responding and agreeing to my comment “Individual agency would have to make everyone else who isn’t the great individual impersonal”. Therefore we would have to conclude that the individual agency school is really just as reliant on ‘impersonal forces’ as any other school!! Therefore even if there was a school claiming to be an individual agency school we would say no you are not!! Therefore Shane would have to accept my view that there is no divide on this basis and that the real differences lie outside this area.
My belief is that there is no such thing as a history that is entirely reliant on ‘individual agency’ or ‘impersonal forces’. Name me the historian who would deny the affect of the Black Death or an historian who would deny the power of Napoleon?
Shane’s second attack is that Marxist history is ideological. Again wrong!
You just won’t find Shane’s idea of normative statements in Marxist academic thought, be it economics or history. If anything Marxists have tended to err against the ‘contextualised’ accounts of people like Schama, personally I am not unsympathetic to Schama’s style here, after all he is not just delivering History but also entertainment. People want more than juts dry facts; I guess the debate is where you ‘contextualise’. imo History to some extent should be a discussion between past and present.
Generally on normative statements, I think this is less straightforward a subject than Shane admits. In economics for example there are debates about how quickly markets clear, how effective markets are. That can easily be interpreted as a debate about whether markets are good or bad.
On how history should be taught in schools, I think History should teach people more than the ‘facts’, which are important, it should teach people how to think and how to form an argument. I think this should be done from an early age; I reject the idea that kids are unable to develop those skills. In fact the earlier they develop them the better.
Dean,
There is no school of ‘individual agency’, although the importance of agency is a prominent feature in the ‘Great Men’ history that was integral to Prussian Historicism and history in general in the early-mid 19th century.
“Individual agency would have to make everyone else who isn’t the great individual impersonal””
Wow. Evidently you don’t understand what ‘individual agency means’. I seriously suggest you read that essay I cited.
“My belief is that there is no such thing as a history that is entirely reliant on ‘individual agency’ or ‘impersonal forces’.”
Dean, it’s the difference between contingency and necessity, that Marxism has a necessary causal chain given its materialism and hence the prevalence of impersonal forces.
“Shane’s second attack is that Marxist history is ideological. Again wrong!”
I qualified that and I said Marxist history is teleological, which obviously it is.
Shit I thought you’d gone away and I would have the last say on this subject!!
“There is no school of ‘individual agency’”
Yes I know I have been saying that repeatedly!
“Wow. Evidently you don’t understand what ‘individual agency means’. I seriously suggest you read that essay I cited.”
When I made this point previously you said, “I’m not defending the School: I’m merely pointing out its existence.” So you seem to have changed your own definition while this debate has been ongoing! Wow!
“that Marxism has a necessary causal chain given its materialism”
Hang on you called it dialectical materialism and now you claim it is causal materialism. Back to school for you me thinks. This is typical of your lack of understanding of some basic Marxist stuff, how dare you have the arrogance to criticise it.
“qualified that and I said Marxist history is teleological, which obviously it is.”
NO – originally you said without qualification this:
“a great example of ideological history is Marxism and the supposed incremental slog to Communism.”
It was only my questioning that brought forth the ‘qualification’. If it had been left to Sewer and Modernity that statement would have gone unqualified!