History in Crisis? Recent Directions in Historiography

by Norman J. Wilson

This book explores the possibilities remaining for historical study in the face of the current trends, including postcolonialism, postmodernism, and deconstruction, among others. The volume examines key topics such as what was history and what is history? The problems of historical historicism, presentism, and the writing of history, cross-pollination, varieties of history, historical actors, post modernist (re)visions, post-colonialism and the scope of history, as well as the future of history. For those interested in the study of history as well as those interested in the influence of recent political trends.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

Paperback

First published December 14, 1998

Reviews

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 2 out of 5]

It’s unusual for me to review textbooks simply because they are rarely read by choice or for pleasure, and therefore few potential readers hunt up reviews to guide their choices.

Further, I intend to violate a generally sound rule for book reviewers: review the book the author has written rather than one you would write yourself. My own preference for a book about recent historiography would be one that treated the last hundred years of historical theories chronologically. That is, I would prefer a book that provided historical explanations about why certain theories arose when they did, gave clear descriptions of their strengths and weaknesses, and furnished reasons why they were abandoned—or should be.

Though I did learn from Wilson’s book, I found his organization unhistorical, his exposition confusing, and his prose lackluster. To potential adopters I recommend actually reading the book all the way through, then asking yourself two questions. First (the prof’s golden rule), would you want to be assigned this book yourself? Second, is this sort of prose you’d like to model for students who are perhaps simultaneously trying to write their own first histories?

A random paragraph to illustrate Wilson’s writing style and I’m done:

“Schorske chooses to analyze a wide range of aspects that influence intellectual traditions rather than focusing on historical change. This allows him to define an era without precise delineation of historical change. He reveals tendencies without being trapped in diachronic periodization. This allows some readers to relish in the metaphor and others to complain that he has not showed what caused precise changes. A focus on change allows historians to evaluate winners and losers, or those who benefit from change and those who suffer due to chance, but it also forces analysis into a periodization that may work in some arenas of existence but not in others.” (80)

[Hunter Starr · Rating 4 out of 5]

This thin book seems at first to be no more than a day's read but is dense with information. Well written but with some small editorial issues such as typos.