The New Nature of History: Knowledge, Evidence, Language

by Arthur Marwick

An updated version of the classic The Nature of History, The New Nature of History offers answers to questions essential to the student of history What is history?; Why do History?; and How does one do history? Marwick has totally recast and rewritten the first version of the book, published in 1970, and given it a new coherence and a new dynamic thrust derived from the three words of the subtitle, "knowledge, evidence, language." Using these categories, he presents the first clear and comprehensive expression of the case against postmodernism in an undergraduate textbook. Arguing that the substance of history is evidence, not speculation, Marwick explicates the production of history as a body of knowledge. He outlines the actual activities of a working historian in discussions on the necessity of precise language, the analysis and interpretation of primary and secondary sources, and the vital distinctions between the "witting" and "unwitting" testimony of primary sources. This volume, written deftly in explicit and precise language and including a thorough index, is an ideal companion for students and writers of history at all levels.

Genres: History

334 pages, Paperback

First published July 12, 2001

About the author

Arthur John Brereton Marwick (1936-2006) was a Scottish social historian, who served for many years as Professor of History at the Open University. His research interests lay primarily in the history of Britain in the twentieth century, and the relationship between war and social change.

Reviews

[Wes Bishop · Rating 1 out of 5]

A more accurate title would be "How I Hate Postmodernism... Oh, And How My Way is the Only Way to do History."

Marwick makes several good points when it comes to criticizing certain aspects of postmodernism. Specifically, his insistence that historians do work with documents and are members of a scholarly community and therefore cannot simply create fictions is well worth noting. These points are well placed but the overt polemical tone of the book causes Marwick to lose sight of these points as his work progressively becomes a mean spirited diatribe attacking whatever he personally dislikes. This criticism over his polemical language is not merely a commentary on his tone. Instead, Marwick attacks the fields of Evolutionary Psychology, feminism, Marxism, Public History, along with Postmodernism often with logical fallacies and unsupported claims. What is left is a troll searching for an internet chat room.

As if these deficiencies were not enough, Marwick also shows that he has an overly simplistic understanding of the practice of periodization. Readers of this work are encouraged to seek Martin Sklar's thoughts on the subject as Sklar's method is infinitely more useful for the historian.

Marwick's greatest failure though is the Kuhnian dilemma he creates. Like the late philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, Marwick posits an objective reality to which we, as scholars, are trying to understand. Marwick openly admits that unlike scientists, historians are different and are therefore not interchangeable. Historians rely on the leftovers of our subject (the past) in the form of documents. We then try to piece these together. But, if we are only left with this incomplete and imperfect basis of evidence then we must admit that our knowledge is severely limited. Marwick admits this, but this begs the question- Why insist on this concept of a strict objective reality? In order to close the discrepancies Marwick creates, he would be required to admit that the softer Postmodernists have a valid point. We do "reconstruct" our subjects via imperfect sources of info and specific research questions. Such an admission, though, requires a level of humility and open mindedness that Marwick, sadly, is unwilling to express in this work.

[Caitlin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thank God that's over. Hands down my least favorite book about writing history! Marwick is arrogant, elitist and just plain irritating for nearly 300 pages. He supplies good information about the different aims of historians and schools of thought but in such a condescending manner towards those who disagree with him that at points I wanted to strangle him. And most irritatingly, he believes that history is only something that can be considered by professional historians, which is completely contrary to getting people interested in the subject in the first place! If all I read about history were the texts published by professional historians (at least half of whom can be incredibly boring), I never would have wanted to study it at all. You need popular histories to get people interested and then maybe they'll pursue the more academic sources. It just doesn't make sense to call people like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin not real historians just because their audience is the general public rather than academia. Worth reading only if you're a history student and would like to learn information about the discipline. I hated every second of reading it.

[Shannon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A modernist presentation of what history should be - knowledge about the past presented through evidence and through unambiguous language. Marwick intersperses his bashing of postmodernism with grumpy british asides, and jibes at historians he disagrees with. Often unnecessarily rude, and dogmatic in his approach. All in all, however, a good argument that I tend to agree with.

[Emily Ireland · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can not explain the emotional pain and turmoil that reading this book resulted in. It vexed me. I pray for all the students who have this on their reading list.

[Jack Stewart · Rating 2 out of 5]

In The New Nature of History, historian Arthur Marwick attempts to challenge critics of the practice of history. In his view, a network of postmodernists/cultural theorists/Marxists have sought to subvert the objective nature of historical research in favour of theoretical frameworks (Marxism, feminism ect). He bemoans the idea that these critics have called for 'a complete fusion between history and the social sciences (with... The social sciences as the Senior partners)'. As such, Marwick reaffirms the need for a more objective and 'scientific' approach to historical

I had great difficulty reading this book. Not because I found the content challenging, but because I found Marwick's style of writing to be needlessly tiresome. At times, Marwick's sentences and phrasing can drag on in a conversational, rambling tone. This is not helped by the needlessly confrontational character with which he critiques his more metaphysically-inclined colleagues. I do not believe at any point that I saw a charitable critique of any of opposing position, merely consistent condescension.

That being said, once readers pass the initial chapters Marwick does take a more enlightened approach. I enjoyed the chapters on historiography as an introduction to the various schools of thought, and towards the end of the book there is some sage advice in thr creation of historical writing that I found to be useful. These later sections make the book useful for anyone learning the process of writing history, but the polemical nature of the early chapters really let's the book down.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introductory primer with special attention to ongoing debate between postmodern and more "scientific" approaches to doing history. Marwick situates himself firmly on the "scientific" angle and has much to say in criticism of postmodern historiography as he understands it.

[Reader2007 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read for historiography--history 201. Main text.

Excellent book. Dense at times but well worth reading! Also, Marwick's cutting wit is extremely entertaining. A must read.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Contains some interesting information and analysis, but ultimately it is let down by the author's arrogant and snide attacks on other historians.