This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Carr or Elton?

alro

well? any opinions? feel free to suggest others as well! :biggrin:

Reply 1

sz72

5

?

Reply 2

Alphie

1

alro

well? any opinions? feel free to suggest others as well! :biggrin:

Ha! I know what you're talking about!
Not that I've read either of their texts (yet), but have been reading "In Defence of History" by Richard Evans. He sort of reasseses the debate, but I suppose his ideas are closest to Elton.
It's really a question of whether you take the traditional approach that an historian's role is to search for the truth, or the post-modern theory that history is a product of those who record it and that it can never be pursued entirely subjectively. From what I know of them, I personally support Elton's opinions but think Carr's theories do have (increasing) relevance in the age we live in.

btw for those who don't know Carr and Elton are authors of two key opposing texts on political theory - much studied by undergrads.

Reply 3

~Sam~

15

alro

well? any opinions? feel free to suggest others as well! :biggrin:

I don't really know much about Carr. But Elton annoyed the hell out of me last year in AS History.

Reply 4

Mib

Old hat ^_^

Nobody really gives a monkey's what Carr & Elton think anymore, times have changed too much. By all means read them, but don't harp on about them like they're the historian's bible.

Postmodernists are generally quite dim to be honest. Beyond the basic linguistic arguments, you don't need to know that much to be able to deal with them - as the Paul de Man case illustrates.

Reply 5

Mib

AlRP

Ha! I know what you're talking about!
Not that I've read either of their texts (yet), but have been reading "In Defence of History" by Richard Evans. He sort of reasseses the debate, but I suppose his ideas are closest to Elton.
It's really a question of whether you take the traditional approach that an historian's role is to search for the truth, or the post-modern theory that history is a product of those who record it and that it can never be pursued entirely subjectively. From what I know of them, I personally support Elton's opinions but think Carr's theories do have (increasing) relevance in the age we live in.

btw for those who don't know Carr and Elton are authors of two key opposing texts on political theory - much studied by undergrads.

Surely you mean objectively?

Reply 6

Alphie

1

of course that's what I meant - just testing!

Reply 7

B00kwOrm

1

I really recommend Carr, I wish I had read his book at AS already! Very thought-provoking. I meant to read Evans, but didn't get round to it... I don't know Elton, who is he?

Reply 8

Mib

B00kwOrm

I really recommend Carr, I wish I had read his book at AS already! Very thought-provoking. I meant to read Evans, but didn't get round to it... I don't know Elton, who is he?

Oh come on. How can you recommend that Marxist? "History is progress" - purlease.

GR Elton was an early critic of Carr. He was Regius Professor of History at Cambridge, author of "The Practice of History" and "The Tudor Revolution in Government". He was an empiricist.

Reply 9

B00kwOrm

1

Mib

Oh come on. How can you recommend that Marxist? "History is progress" - purlease.

GR Elton was an early critic of Carr. He was Regius Professor of History at Cambridge, author of "The Practice of History" and "The Tudor Revolution in Government". He was an empiricist.

Just because Carr was an expert on modern Russian History doesn't make him a Marxist! I usually know a Marxist historian when I read one. Even if you don't agree with him, I still think that book is worth reading.

Reply 10

Trier

1

/Just because Carr was an expert on modern Russian History doesn't make him a Marxist! I usually know a Marxist historian when I read one. Even if you don't agree with him, I still think that book is worth reading./

His belief in historical progress was very Marxist- most historians don't try to make such sweeping statements as that there is a clear semblance of progress. Other than this, he did have Marxist tendencies- he believed that the Communist Planned Economy was the way forward, and was only prevented from being an official Soviet historian because he had too much of an interest and admiration for Trotsky- he's often quoted as being the 'Red Professor of Printing Square' :smile:

Reply 11

B00kwOrm

1

Trier

/Just because Carr was an expert on modern Russian History doesn't make him a Marxist! I usually know a Marxist historian when I read one. Even if you don't agree with him, I still think that book is worth reading./

His belief in historical progress was very Marxist- most historians don't try to make such sweeping statements as that there is a clear semblance of progress. Other than this, he did have Marxist tendencies- he believed that the Communist Planned Economy was the way forward, and was only prevented from being an official Soviet historian because he had too much of an interest and admiration for Trotsky- he's often quoted as being the 'Red Professor of Printing Square' :smile: