Forget [political] History.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Forget [political] History. » Forget [political] History.

Forget [political] History.
From the ideas of post-modernism/ keith jenkins

Page: 1 2 3 4

Forget [political] History.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1017

Posted 10/14/09 - 06:38 AM: Subject: Forget [political] History.	#1
Many postmodernists will stalk along the street, kicking empty cans with gaiety, skipping and whistling old-time songs, and saying, "Let's forget history, it is dead!" -in a similar vein as saying, "God is dead!" Here is an excerpt from keith jenkins book "why history?" It is fittingly ironic, then, that Evans [a professional historian] et al. have inadvertently stumbled across what actually is the situation; that is, that it really is history per se that radical postmodernism threatens with extinction (a point not fully appreciated by postmodern historians themselves; I shall try to show this when I argue that we can now ‘forget history’ for postmodern imaginaries sans histoire). Of course, this doesn’t mean to say that the lower case [contrast with metanarrative] (and other histories) are already dead and buried, rather that an argument can be made that history per se is just slipping out of conversations; that it does not seem urgent or much to the point any more. And it is, of course, my argument that this is a good thing: that the optimum conditions for the creation and sustaining of history now lie behind us, and that we should now forget such configurations and embrace a non-historicising postmodernism. Now, at first glance we might all nod our heads, clasp our chins knowingly, aristocratically lowering the bottom lip as though this were all true, that post-modernism is simply "true" and that we should move on. HOWEVER, isn't there a danger, that if we ignore history, aren't we liable to repeat history? And referring specifically to the title of this thread: what about the history - working class movements, history of slavery, women getting the vote, the history of monarchy etc., I am only skimming the surface here, but what would you (if you are a post-modernist, and I think you are) say to the notion that we should away with history? The claim indeed can be made that we can do away with history, in the sense that what we call "history" is nothing but a story or narrative made in the present; however, I think there needs to be an explanation of "why" we do things the way we do today - why we vote, why we go to work, why we piss next to a tree etc., WE DO these things, and we need to explain them; and where do we end up when we explain these things: History.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1017

Posted 10/14/09 - 06:47 AM:	#2
...Jenkins is saying that "history is dead" - in the same postmodernist way someone would utter, "god is dead!" But I think Jenkins needs to account for the narrative, for the stories that we tell of the past, and saying "history is dead!" does not cut the cake. He almost wants to say we should do history in the present, in the future, come up with "new ideas" - but in a sense the only way this can be done is from the past - where learning is done. Also, we live within democracy, where we have rights (apparently) and these rights have been built on "history" and the professional historians keep these ideas going; yes, they keep the ideology going (whatever that might be) however they keep the present going, by keeping the past alive. So for example, if we ripped up history, and just nodded our heads like cows (at what jenkins says), then how would we keep our institutions going?
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

yebiga
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 10/14/09 - 06:58 AM:	#3
I think this is a type of posturing by some postmodernists. I have read a little about a few postmodernist and the one thing they all seem to have in common is a very solid grounding in history and the classics. Some like Lyotard are obsessed by it. But all of them seem to forever refer to greek myths or old philosophers to clarify their argument. I have not heard of Keith Jenkins, but he too is talking about history even if he is predicting its demise. Me thinks, they all protest too much. Ok, we had the death of god: that sort of said something; than the death of the author: which said less but something; and now it is the death of history: this says nothing at all; and nothing at all is a good parody of contemporary culture, perhaps that is what Jenkins is up to, nothing at all - a 15 second attention grabber, nothing at all.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 427

Posted 10/14/09 - 10:20 AM:	#4
My opinion on history is somewhat undecided - I believe it to be important in that we can learn lessons from it, but not lessons that we can use to predict the future. More like we can use it to find patterns and see how our society has evolved into what it is today, though I do not subscribe either to the conservative idea that we should somehow try to emulate a 'rose-tinted view' of history. I guess I'm a determinist in a sense. At the moment I'm really leaning towards the Hegelian notion of perpetual change throughout the historical process. As for post-modernism, I really know very little about the movement. From what it seems from your thread, though, it is unbelievably foolish to deny the importance of history. If anything, to be it shows us that societies are constantly changing, and going backwards as well as forwards. Man's conduct throughout history has not obeyed the evolutionary process as much as one would think it seems, even if the historical process is only a few thousand years long, which is of course a drop in the ocean in terms of life on earth.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/14/09 - 11:55 PM:	#5
History can never die, because it has never been alive. History doesn't exist as the past, it exists as references to significant events. In that case, if you would argue for death, then I would suggest that events don't really live and if history is a record of events, you lose knowledge as documented, which can always be gained again - as it is knowledge, it doesn't really 'die'. If you argue for death, historical figures (people who make it in history, through their reactions that form historical events) are dead anyways. If they are dead, what is recorded are merely eventual choices - their choices, not them. Since such choices are significant to us, we remember them, not the dead, but their choices - they are remembered for their choices, not that they existed. I would thus argue against the notion of 'dead' history. Because we don't remember the dead, but their choices that affect us. Remembering them comes as part of remembering what is more significant to us.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1017

Posted 10/15/09 - 03:27 AM:	#6
yebiga wrote: I think this is a type of posturing by some postmodernists. I have read a little about a few postmodernist and the one thing they all seem to have in common is a very solid grounding in history and the classics. Some like Lyotard are obsessed by it. But all of them seem to forever refer to greek myths or old philosophers to clarify their argument. I have not heard of Keith Jenkins, but he too is talking about history even if he is predicting its demise. Me thinks, they all protest too much. Ok, we had the death of god: that sort of said something; than the death of the author: which said less but something; and now it is the death of history: this says nothing at all; and nothing at all is a good parody of contemporary culture, perhaps that is what Jenkins is up to, nothing at all - a 15 second attention grabber, nothing at all. Yes, there is a great wealth of debate on this front, and many do refer to the Greeks - also to judaism too vis-a-vis "the death of god". However, I find it diffuclt to refute the "postmodernist" - and i'm sure you do too.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1017

Posted 10/15/09 - 03:34 AM:	#7
sheps wrote: My opinion on history is somewhat undecided - I believe it to be important in that we can learn lessons from it, but not lessons that we can use to predict the future. More like we can use it to find patterns and see how our society has evolved into what it is today, though I do not subscribe either to the conservative idea that we should somehow try to emulate a 'rose-tinted view' of history. I guess I'm a determinist in a sense. At the moment I'm really leaning towards the Hegelian notion of perpetual change throughout the historical process. As for post-modernism, I really know very little about the movement. From what it seems from your thread, though, it is unbelievably foolish to deny the importance of history. If anything, to be it shows us that societies are constantly changing, and going backwards as well as forwards. Man's conduct throughout history has not obeyed the evolutionary process as much as one would think it seems, even if the historical process is only a few thousand years long, which is of course a drop in the ocean in terms of life on earth. Nice reply. Firstly I would like to point out that you have stated in the first sentence just what the postmodernists view of history is ie., "..history is undecided..." The point then that the PM wants to say is that because there is no "true" history (as academic historians might want to tell us) we can do what we want with yesterday; for example Derrida uses the concept of play in much of his writing; history is then nothing but a fiction a story. This brings in the implication likewise that our science and our ethics is also a narrative, something we tell ourselves, and something we tell ourselves is "true" is concrete - is objective. BUT, when we cannot see anything as being objective, aren't we necessarily already playing cards with the post-modernist?
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1017

Posted 10/15/09 - 04:10 AM:	#8
Desidude666 wrote: History can never die, because it has never been alive. History doesn't exist as the past, it exists as references to significant events. In that case, if you would argue for death, then I would suggest that events don't really live and if history is a record of events, you lose knowledge as documented, which can always be gained again - as it is knowledge, it doesn't really 'die'. If you argue for death, historical figures (people who make it in history, through their reactions that form historical events) are dead anyways. If they are dead, what is recorded are merely eventual choices - their choices, not them. Since such choices are significant to us, we remember them, not the dead, but their choices - they are remembered for their choices, not that they existed. I would thus argue against the notion of 'dead' history. Because we don't remember the dead, but their choices that affect us. Remembering them comes as part of remembering what is more significant to us. What you are leaving out is that what is "significant" is in part decided by US the historian, what is significant is given a narrative a begining, a middle, an end. What is significant is brought alive, is a theme of the present age, it is ideological (of its nature), and because of this can only be thought of as "recorded events" - and this might be all there is to history. If you want to say history is significant, you must put down your further chips, and say 'who' is it significant for, as recorded history is always in the interest of some party or person.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 427

Posted 10/16/09 - 08:26 AM:	#9
litkey wrote: Nice reply. Firstly I would like to point out that you have stated in the first sentence just what the postmodernists view of history is ie., "..history is undecided..." The point then that the PM wants to say is that because there is no "true" history (as academic historians might want to tell us) we can do what we want with yesterday; for example Derrida uses the concept of play in much of his writing; history is then nothing but a fiction a story. This brings in the implication likewise that our science and our ethics is also a narrative, something we tell ourselves, and something we tell ourselves is "true" is concrete - is objective. BUT, when we cannot see anything as being objective, aren't we necessarily already playing cards with the post-modernist? To my mind, the argument about the importance of history should fall into two camps; a conflict between the idealist theory of history (Hegel in all but name) and Marx's dialectical materialism. Do we believe that the thoughts of men define societies, or their actions? Whatever one's answer, these two camps both place enormous importance on history, and the post-modernist who tries to claim that history is irrelevent and unimportant is, in my opinion, either trying to be superior and nihilistic or deliberately shutting his eyes to the facts. You raise an interesting point in terms of science and ethics. It is certainly true that science is always changing, but for the postmodernist to deny the importance of early science is as ridiculous as denying the existence of 'true' history. Should we ignore Aristotle's findings because he didn't know about Newtonian physics? Of course not, as his work laid the groundwork for Newton to infer that something will keep travelling at the same speed unless a greater force in the opposite direction acts upon it. Science is necessarily all about inference and rationality - if we all believed 'nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false,' we'd still be living in caves. Postmodernistic views on the nature of truth appear very depressing. Ethics is a somewhat more difficult question. The Marxist in me wants to reject the idea of eternal ethics within humans and say that what is considered ethically and morally righteous in one society is not in another. However, as much as I agree with Marx on how there are no inalienable and eternal 'rights' of man in political life, I think that there are some inalienable and eternal 'ethics' of man. Peter Singer shows what I believe ethics to be quite well, I think: "ethics are in some sense universal but in a utilitarian way, in that they afford the ‘best consequences’ and further the interests of those affected." litkey wrote: BUT, when we cannot see anything as being objective, aren't we necessarily already playing cards with the post-modernist? Absolutely. I see no problem in rejecting postmodernist theories on science, and in living one's life according to some 'received truths.' This isn't to say that we shouldn't question things, its just that, as far as we know, certain things are objectively true, and until that is proven wrong, to me they will remain true. yebiga wrote: Ok, we had the death of god: that sort of said something; than the death of the author: which said less but something; and now it is the death of history: this says nothing at all; and nothing at all is a good parody of contemporary culture, perhaps that is what Jenkins is up to, nothing at all - a 15 second attention grabber, nothing at all. I think one can link this, in Britain at least, to the fact that many of the current intellecutal crop grew up in the 'punk generation.' They were in reaction to the somewhat shallow popular culture of the time, and as such have descended ineivtably into an extreme anti-authoritarian view that 'nothing popular can POSSIBLY be good.' This is more on the cultural side of things, though - politically, I think postmodernism leans towards towards the very modern and American philosophy of libertarianism. A critical book was written on postmodernism about 10 years ago, called 'Fashionable Nonsense.' Quite appropriate when it comes to the attitude of postmodernists towards politics and culture in particular, it seems.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1017

Posted 10/16/09 - 10:53 AM:	#10
sheps wrote: To my mind, the argument about the importance of history should fall into two camps; a conflict between the idealist theory of history (Hegel in all but name) and Marx's dialectical materialism. Do we believe that the thoughts of men define societies, or their actions? Whatever one's answer, these two camps both place enormous importance on history, and the post-modernist who tries to claim that history is irrelevent and unimportant is, in my opinion, either trying to be superior and nihilistic or deliberately shutting his eyes to the facts. Because someone writes that Marx and Hegel are important contributors to the history of "theory of history" still leaves the door swinging wildly open, indeed and we have to ask if the door needs to be closed, opened, or if its even possible to get a grip with the door. You or I could come up with our own historical theory, however it would not purchase as "true" anymore than Marx and Hegel. You say shutting the eyes to the "facts" - just what is that? You raise an interesting point in terms of science and ethics. It is certainly true that science is always changing, but for the postmodernist to deny the importance of early science is as ridiculous as denying the existence of 'true' history. Should we ignore Aristotle's findings because he didn't know about Newtonian physics? Of course not, as his work laid the groundwork for Newton to infer that something will keep travelling at the same speed unless a greater force in the opposite direction acts upon it. Science is necessarily all about inference and rationality - if we all believed 'nothing can be proven true, things can only be proven false,' we'd still be living in caves. Postmodernistic views on the nature of truth appear very depressing. There may be some postmodernists that would call into question the importance of early science, and indeed into the importance of "modern" science. It isn't the game of postmodernism to deny X science, or to say that "jesus was a really good person because..." I think the point of postmodernism is to say that there is no objective truth, however, and this is where many will have differing views - where does that leave us? In reading Keith Jenkins, he writes that it is an emancipatory moment for people, a moment where we can now live free of the past, and act in new ways, in ways that have nothing to do with the past. However, I see many problems with this type of thinking, although this isn't to say that I don't find it positive. IF a person is to be "free" aren't they dependent on what they were thinking yesterday? What about the whole area of "social conditioning" ?? I suppose the Postmodernist wants to see his idea(s) as akin to a person having their shackles released, and "free" to think.... anything.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.