Section 1 (1 Viewer)

[dasphoebus]

Except for the first paragraph and the second last paragraph, did everyone find it difficult to grab hold of handles in the quote? It seemed really all over the place. It was easier than a hooker to pidgeonhole as empiricist (moderate), but I found most of the quote really led to nothing (except for that patiotism bit).

 

[Asheroth]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

Yeah, I'll jump on this bandwagon. I only referred in proper depth to two parts of the quote: the part which mentions the public professional historian (Vincent/Jenkins, woot!) and the parts that mentions history as a record of past events with the purpose of instructing for the future. I found it hard to evaluate the source as a whole, so I just chose bits that were useful

 

[thenothing]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

Clendinnen is post modernist.

 

[Bobness]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

that's what i thought

i even went as far to say she was socialist as she retains characteristics of marxist thought that is desiring to give a voice to those history silences i.e. aborigines in history wars

post-modernist definitely though

i can't see the empiricism although her elitist style of writing might conjure such an image?

and don't knock hookers. you sexist male chauvinist f*ck

 

[thenothing]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

I wouldn't call her Marxist :/

She doesn't have an 'elitist' style either, most historians show their views like that. And I fail to see how elitism has anything to do with empiricism, unless you're talking specifically about Elton, but that's just silly. Each to their own though, I s'pose.

 

[dasphoebus]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

Ok, you people have it wrong.

I don't have it with me, but she says "History is a science" twice (one tick for empiricism), and at the start, she makes a crack at postmodernism (second tick for empiricism). I guess you can derive marxism from her crap about patriotic history/popular history, but empiricism all the way.

 

[dasphoebus]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

i can't see the empiricism although her elitist style of writing might conjure such an image?

and don't knock hookers. you sexist male chauvinist f*ck

She was very elitist true.

Lol, that wasn't really a knock at hookers, I was just trying to portray how easy it was to pidgeonhole it. (As all you have to do is pay a hooker to get some) Although since your profile says male, I can't tell if you're being ironic. I hope you are.



Here were my empiricist handles:

1. "What's the use of history? We are always being told... that history has no use at all: that every generation writes its own history... I do not accept their analysis" (Major crack at postmodernism)

2 "Humans learn from experience" (Ranke said this was one of his purposes, and so did Carr. Therefore NOT postmodernism, but empiricist/relativist)

3. "History as patriotism or as a group therapy can have disasterous consequences." (Relativist)

4. "History is a secular discipline, and in its idiosyncratic way a scientific one, based on the objective analysis of that vast consultable record of our past actions." (Empiricist)

5. "Our role as scientists of the human." (Empiricist)

6. "We do not see the fog." (History as it essentially was, objectivity, therefore empiricist)

I think I've made my point.

 

[Bobness]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

er empiricism is not the same as relativist

but then this whole debate is over nothing more than words and their meaning because even in political ideology how would you classift a Catholic protagonist who is for abortion? people hold conflicting views just look at mr inconsistent a la windschuttle

i'm going to deconstruct what you wrote anyway because i <3 derrida

1) pomo doesn't say history has no use. you're thinking anarchist pomo. pomo as perceived by derrida, foucault, collingwood i.e. mainstream historians see the non-existence of the complete objective truth but that we can approach it through continuous revision and acknowledgement of bias/identity. a = b but b doesn't always equal a

2) carr as a relativist is the diametric opposite of gr elton who criticised him heavily in the practice of history 1967. and guess who he was ... an empiricist. some people have argued that carr is a forerunner of pomo as is carl becker. and NOT pomo doesn't HAVE to mean empiricist again a= b, b doesn't always = a

3)see above

4) i'll agree for you on this point however i belief she was just praising the work of von Ranke and not affirming this was her point hence the lack of all-inclusive pronouns such as 'we' 'our'. i mean i think every historian has something nice to say about von ranke he was german after all

5) see above

6) i remember that quote, and not seeing fog does not necessarily mean vision (or truth) is crystal clear. simply it means the DUTY of the historian (think jenkins and rethinking history) is to search for the truth and guess what he was a british follower of pomo too.

7) no can't see your points really. you might have confused yourself by trying to pigeonhole clendinnen from the start rather than to compare her purpose with other historians and drawing conclusions from this. oh yeah and elitism can be linked to empiricism due to notions of the white establishment, male, conservatives (windschuttle and co)

cool :uhhuh:

 

[SJazz]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

I don't see how she could be considered a postmodernist, she critises "myth-making," believe the historian can remove themself from their enquiry and she breaks one of the great ideals of postmodernism; she proports a universal truth: that humanity is constant. How is she in anyway postmodern?
She seemed to me to have parrallels with Evans. She is aware that that past is unknowable, but believes that historians can strive for cbjectivity and come close to a "useable truth" (I wish I could remember who it was that actually coined that term)

Except for the first paragraph and the second last paragraph, did everyone find it difficult to grab hold of handles in the quote?

I did the first time (she mentions so many issues), this exact article was used for my trial exam. Today was probably the first time I've giggled in a HSC exam. We analysed the article in class after the trial, which is why I know, Clendinnen ain't Postmodern.

 

[dasphoebus]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

"er empiricism is not the same as relativist"

Ya, I know. It's early postmodernism.

And I know postmodern theory thanks. But those rhetorical questions are typically postmodern.

Two teachers at my school (who are both excellent Extension teachers) both said the source was empiricist.

It looks like we have a debate on interpretation and language (I just learnt about Derrida last night), as what she was saying had many connotations, however I guess as long as you supported your argument, you're sweet. But I will fight to the death to prove that is empiricist.

 

[thenothing]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

Ok, you people have it wrong.

I don't have it with me, but she says "History is a science" twice (one tick for empiricism), and at the start, she makes a crack at postmodernism (second tick for empiricism). I guess you can derive marxism from her crap about patriotic history/popular history, but empiricism all the way.

I studied Clendinnen. I *know* she's a post modernist. She said there were 'usable truths' - the empiricist belives there is one, absolute truth.

 

[thenothing]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

I don't see how she could be considered a postmodernist, she critises "myth-making," believe the historian can remove themself from their enquiry and she breaks one of the great ideals of postmodernism; she proports a universal truth: that humanity is constant. How is she in anyway postmodern?
She seemed to me to have parrallels with Evans. She is aware that that past is unknowable, but believes that historians can strive for cbjectivity and come close to a "useable truth" (I wish I could remember who it was that actually coined that term)

Myth making is a stab at relativists - namely Herodotus and Irving. Post modernists don't make up stuff

 

[DucKy::]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

the first half of the source was in another paper. last years hsc i believe. same question on purpose too, except more specific

 

[nallask8r]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

err couldn't you label just label her a modernist? Btw wat did the question mean by making a judgement, like summing it up at the end?

 

[jackal8]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

Not having read the whoel thread but.

Clendinnen doesnt say history is a science .. i think this is taken out of context ... i believe she is actually deflating therold of the historian as a profession to say it is not so much a study of the past, but rather a scientific study of "... 'useable truth's regarding the human condition ..."

 

[Asheroth]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

I studied Clendinnen. I *know* she's a post modernist. She said there were 'usable truths' - the empiricist belives there is one, absolute truth.

1. Clendinnen may be post-modernist, but the vast majority of people in the state probably didn't study her, and so we have to form impressions based on the source alone.

2. Rubbish. As I mentioned elsewhere, she was discussing history as a whole. Show me one empiricist that believes that we can only extract ONE truth from the record of human history. 'Useable truths' seems to me to indicate relativism at the most (surely a postmodernist would argue in favour of useable fictions?) Also her affirmation of history as a teaching and learning aid seems explicitly non-pomo, or if it is it's a much less radical form of pomo than I've ever studied.

EDIT: Done me some research, and it does seem to appear than Clendinnen has, at the very least, post-modernist sympathies:

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-Sept-1996/clendinnen.html[/url]

The point is, I fail to see how we could have got this out of the source without at least some background knowledge of Clendinnen. It's entirely possible that the BOS took her out of context and intended to present her as a moderate empiricist, you know

 

[n8r]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

Clendinnen is post modernist.

u are stuffed

 

[thenothing]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

u are stuffed

LOL. I think you're the one who's stuffed. I hope you didn't use netspeak in your essay

 

[thenothing]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

1. Clendinnen may be post-modernist, but the vast majority of people in the state probably didn't study her, and so we have to form impressions based on the source alone.

2. Rubbish. As I mentioned elsewhere, she was discussing history as a whole. Show me one empiricist that believes that we can only extract ONE truth from the record of human history. 'Useable truths' seems to me to indicate relativism at the most (surely a postmodernist would argue in favour of useable fictions?) Also her affirmation of history as a teaching and learning aid seems explicitly non-pomo, or if it is it's a much less radical form of pomo than I've ever studied.

EDIT: Done me some research, and it does seem to appear than Clendinnen has, at the very least, post-modernist sympathies:



The point is, I fail to see how we could have got this out of the source without at least some background knowledge of Clendinnen. It's entirely possible that the BOS took her out of context and intended to present her as a moderate empiricist, you know

Okay, say 'useable truths' represents relativism. It does not represent empiricism. And, I agree with the other person, everyone has taken the 'history is a science' out of context. Blah.

 

[billy_slater]

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum?

i am so fcuked.
i said that she was against post modernism HAHA 0/25 for me.