That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession (Ideas in Context) |
|
|
|
| Title: | That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession (Ideas in Context) |
| Author: | Peter Novick |
| Publisher: | Cambridge University Press |
| Type: | Book / Paperback |
| Publication Date: | 30 September, 1988 |
| ISBN / ISBN-13: | 0521357454 / 9780521357456 |
| List Price: | $34.99 |
| You Save: | $9.77 |
| Amazon Price: | $25.22 |
|
This book is also available, brand-new, from 3rd-party marketplace sellers at Amazon.com, from $25.12.
|
The HTML code below can be pasted onto your web-site, your MySpace page, or blog - or any number of similar places - to create a link to this page:
If, instead of a text link, you'd like to create a link to this page which will display the book cover, if it's available, then the code below will do exactly that:
Check for the same book at these other US book sites:
• [ Abebooks ]
• [ Alibris ]
• [ Barnes & Noble ]
• [ Half.com ]
• [ Powells ]
… or check UK bookstores
|
Editorial Review / Publisher's Information:
Product Description
The aspiration to relate the past "as it really happened" has been the central goal of American professional historians since the late nineteenth century. In this remarkable history of the profession, Peter Novick shows how the idea and ideal of objectivity was elaborated, challenged, modified, and defended over the past century. Drawing on the unpublished correspondence as well as the published writing of hundreds of American historians, this book is a richly textured account of what American historians have thought they were doing, or ought to be doing, when they wrote history--how their principles influenced their practice and practical exigencies influenced their principles. Published with the support of the Exxon Education Foundation.
|
Other Items You May Enjoy:
Browse Books From These Related Subjects:
Customer Reviews:
• Deconstructing Decronstruction
26 October, 2003
For all the attention given in recent years to the social context of discourse, remarkably little has been given to the way in which the context of modern academia shapes the way we think about the past. One of the really satisfying things about Peter Novick's 1988 book, That Noble Dream, his history of the American historical profession, is the way-despite its tendency toward relativism and complacency-it turns the armamentarium of critical historical scholarship against the activity of critical historical scholarship itself. One can't read the book and not come away with a deep sense of how much our sense of the past has been hopelessly muddled by the internal imperatives of the profession. It is by endless cycles of cutting and slashing, revising and revisioning, "neo"ing and "post"ing, interrogating and all the rest of the tedious professional jargon, that reputations are made, empires are built, careers are jumpstarted, and-not to put too fine a point on it-tenure is won and promotion secured. The dynamic of revisionism, a dynamic of churning, incessant novelty, serves the cause of academic careerism even more than it does the cause of political correctness. And such careerism and specialization has the effect of stamping out an appreciative sense of the past.
- Amazon Customer Review
• Good, Though Not For Everybody
04 October, 2008
Novick's book on the "Holocaust and Modern Memory" is a perfect example of craft and honesty by a great historian. "That Noble Dream" is a much more ambitious book, a summing up of American Historiography. It's a great book, but probably only interesting to historians and even historiographers at that. It's focus in American Historiography (though tens of pages are devoted to the German, English a French roots of Historical Knowledge)may also shy away non-Ivy League readers. Still, a must for those interested in the field.
- Amazon Customer Review
• Deliberate Misrepresentation Of Evidence
15 April, 2004
Deliberate misrepresentation of evidence and plagiarism are among the most grievous sins a historian may commit. Not only would this do a disservice to our understanding of the past, but of the present and even the future. Peter Novick's treatment of Charles Beard's critics is a case to these points. Just as Hofstadter and others claimed that Beard had misrepresented the evidence, a similar claim may be made that Novick has misrepresented Hofstadter's critique of Beard. In his book, That Noble Dream, The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession, Novick staunchly defends Beard and Becker from their critics by attacking their credibility and dismissing the shortcomings of the progressives. Along the way Novick makes an enticing argument that History as a discipline has been fragmenting, it had been endlessly whittled down internally, and he concluded by proudly proclaiming that history is dead. And his argument is strengthened by its appearance as formal historical writing. But his provocative view of History's fragmentation, is, as Beard would say, only one interpretation. And we must attend to the particular matter of Novick's misrepresentation of Hofstadter's critique of Beard. From that, we might more clearly evaluate Novick's position. Novick not only fails to cite his use of Hofstadter's text entirely honestly, he is guilty of misrepresenting him as well. In The Progressive Historians, Turner, Beard, Parrington, Hofstadter wrote: In 1938, when a considerable number of intellectuals were queried by the editors of the New Republic for its symposium on "Books That Changed Our Minds," Beard's name ranked second only to Veblen's (and ahead of Dewey's and Freud's) among thinkers acknowledged with gratitude, and the two titles most often mentioned by the respondents were The Theory of the Leisure Class and An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. (220) Though Novick provides the correct title for the source of this information, he nowhere suggests that the following are any but his own words: In the 1938 New Republic symposium on "Books That Changed our Minds," Beard was ranked second only to Veblen in influence, ahead of Dewey and Freud. (240)Novick's phrasing certainly wouldn't pass "the smell test" for plagiarism in a historical writing course. He is in the very least guilty of shoddy editing (Stephen Ambrose was skewered for similar shortcomings in his work). As such, this cracks open an unpleasant door for our perception of Novick's work, namely the door of questionable credibility. Though Novick uses the form of historical writing this not presuppose that he is not inaccurate, unbiased, or unprofessional in his methodology. Indeed, his book's premise is that historians cannot be objective; hence, can we believe his is an objective representation? He misrepresented the context of Hofstadter's work and used his words as his own. Is this laudable scholarship?
- Amazon Customer Review
|
