Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:32:04 -0500 From: H-GERMAN EDITOR Dan Rogers To: Multiple recipients of list H-GERMAN Subject: Ken Barkin Replies on Postmodernism [editor's note: the following is Kenneth Barkin's reply to the article on postmodernism by Michael Geyer and Konrad Jarausch in the latest issue of the _German Studies Review_. It is also part of the discussion held recently on H-German concerning postmodernism in the study of German history. Please see the end of this message for instructions on how to retrieve the entire H-German discussion from the gopher or fileserver. d.r.] A Reply to Geyer and Jarausch Submitted by Kenneth Barkin I would like to make a few points about the critique of Geyer and Jarausch of my postmodernism piece. First, my article was an oral presentation at the AHA in 1994. The topic I was assigned was "biography." The limits were twenty minutes and no more than twelve pages. Thus, it was never intended to be a comprehensive view of postmodernism. It was meant to raise some important issues, particularly why postmodern theorists had little influence on biography, and, by extension, German history in this country and in Germany. Let me clarify a few things. I did stress the weaknesses in postmodernism, because it was these weaknesses that explain the failure of German historians to embrace postmodern theories. Its virtues were spelled out in an earlier issue of Central European History edited by Jarausch and Geyer. I certainly do not think there is only one methodology or approach to the study of the past. Because one counsels against choosing one particular path does not mean that many other paths are not be be recommended. Women's history, Alltagsgeschichte, and the history of material culture have all made significant contributions to my knowledge of the past and I have assigned books in all of these fields to my students for many many years. Indeed, since 1984 I have regularly taught a course, entitled The History of Everyday Things and have curated three exhibitions on: vernacular furniture, folk art, and pewter. My paper did express appreciation for the virtues of traditional scholarship but clearly expresses serious criticisms as well. I did not present a dualism with all of the praise on one side. The failure of traditional history to raise new and interesting questions is stressed in my paper. I ended my talk with a sentence that I felt made it quite clear that I hoped there was another (a third path) option apart from traditional history and postmodernist inspired history. I did, as G and J acknowledged in their first footnote, invite them, if they chose, to write a critique of my paper. I wish they had done it because I have always valued serious criticism. Instead, we have an article longer than my own, in which (as J admits in his H-German Internet comments) the critics consciously chose to ignore my substantive points and engaged in amateur psychoanalysis of "Why is Ken so angry?" Thus, my theses about the German roots of French postmodernism, including its critique of humanism and the Enlightenment as well as of natural law was not discussed. The issue of the referentiality of historical scholarship attracted one or two sentences. Oddly, for advocates of postmodernism the text itself is more or less ignored. Instead, a lot of loose language is tossed about indiscriminately. They write of my "orientalist" manner of arguing, whatever that means. I am linked to Harold Bloom, whom I have never read, and Gertrude Himmelfarb, whose last book that I read was a biography of Darwin. Among the terms used to describe me are: Prussian reactionary, Rankean, and escapist. Perhaps this is the occidental way of engaging in debate. Now, G and J assume that anyone criticizing postmodernism severely is on the political right, tied to the past, a troglodyte unable to embrace emancipatory theories. There was a sub-text in my lecture that eluded my critics. If one accepts my hypothesis that the roots of postmodernism are in German romanticism and the historicist tradition, which was certainly on the political right, that at least raises the possibility that its recent incarnation is on the right of the political spectrum as well. A recent article on postmodernism in _Dissent_ which describes itself as the "Journal of the American Left," makes a similar point. In the current issue we have Marshall Berman writing, "The first great surge of postmodern energy came at a moment that marked both the heyday of Romanticism, and the dawn of the European right wing. The first post modern intellectuals turned all their scorn, wit, and rage against such 1790s revolutionary myths as human unity, autonomy and equality....The selective blindness of deconstruction in its youth helped to protect landlords and bosses, dukes and kings against the pressures of the people they were crushing....Isn't it time they had the guts to look their ancestors in the face"?" Perhaps G and J should turn their cannonade of expletives on _Dissent_. Or let us look at the jargon issue. In the sixties and seventies left wing scholars pointed to the function of Greek and and Latin in the European school system as a device to separate the masses from the elite. It was an anachronism whose function was clearly elitist. If we now turn to the jargon created by postmodern theorists can we not postulate, as left wing critics did of Greek and Latin, that it is a device (an ingroup code) to privilege those who are adherents and to distance other scholars and the educated public. Nor should it be forgotten that in his later years Foucault became an ardent enthusiast of the Ayatollah Khomeni and his revolution as well. In the early eighties, he was urging his students to read carefully the collected works of Friedrich Hayek including The _Road to Serfdom_ (serialized in _Readers' Digest_), a scurrilous attack on the European Left of all persuasions that blamed the Left for the success of National Socialism. Lastly, I do not think a debate on postmodernism is enhanced by speculation about my race and sex as Jarausch does in his Internet contribution, where he gives "the erosion of white male predominance" as the reason for my writing an article critical of postmodernism. If they had asked I would have told J and G that I voted for the two women senators from California, and actually contributed quite a bit to one of their campaigns. Is this what you would expect from someone who is lamenting the decline of white male power? I think the association of ideas with a specific race or sex is a way to dismiss them without having to take them seriously, which is exactly what Jarausch admits to doing. Ken Barkin [editor's note: in the month of August H-German featured 16 contributions on the subject of postmodern theory in German history. The impetus for discussion was a set of articles in the most recent issue of the _German Studies Review_. Subscribers with gopher access may find the record of the discussion by gophering to hs1.hst.msu.edu, and following this path: 3. H-NET E-Mail Discussion Groups / 15. H-GERMAN (German History)/ 10. H-GERMAN Discussions/ 8. Post Modernism Debate (August 1995)/ Or, to receive the entire discussion via a normal e-mail message, send the one-line e-mail message GET POSTMOD DEBATE to LISTSERV@MSU.EDU Those with WWW access may find the discussion at the following URL: gopher://hs1.hst.msu.edu/11/lists/H-GERMAN/discuss/postmod d.r.] .