Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 08:56:19 -0500 From: H-GERMAN EDITOR Dan Rogers Subject: Post Modernism Debate (sic.) revividus Submitted by: Charles E. McClelland At the possible cost of reviving this debate (which I missed but read on the Gopher), may I sugest a couple of fruitful points? (I am inspired to do this by "non-professionals" who have picked it up.) (1) As a collective effort, the "debate" did not state its purposes very well and left many readers confused. (2) Although there were references to literature, it would be very hard for the most earnest and interested person to follow the "debate" without accessing that literature (an implicit, "culture-capitalist" disincentive, not to say an insult, to readers beyond the "informed core," an irony I would like especially to bring to your attention). (3) A large part of the "debate" consisted of throwing around labels. Having attempted to teach interdisciplinary seminars in such matters as "modernism" I realize how misleading and (basically) anti-historical, anti-intellectual and anti-source "labeling" is. Until we can "define our terms" we should be careful. (4) When I was trying to teach "modernism" I also discovered Malcolm Bradbury (who edited a book on it, still useful, then as now cautious in terms). Bradbury has written another book, MY STRANGE SEARCH FOR MENSONGE, that I believe every historian, social scientist or other potential "influe" (there should be an accent ecu there, but e-mail does not allow it) should read before embracing "French" or "Continental" ideas about text reading. (5) The influence of Derrida, Foucault etc. appears to be mostly an AMERICAN problem. (It may also be a "generational" problem, but only in the USA.) In terms of this "debate," it also reveals a "reception problem" in American graduate schools. I wish more of us in H-GERMAN read French -- a lot of this "problem" would disappear. It is no wonder German colleagues find such debates baffling. (Let alone the French.) We appear to be acting out the worst consequences of academic querelles that have long since been laid in Europe. (6) May I cite the fact that most of the substantive debate in this recent round has almost nothing at all to do with labels or "post-" anything but with how historians should teach and research the past (a very valid debate!). OF COURSE Germany has to be approached differently. Of course the Holocaust cannot be forgotten. Of course the central role of economics should not be brushed away as we all struggle to integrate other "voices" in our curricula. Of course German history has to be integrated and, if you will, "relativized" to make any sense to today's students. (7) My term as a member of the editorial board of CEH has expired, but I want you to know I strongly encouraged Ken Barkin to publish his piece. I also thought it would provoke a useful discussion. Barkin has also worked very hard over many years to make the CEH into something more interesting than it used to be. I personally hope none of this discussion will result in questioning his good will or credentials as editor. Especially since he championed special issues of the CEH to bring views he sometimes personally felt uncomfortable with to all our attention. (8) I would be happy to carry on this "debate" personally with anybody who cares to discuss issues of historical methodology, as long as we don't sling labels and names. If we want to know what Pierre Bourdieu thinks, I have his Fax number (he also speaks excellent English and German, he might enjoy this.) But please, let's not huff and puff so much that we lose our readers (now 500) all over the world and even Colorado. Sincerely yours, Charles E. McClelland Chair, European Studies Program 1104 Mesa Vista Hall University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131-1181 USA tel: (505) 268-5047 (h) 277-2451 (receptionist) 277-6023 (fax) Internet: cemcc@unm.edu Bitnet: cemcc@unmb .