Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:19:17 -0500 From: H-GERMAN EDITOR Dan Rogers Reply to: H-NET List on German History To: Multiple recipients of list H-GERMAN Subject: Postmodernism Submitted by: William C. Schrader Like David Schoenbaum, I wish to begin with an expression of appreciation for the contribution of Peter Fritzsche. When I read his missive, I found myself not only paying attention to his message, but also to his words. At least at the beginning, they are almost lyrical. Those must be impressive musings as he walks to campus. I also found myself agreeing with what he had to say, up to a point. Specifically, up to point 2. His introduction and point 1 were so compelling that I almost sailed through point two before becoming aware of the fact that something was bothering me. But, I did become aware, so I saved the message and printed it in order to study it again and find out what it was that bothered me after such a marvelous beginning. On the whole, I still find most of point 2 compatable with my own understanding. But I am bothered by the phrase "attempted to erase any trace that this or that version was just a version." This way of stating it makes it sound like historians (and others who constructed our ways of thinking about the past) before the advent of postmodernism were engaged in some sort of conspiracy to hide what they knew to be true. Maybe I am incredibly naive, but I tend to think that most of my predecessors, in and out of the academy, were basically honest people honestly attempting to describe what they believed to be the truth about the past. If they neglected or ignored certain data which we now find relevant, it was because they did not find it relevant, not because they were consciously attempting to suppress (erase) some truth. Putting it in these terms also assumes that past historians accepted the premise that they were giving one of many versions of the truth. I do not believe that. I think they were giving what they believed to be the truth about the past, and were not conscious of their message as one of several competing and equally valid versions. In fact, I do not think that what I am doing is merely one of several equally valid versions. Some versions of the past are objectively more valid than others. For example, I had a student identify Martin Luther on an exam as "a devoted Lutheran minister." Well, I suppose that's true as far as it goes, but it does not help us understand what the uproar in the 16th century was all about. All versions are not created equal. Passing on from Fritzsche's second to his third point, again I found myself agreeing with much of what was said, but being disturbed by the way in which it was said. I certainly do not intend to argue against the concept that our way of seeing reality is conditioned by our mental assumptions. I have long since been answering students who asked why the Middle Ages did so little with science by saying that people then were asking different questions of the real world, and so came up with different answers. But describing this as "manufactur of meaning" bothers me. It makes the process sound so arbitrary and so self-conscious. This, of course, connects with my previous point about the essential honesty of past historians, and of any others who set the tone for a particular period. Prior to the 20th century, and such events as the manipulation of the media by the Nazis, did people really "manufacture" a past to suit their own "version" on a conscious level? Or were they arguing for an interpretation which they believed to correspond to objective reality? There are times in this debate when I have the feeling that nothing new is being said, that all that is different is the terminology. At other times, however, it seems that some are saying that the whole historical enterprise is nothing more than a game the object of which is to get as many people as possible to buy into some interesting but probably self-serving story which has no relationship to anything beyond itself. What's it all about? .