Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• ARMITAGE, DAVID
• GULDI, JO

Titel

The History Manifesto: A Reply to Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler

Ist Teil von

• The American historical review, 2015-04, Vol.120 (2), p.543-554

Ort / Verlag

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Erscheinungsjahr

2015

Quelle

Oxford Journals 2020 Humanities

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Here, Armitage and Guldi replt to Deborah Cohen and Peter Mandler's comment on their book, The History Manifesto. They say Cohen and Mandler's vigorous response to The History Manifesto is among the most negative the book has received so far. By using language such as "deceptive," "irresponsible," "overheated," "a fantasy," "blind," "mystic," "debacle," "travesty," and "a book in a panic," they suspend their interpretive charity. They write as hanging judges, not recording angels. If this were a regularly commissioned book review in the AHR, Cohen and Mandler would have been expected to "explain the basic argument of the book, assess its strengths and weaknesses, and place the work in historiographical context." However, because this is an unsolicited "critique," and not a review, they have not been held to the journal's strict guidelines. Because Cohen and Mandler's is the longest and most wide-ranging reply to date, it is the closest to a counter-manifesto the book has yet inspired. As an apology for business as usual and a defense of the status quo, their essay is unimpeachable. They highlight diversity rather than commonality, perceive no need for change, and foresee few, if any, new directions for their profession. But this does not place sufficient faith in historians' ability to speak to multiple publics, within and beyond the academy, and it is not an adequate response to both the pressures and the opportunities facing historians in the early 21st century.