| |
| | The Postmodern in History: A Response to Professor O'Brien |
 | | History comes with historians as standard equipment, all of whom endorse different theories about the nature of change, and all of whom write about it in ways dedicated to the creation of their own versions of the- past-as-history though be it in the name of objectivity. |
 | | History viewed as an empirical methodology founded on an acceptable level of correspondence between the past and our narrative construction of it is, I suggest, far too narrow a judgement of the job of the historian. |
 | | History, if it is not always a philosophical undertaking that questions how we think and rethink the relationships between subject and object, form and content, fact and fiction, truth and perspective, observer and observed, then I have my doubts as to whether it has been worth all the years I have spent in the archive. |
| www.history.ac.uk /discourse/alun.html (3622 words) |
|