Tropal History and the Social Sciences
Reflections on Struever's Remarks
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4496282 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John S Nelson (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1980 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 80 |
| Publication date | 1980-12-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | History and Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0018-2656 • E-ISSN: 1468-2303 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2504891 |
| OpenAlex | W2093700459 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 1 |
This epigraph is remarkable for the way in which it turns around and around upon itself. It turns inward to definition, language, and consciousness; but it also turns outward to inquiry, argument, and action. It winds backward into past deeds and projects; but it also winds forward into future efforts and ends. Its reflexivity, complication, and translucence signal many of the troubles to be encountered in assaying not only Hayden White's Metahistory, but also Nancy Struever's argument against that book. Thus my reflections upon those two works will repeatedly recur to perplexities provoked by this epigraph. Since Struever's treatment of Topics in History stresses argument as the mainline to history, it should be engaged mostly at the level of argument, rather than historical interpretation. This makes the penetrating questions: (1) whether argument is indeed the main modality of historiography, as Struever maintains; (2) whether Metahistory gives an adequate account of the right relationship of argument to the study of history, as Struever disputes; and (3) whether either White or Struever recognizes major implications of the turn to rhetoric each recommends. In what follows, I shall trace the mother lode of issues unearthed by cutting through to this basic level of Struever's argument. To be sure, this vein leads away from concentration upon those theories of rhetoric and history derived from Renaissance readings of classical rhetoricians which dominate Struever's presentation. This is just as well, of course, since I can hardly claim expertise in such matters. Hence there will be no attempt here to assay the validity or acuity of Struever's interpretation of Aristotle or Quintilian. Instead, I shall show how the glitter of what is mostly fool's gold can lead us to wander away from the real riches in the mountain of Metahistory. Further, I shall argue that Struever's efforts to lead us back to the surface of historiography actually
Epistemology · Social science · Sociology · History · Philosophy · Rhetoric and Communication Studies
| Citations per year | 0.07 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1984 - 2023 (40) |
| Highly cited | No |