What do you think?
Rate this book
Critical Perspectives on the Past
Descent Into Discourse: The Reification of Language and the Writing of Social History
"Critical theory is no substitute for historical materialism; language is not life." With this statement, Bryan Palmer enters the debate that is now transforming and disrupting a number of academic disciplines, including political science, women’s studies, and history. Focusing on the ways in which literary or critical theory is being promoted within the field of social history, he argues forcefully that the current reliance on poststructuralism—with its reification of discourse and avoidance of the structures of oppression and struggles of resistance—obscures the origins, meanings, and consequences of historical events and processes.
Palmer is concerned with the emergence of "language" as a central focus of intellectual work in the twentieth century. He locates the implosion of theory that moved structuralism in the direction of poststructuralism and deconstruction in what he calls the descent into discourse. Few historians who champion poststructuralist thought, according to Palmer, appreciate historical materialism’s capacity to address discourse meaningfully. Nor do many of the advocates of language within the field of social history have an adequate grounding in the theoretical making of the project they champion so ardently. Palmer roots his polemical challenge in an effort to "introduce historians more fully to the theoretical writing that many are alluding to and drawing from rather cavalierly." Acknowledging that critical theory can contribute to an understanding of some aspects of the past, Palmer nevertheless argues for the centrality of materialism to the project of history. In specific discussions of how critical theory is constructing histories of politics, class, and gender, he traces the development of the descent into discourse within social history, mapping the limitations of recent revisionist texts. Much of this writing, he contends, is undertheorized and represents a problematic retreat from prior histories that attempted to address such material forces as economic structures, political power, and class struggle.
Descent into Discourse counters current intellectual fashion with an eloquent argument for the necessity to analyze and appreciate lived experience and the structures of subordination and power in any quest for historical meaning.
Palmer is concerned with the emergence of "language" as a central focus of intellectual work in the twentieth century. He locates the implosion of theory that moved structuralism in the direction of poststructuralism and deconstruction in what he calls the descent into discourse. Few historians who champion poststructuralist thought, according to Palmer, appreciate historical materialism’s capacity to address discourse meaningfully. Nor do many of the advocates of language within the field of social history have an adequate grounding in the theoretical making of the project they champion so ardently. Palmer roots his polemical challenge in an effort to "introduce historians more fully to the theoretical writing that many are alluding to and drawing from rather cavalierly." Acknowledging that critical theory can contribute to an understanding of some aspects of the past, Palmer nevertheless argues for the centrality of materialism to the project of history. In specific discussions of how critical theory is constructing histories of politics, class, and gender, he traces the development of the descent into discourse within social history, mapping the limitations of recent revisionist texts. Much of this writing, he contends, is undertheorized and represents a problematic retreat from prior histories that attempted to address such material forces as economic structures, political power, and class struggle.
Descent into Discourse counters current intellectual fashion with an eloquent argument for the necessity to analyze and appreciate lived experience and the structures of subordination and power in any quest for historical meaning.
- GenresPhilosophyHistory
245 pages, Paperback
First published January 26, 1990
2 people are currently reading
63 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 9, 2012
I read this in my historiography class.
The professor assigned it because he knew we'd hate it.
We did!
We voted it "most likely to be burned in a trash can."
Seriously, it's a critique of deconstructionist history by an unreformed Marxist who thinks Trotsky is the greatest thinker of the twentieth century. Oh yes, and he can't write a clear sentence to save his life.
I don't think I've ever read a book I hated more.
The professor assigned it because he knew we'd hate it.
We did!
We voted it "most likely to be burned in a trash can."
Seriously, it's a critique of deconstructionist history by an unreformed Marxist who thinks Trotsky is the greatest thinker of the twentieth century. Oh yes, and he can't write a clear sentence to save his life.
I don't think I've ever read a book I hated more.
October 4, 2012
Marxist historian brings this late cold war polemic against the linguistic turn in the writing of history, bringing his critique to bear specifically on post-structuralist developments.
Opening section gives a whirlwind tour of the linguistic turn itself, beginning with the nietzschean prototype, moving through Saussure, the Bakhtin circle, and the Prague circle before getting hot under the collar for Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Althusser, Foucault, Lacan, and Derrida, then ending with a critique of de Man's wartime conduct. It's all very fast, and readers unacquainted with the writers in question may have a hard time keeping up. It's accordingly not a beginner's volume, but it's flattering that the writer gives his interlocutors the intellectual credit of writing this kind of introduction. (Seriously, don't approach this one until reading at least Derrida for Dummies or Introducing Saussure or whatever.)
The argument proper breaks out into sections on marxism, politics, class, and gender, with a concluding statement thereafter. Each section takes on specific writers in the discipline of history, attempting to expose how they have been influenced by the linguistic turn, and how this affects both the writing of history in general and dismantles old left class-based politics, even though the writers under examination likely can't be designated as rightwingers.
One reviewer grouses that the author is an "unreformed marxist," which a) rudely suggests that marxism is something to be cured, and b) is manifestly erroneous in any event, as Palmer declares his sympathy for E.P. Thompson and Ray Williams on several occasions--marxists of a sort, sure, but no one will accuse them of being dogmatic adherents to the second international or dim-witted stalinists. (Nor, as the same reviewer suggested, is the author a disciple of Trotsky, though same is quoted several times.) As the author otherwise notes: "I am not, of course, suggesting an unthinking return to mechanical Marxism" (211).
Admits in the conclusion that the linguistic turn has some value--"historians do need to deal with and assimilate some of what discourse theory has been claiming" (216)--but history writing should not be simply an aesthetic endeavor that seeks to eschew class analysis in favor of ludic interrogation of events.
Opening section gives a whirlwind tour of the linguistic turn itself, beginning with the nietzschean prototype, moving through Saussure, the Bakhtin circle, and the Prague circle before getting hot under the collar for Levi-Strauss, Barthes, Althusser, Foucault, Lacan, and Derrida, then ending with a critique of de Man's wartime conduct. It's all very fast, and readers unacquainted with the writers in question may have a hard time keeping up. It's accordingly not a beginner's volume, but it's flattering that the writer gives his interlocutors the intellectual credit of writing this kind of introduction. (Seriously, don't approach this one until reading at least Derrida for Dummies or Introducing Saussure or whatever.)
The argument proper breaks out into sections on marxism, politics, class, and gender, with a concluding statement thereafter. Each section takes on specific writers in the discipline of history, attempting to expose how they have been influenced by the linguistic turn, and how this affects both the writing of history in general and dismantles old left class-based politics, even though the writers under examination likely can't be designated as rightwingers.
One reviewer grouses that the author is an "unreformed marxist," which a) rudely suggests that marxism is something to be cured, and b) is manifestly erroneous in any event, as Palmer declares his sympathy for E.P. Thompson and Ray Williams on several occasions--marxists of a sort, sure, but no one will accuse them of being dogmatic adherents to the second international or dim-witted stalinists. (Nor, as the same reviewer suggested, is the author a disciple of Trotsky, though same is quoted several times.) As the author otherwise notes: "I am not, of course, suggesting an unthinking return to mechanical Marxism" (211).
Admits in the conclusion that the linguistic turn has some value--"historians do need to deal with and assimilate some of what discourse theory has been claiming" (216)--but history writing should not be simply an aesthetic endeavor that seeks to eschew class analysis in favor of ludic interrogation of events.
December 19, 2021
Bryan Palmer's Descent Into Discourse was published in 1990 in response to the emergent "new social history" of the 1980s. Essentially, Palmer offers up a philosophical defence of historical materialism against the discourse-laden methodology of the so-called "linguistic turn".
Palmer's critique should be taken seriously, as he is well-versed in the historiographies of social and cultural histories, and he is also familiar with the central figures subsumed under the post-structuralist/post-modern canopy. However, reviewing this book in 2021, its critical scope is now quite limited and outdated. Yes, discourse theories still dominate much of the historiography, but the vast majority of historians that support this interpretive framework are balanced in their emphases on the more "material" conditions as well.
And yet, many of Palmer's critical remarks are as relevant today as they were in 1990. His book stands as a call for empirical balance and a reminder to re-examine the fashionable theories we take for granted. Discursive power matters in history, certainly. But so do the other material conditions that drive historical change. To elevate discourse and power above everything else, without a clear practical reason, is to allow philosophy to slip into ideology and history to slip into historicism. Michel Foucault was accused of dogmatism on this front as well. If every meta-narrative should be challenged and overturned, then why did he stop short of discarding discourse and power?
Palmer isn't suggesting that we discard everything that discourse theory has to offer, but he is asking for us to reel it back in. His critical remarks are usually poignant, if a tad flippant at times. "Much writing that appears under the designer label of posstructuralism/postmodernism," he says, "is, quite bluntly, crap, a kind of academic wordplaying with no possible link to anything but the pseudo-intellectualized ghettoes of the most self-promotionally avant-garde enclaves of that bastion of protectionism, the University." A few pages later, Palmer once again refers to critical theory as "crap", which struck me as petty and immature for an academic work.
Overall, Palmer's defence of historical materialism is one of the better I've seen in the historiography, because he knows his adversaries so well. His arguments are far more robust than those found in, say, Richard Evans' In Defence of History, and others along that line. Check it out if you want to read a serious treatment of the subject matter by a formidable Canadian social historian.
Palmer's critique should be taken seriously, as he is well-versed in the historiographies of social and cultural histories, and he is also familiar with the central figures subsumed under the post-structuralist/post-modern canopy. However, reviewing this book in 2021, its critical scope is now quite limited and outdated. Yes, discourse theories still dominate much of the historiography, but the vast majority of historians that support this interpretive framework are balanced in their emphases on the more "material" conditions as well.
And yet, many of Palmer's critical remarks are as relevant today as they were in 1990. His book stands as a call for empirical balance and a reminder to re-examine the fashionable theories we take for granted. Discursive power matters in history, certainly. But so do the other material conditions that drive historical change. To elevate discourse and power above everything else, without a clear practical reason, is to allow philosophy to slip into ideology and history to slip into historicism. Michel Foucault was accused of dogmatism on this front as well. If every meta-narrative should be challenged and overturned, then why did he stop short of discarding discourse and power?
Palmer isn't suggesting that we discard everything that discourse theory has to offer, but he is asking for us to reel it back in. His critical remarks are usually poignant, if a tad flippant at times. "Much writing that appears under the designer label of posstructuralism/postmodernism," he says, "is, quite bluntly, crap, a kind of academic wordplaying with no possible link to anything but the pseudo-intellectualized ghettoes of the most self-promotionally avant-garde enclaves of that bastion of protectionism, the University." A few pages later, Palmer once again refers to critical theory as "crap", which struck me as petty and immature for an academic work.
Overall, Palmer's defence of historical materialism is one of the better I've seen in the historiography, because he knows his adversaries so well. His arguments are far more robust than those found in, say, Richard Evans' In Defence of History, and others along that line. Check it out if you want to read a serious treatment of the subject matter by a formidable Canadian social historian.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews