Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Amazon Music Unlimited for Family Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's

Customer Reviews

4.4 out of 5 stars
4.4 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 9 March 2017
Well worth the effort
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 23 April 2017
A brand new copy in a excellent condition!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 27 May 2013
E. H. Carr's 'What Is History?' is perhaps the leading introductory textbook on historiography (i.e. the study of historical method). It's essential reading for anyone who has an interest in history, and especially those who are studying any aspect of the subject. Carr's book has always been highly-controversial among professional historians as it contains a number of contentious ideas about historical method. In recent years the controversy has ignited again in the context of education, as policy-makers and educators debate what is the best way to teach history at different scholastic levels.

Essentially, Carr's approach is to look at the way the historian's own bias affects the history he writes. Instead of viewing the historian as an impartial agency situated outside of history, Carr argues that the historian is part of the historical process. What the historian thinks is as important as what happened in history, and each interacts with the other, so that the historian's own social and political perspective will influence both the facts he selects as historically significant and how those facts are interpreted. As perspective is critical, history becomes not merely a dry chronicle of 'what happened', but a vision of the future projected into the past. The main criticism of this approach seems to be that it prioritises the historian over history. This criticism finds populist expression in the idea that children should study history by learning facts rather than skills. The first (traditionalist) approach emphasises content. The second (modern) approach emphasises the historian.

Having read the book for myself, I find this criticism to be very unfair, reflecting a misunderstanding of Carr's ideas. Carr does place a great emphasis on interpretation and how we go about looking at history, the bias we bring to it and how this affects historical content, but Carr is not dismissing the importance of content. He is merely suggesting that a competent historian must consider the process of how history is made by historians, and in particular how his own perspective might influence which facts he chooses to select and how he interprets those facts. This seems to me perfectly reasonable, and it's clear that many of the historians who criticise Carr cannot have read the book, or if they have, they were not paying attention. Perhaps the real reason for the controversy is that many see a political edge to Carr's historical methods, but if so, I find this puzzling. There cannot be any political implication taken from this book, if properly understood. This is not a 'left-wing' or a 'right-wing' book in its own right. It is just a set of ideas on what might guide a competent historian, and Carr's maxim, "Before you study the history, study the historian" is demonstrable in the way virtually any history book is written. Carr himself was a historian I quite admire, mainly because he was able to look at his main field of study, the Soviet Union, quite fairly and objectively. He was not a Marxist himself, but he emphasised the importance of Marxism to history, rather than dismissing its significance as many anti-Marxist historians are want to do.

There are some weaknesses in this book. Carr never really gets to grips with the role of accident in history, a controversy that he glosses over with some weak analogies, but I think where Carr really gets into trouble is when he starts to discuss 'History As Progress'. The problem with Carr's perspective is, first, a belief in an abstract 'progress' as a material end in itself, something which is impossible to define in any rigorous way and which absolves us from properly understanding history; second, a faith in optimism over the real source of historical change, which is conflict.

On the first point, I would suggest that if we wish to define progress as Carr sees it, which is ever-widening reason and liberalism, then history is not necessarily progress and there is little empirical evidence that it is or need be over the greater span of time. In fact, history may prove to be what Carr would consider to be regression and there is no reason why others would not see that as progress. Carr's defenders might respond to this by pointing out that Carr explicitly saw 'progress' as neutral, as nothing more substantial than a 'North' point on the compass of history, a changeable abstract that we continually move towards and interact with, but I find it is undeniable that Carr is specific about what progress 'is', not just where it is located, i.e. that it is liberalism. That being the case, we need to consider whether Carr's preoccupation with 'liberalism as progress' actually strips history of its meaning.

Second, and related to the first point, Carr does not deal rigorously with the role of conflict in history. He seems to think that optimism about the future - a dream - is what drives history, in this case a liberal dream of widespread enlightenment, but it seems clear to me that in fact history is made up of conflicts, mainly of class and race, and it is through conflict that the historical process has to be viewed by historians.

I also think there is a missing critical idiom: the reader of history. Carr does not consider how the perspective of the reader (as opposed to that of the historian) can affect its interpretation. I think that would be a very interesting line of inquiry, particularly in view of emerging post-modern approaches. However, these points do not detract from the greatness of the book and I'm very glad I decided to read this classic again.

This particular edition is recommended because it includes notes by E. H. Carr on a proposed second edition which he, sadly, never came to write.
22 Comments| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 August 2007
I have always been interested in the theoretical side of history and this remains one of the best books to start with. It has been a few years since I was at University, but this used to be a set text for first year undergraduates, in order to give them some understanding of the 'history of history'. Carr's text is highly readable and his analogies very useful - ie. thinking of historians as merely individuals in a very long, winding procession of people through a mountainous valley - looking back at events going on further back in the queue, their views differing according to whereabouts in the procession he or she was at the time. Still a great starting point for an often complex subject.
0Comment| 23 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 21 August 2015
At university, I had a compulsory module on Historical theory and I didn't do very well in that course (In fact, I failed it miserably). I put this down to the fact I just didn't understand it.
Now, after preparing for my PGCE year, I am reading this book and it is giving me a whole different idea into historical theory - I now fully understand certain aspects of historical theory and although it may have words you have to look up (quite archaic use of some words), it is so easy to read and to understand.

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to further enhance their knowledge of historical theory.
I also found the first chapter very interesting.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 16 July 2000
Anyone interested in the (currently much disputed) philosophical issues surrounding the study of history should read this one. Carr doesn't sit on the fence - instead makes his position clear and with a refreshingly simple and easy (though nontheless articulate) use of language which is sadly missing from other work in this area of discussion.
0Comment| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 2 May 2009
Excellent style and good argumentation, Carr provides a delightful and easy read. Although time (history) has been quite rude to some of his arguments and views in the past 40 years most of his philosophy still holds true. Recommended for anyone interested in the title question.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 22 October 2003
There are many definitions of what History is, and what it means for different sections of society at different times. E.H. Carr's primary argument is that the interpretation of history from certain historians is dependent upon their position in society, and indeed are formulated by society's view of the period. One historian writing in the 1950's may have a totally different interpretation of events that, say, a present day historical writer.
This book is a fascinating account of historical arguments through time, and is really useful if, like me, you are studying for a History degree at University!!!
0Comment| 21 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 20 January 2013
In the past, ive read Arthur Marwicks Nature of History and a few books of John Tosh (all that seem to be a little critical of Carr). However reading this book, a basic introduction to history, I feel its a brilliant book and it does give a different viewpoint of history and its development. Worth a read if your studying historiography
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 November 2014
E. H. Carr wrote a really eye-opening guide to finding your way around the philosophy of history. I think many of his arguments are flawed, but it doesn't matter - I've read few books that are so good at provoking my own streams of thought, which is surely the point of such a work. Easy to read and worthwhile.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)