[Reader-list] Why Positivist history lasts a long time

[ARNAB CHATTERJEE]

Dear Prem,
          Firstly, you cannot abandon the discussion 
at this juncture when it is getting more and more
interesting and apparently a bit north-south but be
sure we'll pull this up well and learn from each
other; we are all students Prem. Now, Sadan is getting
a bit impatient and at times angry largely because
this is his subject and many of the positions which
are being reviewed here are his positions and he will
desperately try to defend them; infact he has all the
right to do so. But the force of good reason will
prevail and we shall all remain best of friends. Let
me tell you, Sadan is my consultant for Bhojpuri music
and despite a disagreement here--if there is one, we
shall remain members of this 'warm fraternity of
useless erudition'. So don't go away, because you'll
rememeber Sadan making excuses for a very important
work and then he came back when he had anticipated his
essential and important engagement.  So you shall do.
I love your questions, infact they have a cutting edge
which compells people to answer. I assume in your hey
days, all your love letters were answered. But to
remind you and all, this question rose in conversation
with Mahmood Faruqui and he is still to come.
  Now your questions,
1. Now,how this poistivist historiography carries on
is a big question and a very bitter question. I've
seen people in Kolkata as well in Delhi or
Maharashtra, talking about Benjamin or Hayden White
and then while they write they do not reflect on the
way they are writing. Everything is forgotten. And
this thing goes on and on. Infact this is how a Partha
Chatterjee or a Dipesh Chakraborty stand out, or say,
Gautam Bhadra working with vernacular historiography
attracts me. History as a form of writing if it is not
relexive is just incorrect--after the linguistic turn
and so much. 
And  I didn't answer your Hayden White excerpt which
might be relevant here, here it is: if history has to
go back to its literary sources, the case for a public
archive becomes more dim. Or otherwise people going
for an internal, semiotic historical reading of a text
will be told to go to the state archives. People
practising semiotic history will be told to unearth
newspapers.
2.  The way you have quoted the original question, I
fail to see why it can't be solved even in view of
your second question.

Thank You! Shall wait for your further objections.
love
arnab
   




--- Prem Chandavarkar <prem.cnt at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/01/2008, ARNAB CHATTERJEE
> <apnawritings at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> > Prem :
> > That a positvist de -temporality you don't
> understand,
> > I cannot believe that. All scientific paradigms,
> > formulas are readily a temporal.
> 
> 
> I did not say that I do not understand. One would be
> blind to claim that it
> does not exist - clearly it is not only prevalent
> but is also predominant.
> I just wondered about two points:
> 
>    1. Should one continue to justify or validate a
> positivist
>    de-temporality in history as a discipline?
>    2. Can one address questions of archive without
> first addressing
>    questions of history as a discipline?
> 
> I am traveling over the next one week, with
> infrequent access to mail, so
> will drop out of this discussion for a while. Which
> may be for the best, as
> I realise I have just been causing digressions, and
> at no stage have I
> touched your original question of whether there are
> forms of history that
> are free of archival dependence.
> Regards and all the best,
> Prem
> 



      Bring your gang together - do your thing. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups