Knowledge and Explanation in History: An Introduction to the Philosophy of History by R. F.AtkinsonReview by: Rex MartinThe American Historical Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Apr., 1980), pp. 368-369Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860560 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 07:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.7 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:57:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books

GENERAL

R. F. ATKINSON. Knowledge and Explanton in History: An Introduction to the Philosophy of History. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 1978. Pp. x, 229. Cloth $14.95, paper $6.95.

R. F. Atkinson's book introduces the reader to phi- losophy of history as it is currently understood. It does this job well, concisely, and in a reasonably so- phisticated way.

Chapter 1 is rather traditional, setting up the dis- tinction of analytic from substantive philosophy of history and identifying the two relevant senses of the word "history." The chapter's third section traces the subject from roughly the time of Oake- shott, Croce, and Collingwood (the 1930s) to von Wright (1971); this history is very capsulized. The section also offers a useful discussion of historians on the topic of philosophy of history, again very com- pressed.

Chapter 2 ("Knowledge of the Past") tells us that historical statements are not based on direct obser- vation or, for the most part, on memory. Even testi- mony (from the past) requires special treatment to count as historical knowledge. What one would like then, but does not adequately get from the book, is a positive theory of evidential knowledge. This chapter also discusses, without resolving them, some of the interesting skeptical questions raised respect- ing historical knowledge. (I mean such questions as whether statements about the past are meaningful, and if so, whether we can know about the past evi- dentially, and whether there really was/is a past for such statements to fix on.) But that its pages should fail to "dry up the swamps of skepticism" (Danto's phrase) is, perhaps, not an important lapse in an in- troductory text.

Chapter 3 (on objectivity) is quite a good one and discusses a topic of real interest to the working his- torian. Chapter 4 (on explanation) sets out from the convention, established by Walsh and repeated by Dray, of dividing the field of explanation theory be- tween the positivists (or "covering law" people) and

the "idealists" (whom Atkinson more properly calls the proponents of "rational" explanation). The im- portant feature of this chapter, though, is the fact that the author introduces a third major theory of historical explanation: that such explanation is sui generis insofar as it consists in coherent narrative. Or, to put Atkinson's thesis differently, narrative history (under which he includes both narrative, in the conventional sense, and analytical treatments) is per se explanatory (see pp. 136-38 for a summary of his basic approach).

Atkinson's argument in chapter 4 rests, I believe, on a confusion. He shows, correctly, that the meaning of "explanation" is such that ordinary historical narratives must be regarded as explanatory. More- over, he argues that neither of the standard theo- ries-neither law explanation nor rational ex- planation-can capture all that is included under explanation through historical narrative. It does not follow from this, however, that ordinary historical narrative constitutes an account or theory of ex- planation. Atkinson has confused two distinct is- sues: which kinds of things are explanatory (as being in accordance with the meaning of "ex- planation") and which things are theories of ex- planation. Hence, historical narrative does not, sim- ply in being explanatory, offer a theory of explanation at all, let alone an alternative to the standard ones.

Chapter 5 (on causation) follows lines laid down by White, Gardiner, and Collingwood. Atkinson stresses (p. 162) the openness and variability of his- torians' causal judgments. The chapter also in- cludes interesting discussions of methodological in- dividualism and of Marxism. The last chapter (on values) is well done. I particularly liked section 3 on moral judgments in history. I also thought section 4 on progress followed well. Since the two sections here are of central concern to historians and their students, it is fortunate they are good ones.

In sum, I think the book is well written and well organized. It compares favorably with the two prin- cipal introductory texts (by Walsh and by Dray) currently available. One of the strengths of Atkin-

368

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.7 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:57:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

General 369

son's book lies in its chapters, not found in the other two, on statements about the past and on values. On points where the books are comparable Atkin- son's book holds up well, mainly because it is more complete (in the survey sense) and much more up to date. Atkinson's book does not include material on speculative philosophy of history. But in- expensive books of readings from the standard clas- sics or good studies in paperback of such philoso- phies could be used to supplement Atkinson's book in a course.

Accordingly, I would stress the considerable in- trinsic interest of the Atkinson book and its useful- ness as a textbook. It should have an important place in philosophy of history.

REX MARTIN

University of Kansas

ANTHONY D. S. SMITH. Nationalism in the Twentieth Cen- tuwy. New York: New York University Press. 1979. Pp. x, 257. Cloth $17.50, paper $8.95.

Anthony D. S. Smith is emerging as one of the most important investigators of nationalism since Karl Deutsch. In Theories of Nationalism, Smith elaborated a sophisticated typology but fell short in his effort to establish nationalism as an ideology in which value is transferred from religious tradition to the com- munity. In this, his second major book, Smith uses some of the best ideas of Theories of Nationalism, in- cluding the idea that nationalism is an ideology of rejuvenation, to analyze nationalism in the twenti- eth century.

The first few chapters are somewhat halting. Smith makes the sound but unexceptional points that nationalism is not really a millennial move- ment, that it must be clearly distinguished from fas- cism, which was not an extension of nationalism but a special European response to interwar prob- lems, and that it should not be confused with rac- ism. In these chapters he exhibits the same clarity of definition that characterized Theories of Nationalism but leaves the impression that the total result will be flawed, as was his first work.

In chapter 5, however, "Communist National- isms," Smith hits his stride. He suggests that Marx- ism and nationalism have conceptual meeting points that make it possible for them to coexist de- spite their overt antagonisms. The mating of the two ideologies occurs in the peripheral regions of the world capitalist economy, where delayed mod- ernization and disappointment in the results of de- mocracy force them together. The intelligentsia in these areas discover that Leninist party organiza- tion can provide political tools for modernization and that populist nationalism can mobilize the forces of ethnic or racial community to legitimate

the process. Their purpose is not social revolution, as their Marxist coloration might suggest, but the construction of political order, as Huntington called it, so that their nation can take an honored place in the international system of states.

Smith believes that nationalism will continue to prosper for at least two reasons. On the inter- national level, the existence of a functioning world- wide system of states exerts enormous pressure for conformity to the ideal of the nation-state. On the local level, what Smith calls the bureaucratic cycle will continue to throw up ethnic nationalisms even within what seem to be well-integrated states. This cycle begins with the struggle for independence and the original organization of the nation. The next step is centralization of the state by the victors, which in turn generates revolt against the new cen- ter by an ignored periphery. At both the inter- national and national level, the inhabitants of polit- ically weak regions find it possible to make ethnic differentiations, sometimes very finely drawn, be- tween themselves and the strong. The latent cul- tural affinities thus uncovered authenticate the po- litical movements that seek to overcome the weakness.

Smith is a bit old-fashioned. He does not appear to be a Marxist, a structuralist, a model-builder, or a data-cruncher. His interpretation remains politi- cal. Nonetheless (should I say "therefore"?), Smith provides some satisfying explanations of why na- tionalism is still with us and why it probably will remain with us for a long time.

GALE STOKES

Rice University

NIKOLAI V. SIVACHEV and NIKOLAI N. YAKOVLEV. Russia and the United States. Translated by OLGA ADLER TITEL-

BAUM. (The United States in the World: Foreign Perspectives.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1979. Pp. xv, 301. $12.95.

Rightly advertised as "a different view" of Russian- American relations, this book by two Soviet histo- rians conveys what the Soviet government would like Americans to think the Russians think of those relations. For this reason, it differs from the other books in the distinguished University of Chicago se- ries, which attempts to present genuine foreign per- spectives on America's relations with particular countries. Moreover, the new Soviet venture in dip- lomatic history also differs from most previous ones by serving unabashedly the cause of detente as Moscow understands it.

Laudable as that cause may be, it does not neces- sarily provide the correct inspiration for good his- tory. To be sure, compared with the thesis-infested and cantankerous Soviet historiography of the past,

This content downloaded from 193.0.146.7 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:57:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions