Skip to main content Skip to navigation


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>E.H. Carr</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:50:50" n="7143">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>



<person id="nm0085" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0085, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="3"><p>number of speakers: 3</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">History</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG3</item>

<item n="module">Historiography</item>




<u who="nm0085"><kinesic desc="overhead projector is on showing transparency" iterated="n"/> so this <pause dur="0.4"/> can people see this all right <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>despi</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>cou</trunc> <trunc>cou</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> well i know you can't you can't see it 'cause of the pillar can you <pause dur="0.6"/> tough <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> those who <pause dur="0.9"/> <trunc>w</trunc> for whom it's in their line of vision can you read it <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="1"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> yeah okay <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> i'd i wanted to get a better picture of Carr <pause dur="0.4"/> but that's the one on the front of a recent biography of him <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="adjusts tansparency" iterated="n"/> # if i move it up you'll see that the <pause dur="0.2"/> crucial thing about it is that Cambridge dons <pause dur="0.2"/> live on tea <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.7"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> that gives some idea of who this guy <pause dur="1.0"/> who i hope you've all been reading <pause dur="0.9"/> is <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the dates are there <pause dur="0.3"/> you should all have a handout as well with some quotes <pause dur="0.3"/> i hope you've all got that have you <pause dur="1.0"/> yeah <pause dur="0.6"/> right <pause dur="1.3"/> and since i watched the tape of <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/>'s lecture <pause dur="0.8"/> i don't know if any of you remember one of you in the room must <pause dur="0.4"/> # i'm supposed to take my glasses on and off <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> all the time <pause dur="0.5"/>

right <pause dur="0.9"/> i've not i noticed after you told <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> that that he i don't think he put his glasses on once <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="1"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> i'll try and keep mine on but i can't guarantee it <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> right who was E H Carr <pause dur="0.5"/> a middle class boy from north London <pause dur="1.2"/> a student at Cambridge <pause dur="0.4"/> # during the First World War escaped conscription on health grounds <pause dur="0.5"/> and he had these four distinct careers <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> first <pause dur="0.4"/> at the end of the First World War through the nineteen-twenties he's a Foreign Office official <pause dur="0.6"/> working on # <pause dur="0.2"/> north European and Russian affairs <pause dur="0.3"/> # at the Versailles conference <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> posted to the British Legation in Riga in Latvia to work on Russian questions <pause dur="0.3"/> during the nineteen-twenties <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> during the early thirties when the League of Nations was falling apart <pause dur="0.3"/> he was part of the British diplomatic team in Geneva <pause dur="0.7"/> watching that <trunc>int</trunc> international institution fall apart <pause dur="2.4"/> in nineteen-thirty-five he

quit <pause dur="0.3"/> the Foreign Office <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> became Professor of International Relations at Aberystwyth <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> where he <pause dur="0.5"/> # sat down and wrote <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> a book <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # called The Thirty Years' Crisis which i'll say more about later <pause dur="0.4"/> but it's basically <pause dur="0.6"/> the foundational text or a foundational <trunc>tax</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> text of the realist science of international relations <pause dur="0.2"/> i'll # # expand on that later <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> very well worth reading published in # the end in nineteen-thirty-nine <pause dur="2.4"/> during the Second World War and immediately afterwards he's a leader writer <pause dur="0.5"/> # on the Times <pause dur="0.9"/> and he's a key figure among the <pause dur="0.2"/> middle of the road <pause dur="0.2"/> intellectuals <pause dur="0.8"/> who are shifting the whole political census in Britain to the left <pause dur="0.4"/> and preparing a way for the Labour victory in nineteen-forty-five <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> Winston Churchill <pause dur="0.4"/> used to call the Times <pause dur="0.2"/> # the threepenny edition of the Daily Worker the Communist paper <pause dur="0.4"/> # because of the way the Times was no longer <pause dur="0.3"/> # voicing the # conventional views of # the Conservative establishment <pause dur="2.4"/> when the Cold War <pause dur="0.6"/> set in <pause dur="0.9"/> this basically

turned Carr <pause dur="0.2"/> from being a reformist intellectual at the hub <pause dur="0.4"/> of the way things were going <pause dur="0.5"/> in nineteen-forties Britain <pause dur="0.5"/> into <pause dur="0.8"/> an academic outsider <pause dur="0.6"/> because he stuck to the view that good relations with the Soviet Union were crucial for British foreign policy <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> very much an outsider <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> definitely found it difficult to get an academic job at the height of the Cold War he ended up <pause dur="0.4"/> # in a Cambridge college <pause dur="0.3"/> where he spent the rest of his life <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> as a historian <pause dur="0.2"/> of the Soviet Union <pause dur="1.0"/> and that's his main claim to fame as a historian <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> he started that fourth career when he was fifty-four <pause dur="0.8"/> he published fourteen volumes on the history of the Soviet Union between <pause dur="0.5"/> # the revolution <pause dur="0.5"/> and he got to nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="0.4"/> by the time he was # <pause dur="0.4"/> what was he eighty-three he published the last volume in nineteen-seventy-seven <pause dur="1.2"/> so the a fourteen volume massive <pause dur="0.4"/> work <pause dur="0.3"/> on <pause dur="0.3"/> basically the emergence of a planned economy in the <trunc>sov</trunc> from the revolution to nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="1.5"/> and in nineteen-sixty-one <pause dur="0.7"/>

# he gave a series of lectures to history students in Cambridge <pause dur="0.3"/> called What is History which is the book that i hope <pause dur="0.2"/> you're reading <pause dur="1.2"/> # i wish i could say i was there <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>ac</trunc> i arrived in Cambridge actually the that autumn <pause dur="0.5"/> just missed them <pause dur="0.4"/> but i did buy the book and when i <trunc>f</trunc> when when we put this course on i got it back off my shelves and reread it <pause dur="0.6"/> and it's full of my # infantile <pause dur="0.3"/> notes at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> bought in December nineteen-sixty-one so i was in at the beginning of this <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> i completely misunderstood much of it at the time <pause dur="0.3"/> but of course you won't because you'll be guided by this lecture and by the wonderful discussions you're going to have in seminars <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.8"/> since nineteen-sixty-one this book # has been <pause dur="0.8"/> it must be the most widely read <pause dur="0.4"/> # text on the nature of the historical discipline <pause dur="0.7"/> # in this country <pause dur="1.4"/> now <pause dur="1.7"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> before # <pause dur="1.6"/> i discuss <pause dur="6.7"/> Carr <pause dur="0.5"/> i want to say a few words about the chief object of his

attack <pause dur="0.4"/> which you could label naive empiricism <pause dur="3.6"/> i <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> did a show of hands didn't he last week about how many people had heard of <pause dur="0.3"/> Ranke <pause dur="0.5"/> and it wasn't very many which is very good because Ranke's a <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # a very long time ago and everything's moved on <pause dur="0.4"/> but as he said <pause dur="1.0"/> we have to engage with Ranke and it's actually he's <trunc>g</trunc> actually going to be very interesting <pause dur="0.6"/> the most quoted phrase of all that you'll find in this course <pause dur="0.3"/> i suspect <pause dur="0.5"/> is Ranke's <pause dur="0.3"/> notion <pause dur="0.7"/> which was foundational for the nineteenth century emergence of history <pause dur="0.5"/> as <pause dur="0.4"/> an organized <pause dur="0.4"/> academic discipline <pause dur="0.9"/> that the purpose the what the historian did <pause dur="0.5"/> was <pause dur="0.8"/> discovered <pause dur="0.4"/> how it really was <pause dur="0.5"/> what actually happened in the past <pause dur="0.8"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> as you'll <pause dur="0.3"/> gather when you read about Ranke and in the next lecture in this course <pause dur="0.6"/> there was nothing at all simple-minded about Ranke's own take on historical method he certainly was not a naive <pause dur="0.3"/> empiricist <pause dur="0.8"/> but much of the profession <pause dur="0.3"/> that he was <pause dur="1.1"/> responsible in some ways <pause dur="0.3"/> for inventing <pause dur="0.7"/> has

been <pause dur="0.9"/> extremely simple-minded <pause dur="0.2"/> about the sources of its own knowledge <pause dur="0.7"/> and hasn't really thought much about the sources of its own knowledge <pause dur="0.7"/> Patrick Burke's book History and Social Theory which is on the # <pause dur="0.3"/> # reading list <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> traces <pause dur="1.3"/> he starts the book by tracing the nineteenth century divorce <pause dur="0.3"/> between history <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> the other social sciences from the later nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> as history became professionalized <pause dur="0.2"/> into an academic discipline <pause dur="1.2"/> and it became professionalized <pause dur="0.3"/> around <pause dur="0.3"/> an antitheory <pause dur="0.4"/> ethos <pause dur="1.7"/> especially in this country where of course empiricism <pause dur="0.6"/> and a culture of no nonsense common sense is something of a <pause dur="0.2"/> national fixation <pause dur="3.4"/> now for the antitheory cast of mind which <pause dur="2.0"/> certainly anybody who has been socialized in <pause dur="0.3"/> British culture <pause dur="0.8"/> part of their mind is certainly <pause dur="0.2"/> belongs <pause dur="0.3"/> however hard they struggle against it <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.3"/> to this antitheory cast of mind <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> doing history is just applied common sense <pause dur="0.4"/> the way to produce objective <pause dur="0.3"/> positive

knowledge about the past <pause dur="0.6"/> is to go through the sources without preconceptions <pause dur="0.4"/> with an open mind <pause dur="0.5"/> to rid yourself as best you can of any preconceptions <pause dur="0.7"/> and of <pause dur="0.9"/> present minded questions questions arising out of <pause dur="0.7"/> present issues <pause dur="1.0"/> and study the past for its own sake <pause dur="1.5"/> for its own sake <pause dur="0.4"/> not in order to grind axes <pause dur="0.2"/> in arguments going on in the present <pause dur="1.2"/> except of course arguments among historians <pause dur="1.4"/> the most eloquent proponent of the antitheory view <pause dur="0.5"/> is another Cambridge historian <pause dur="0.2"/> Geoffrey Elton <pause dur="1.0"/> who # <pause dur="0.6"/> most famous for his # <pause dur="0.9"/> discussion of <pause dur="0.9"/> sixteenth century statecraft <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the Tudor revolutionary government who published <pause dur="0.5"/> a counterblast to Carr <pause dur="0.4"/> in nineteen-sixty-seven called The Practice of History <pause dur="2.4"/> # Elton <pause dur="0.2"/> argues in that book <pause dur="0.7"/> that # historians have got their own methods they're rooted in practical common sense <pause dur="0.9"/> and these give you a real <pause dur="0.5"/> if always of course provisional <pause dur="0.8"/> knowledge about the past <pause dur="2.0"/> practical common sense <pause dur="2.1"/> the problem of course about common sense <pause dur="0.7"/> is that one person's common sense is another

person's nonsense <pause dur="1.2"/> common sense <pause dur="0.5"/> describes untheorized <pause dur="0.3"/> prejudice <pause dur="0.8"/> what just comes to your mind through the ether as it were without too much enquiry about where it comes from <pause dur="2.3"/> unless one engages seriously with theory we're never going to realize our own unconscious prejudicises <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> those prejudices are going to prefigure our reading of the sources in a way that <pause dur="1.3"/> we ourselves are not aware of <pause dur="2.5"/> and that <pause dur="0.7"/> in many ways is is kind of the key question for this whole course i think <pause dur="0.7"/> # the evolution of the historical discipline since Ranke <pause dur="0.8"/> in dialogue with other disciplines <pause dur="0.5"/> in the social sciences particularly but also <pause dur="0.3"/> literature <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> has created a whole storehouse of strategies <pause dur="0.5"/> for how historians can handle that difficult relationship between <pause dur="0.4"/> the historian's mind <pause dur="1.3"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> the sources <pause dur="0.9"/> out of which we construct historical <pause dur="0.6"/> narratives explanations and so on <pause dur="3.8"/> and i think by the end of the course you will have been through a whole menu of different

ways of approaching that problem and be able to locate yourself and your own preferred solutions <pause dur="1.7"/> but Carr's a good starting point for all this <pause dur="0.9"/> because he lays out very clearly some of the difficulties <pause dur="0.2"/> and the very incoherence of Carr's book and as i'll try to show <pause dur="0.5"/> it is i think fundamentally incoherent <pause dur="0.6"/> but the very incoherence <pause dur="0.7"/> takes one as it were to to to to <pause dur="0.3"/> to the issue <pause dur="0.9"/> that <pause dur="1.0"/> subtler minds than Carr's <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # that you will encounter as the course goes along <pause dur="0.4"/> # also worry away at <pause dur="3.2"/> the key to <pause dur="0.5"/> approaching that book is to understand its rhetorical strategy <pause dur="1.7"/> in chapter one <pause dur="0.9"/> Carr gives you a radical <pause dur="0.4"/> a radically <trunc>scepta</trunc> sceptical view <pause dur="0.4"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> empiricism <pause dur="0.6"/> and of the antitheory claims of traditional empirical history <pause dur="2.6"/> he's acutely aware of the difficulty of constructing objective accounts <pause dur="0.3"/> of the past <pause dur="0.5"/> rather than just using the past as a screen on which you project <pause dur="0.9"/> your own prejudices make up <pause dur="0.2"/> any stories you please <pause dur="2.9"/> but having laid that subjectivist trap he

proceeds to <pause dur="0.2"/> argue his way out of it <pause dur="2.5"/> he believed that subjectivism <pause dur="2.3"/> simply <pause dur="0.4"/> # # the <pause dur="0.3"/> # # a view in which <pause dur="0.4"/> the state of <trunc>his</trunc> of historical knowledge is no greater than the state of <trunc>th</trunc> the its status <pause dur="0.3"/> as objective truth about the past doesn't exist <pause dur="0.3"/> it's simply <pause dur="0.2"/> a projection of one's own prejudices <pause dur="0.8"/> he believes that subjectivism could be avoided <pause dur="0.3"/> to the extent that <pause dur="0.5"/> one deconstructed outdated assumptions <pause dur="0.9"/> and grasped realistically how the world was changing around you <pause dur="2.2"/> the most objective historian he ends up by saying is the one who understands the trend of history <pause dur="2.0"/> Carr essentially clings to # <pause dur="0.2"/> an enlightenment faith in reason and progress <pause dur="0.2"/> ultimately it's progress he argues <pause dur="0.8"/> that makes history intelligible <pause dur="2.2"/> now <pause dur="1.4"/> i'll talk about all this i'm just laying out the agenda as it were <pause dur="0.3"/> Carr's <pause dur="0.2"/> certainty about progress and what it looks like <pause dur="0.3"/> may now seem very dated <pause dur="1.5"/> but at the end of the lecture i'm going to suggest that maybe <pause dur="0.7"/> he has a point <pause dur="1.7"/> about

the inextricability of the idea of progress <pause dur="0.5"/> and the practice of history <pause dur="9.1"/> now what i want to do is to look in turn at Carr's analysis of <pause dur="0.3"/> what i've called the subjectivist trap <pause dur="0.5"/> and then at how he seeks to mobilize the idea of progress to spring that trap <pause dur="2.7"/> the main burden of chapter one <pause dur="0.9"/> is that there is no <kinesic desc="makes quotation mark gesture" iterated="n"/> hard core of historical facts <pause dur="0.2"/> existing independently of the historian <pause dur="3.1"/> interpretive frameworks are at work <pause dur="0.6"/> right from the start of the process <pause dur="0.7"/> of constructing <pause dur="0.3"/> knowledge about the past <pause dur="1.1"/> as Carr puts it an element of interpretation enters into every fact of history <pause dur="1.9"/> or it's an interpretation here and fact there <pause dur="0.7"/> they're inextricably <pause dur="0.8"/> mixed up <pause dur="2.0"/> i think it's important to understand what Carr is saying and what he isn't saying here <pause dur="1.2"/> he doesn't make it easy 'cause his terminology is rather confusing <pause dur="0.4"/> and i'm going to suggest <pause dur="0.4"/> substituting <pause dur="0.2"/> a terminology that makes it easier <pause dur="2.1"/> he's not in fact denying that information about the past exists independently of the <trunc>insh</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> of the historian <pause dur="1.7"/> what

he's trying to do is to make a distinction between two kinds of facts about the past <pause dur="1.4"/> and he does this if you've read that chapter using rather strangely <pause dur="0.4"/> upper class male metaphor about clubs <pause dur="1.1"/> and you'll remember his # <pause dur="0.4"/> there are run of the mill <pause dur="0.2"/> plebeian facts <pause dur="0.3"/> which no one pays any attention to <pause dur="0.9"/> and then there are important facts which have been nominated for membership of this <pause dur="0.4"/> club <pause dur="0.2"/> of professional historians <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="2.7"/> those are facts mobilized as evidence <pause dur="0.6"/> for some argument or another about the past <pause dur="0.8"/> and once they're mobilized by a <pause dur="0.2"/> properly <pause dur="0.2"/> accredited professional historian to support some argument he's making <pause dur="0.3"/> they become <pause dur="0.9"/> properly historical facts <pause dur="1.8"/> now this is very confusing 'cause he's using the word fact <pause dur="0.3"/> to apply to two quite different kinds of thing <pause dur="0.7"/> or concepts <pause dur="1.1"/> Keith Jenkins <pause dur="0.8"/> in his little book on rethinking history <pause dur="0.8"/> # which # <pause dur="1.7"/> i think we're all going to be talking about to some extent in the first seminar of this course <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>v</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> very much <pause dur="0.3"/> providing a <pause dur="0.8"/> # # # a simple

guide to post-modernist ideas about <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> about history <pause dur="2.9"/> whatever one one may think of Keith Jenkins' approach overall i think he provides an extremely useful <pause dur="0.3"/> # way of sorting out this fact fact problem <pause dur="0.5"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> Carr <pause dur="0.9"/> the key distinction he points out is between the past <pause dur="0.3"/> and history <pause dur="1.5"/> the past <pause dur="0.3"/> was real <pause dur="1.4"/> no doubt about that <pause dur="0.5"/> it all happened <pause dur="0.5"/> whatever it was that happened <pause dur="0.2"/> but it doesn't exist any longer <pause dur="1.1"/> it was real but it no longer exists <pause dur="0.7"/> history <pause dur="0.2"/> is what we write about the past <pause dur="0.2"/> okay straightforward <pause dur="1.6"/> the reason we can write about the past is 'cause it left traces behind <pause dur="1.2"/> and that's a crucial word <pause dur="0.3"/> traces <pause dur="0.6"/> it left traces behind <pause dur="0.4"/> buildings field systems <pause dur="0.7"/> but mainly <pause dur="1.1"/> for historians written documents <pause dur="1.7"/> those traces of course do <pause dur="0.4"/> exist <pause dur="0.2"/> in the present <pause dur="1.2"/> most of these documents sitting in archives here and there <pause dur="1.8"/> and we can consult the traces of the past <pause dur="0.5"/> in search of evidence about the past <pause dur="1.9"/> so for Carr's two kinds of facts about the past <pause dur="0.4"/> non-historical facts inert ones that nobody

pays any attention to on the one hand <pause dur="0.2"/> and properly historical facts <pause dur="0.8"/> facts which historians have picked up and run with as it were <pause dur="0.7"/> one can substitute the much clearer terms i think <pause dur="0.8"/> the traces from the past unworked on possibly as yet undiscovered documents <pause dur="0.5"/> but these are the traces of the past or what the archaeologist find as he digs <pause dur="0.2"/> these are the traces of the past <pause dur="0.6"/> on the one hand <pause dur="0.2"/> an evidence <pause dur="0.7"/> information <pause dur="0.4"/> about what actually happened distilled <pause dur="0.2"/> from the traces by the labour of historians <pause dur="1.3"/> the traces <pause dur="0.2"/> have a purely objective existence they're there <pause dur="0.8"/> you can't argue with it <pause dur="0.3"/> yeah <pause dur="0.9"/> the evidence of course is thoroughly mixed up <pause dur="0.2"/> with questions of interpretation <pause dur="2.8"/> the complications i think begin <pause dur="0.4"/> when you contemplate the process of how you win <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="makes quotation mark gesture" iterated="n"/> Carr's historical facts or what i'm calling <kinesic desc="makes quotation mark gesture" iterated="n"/> evidence <pause dur="0.4"/> from these inert <pause dur="0.2"/> traces of the past <pause dur="0.4"/> for the more empiricist historians like <pause dur="0.4"/> Geoffrey Elton <pause dur="1.4"/> that process is very skilled <pause dur="0.8"/> you need a PhD to do it properly <pause dur="0.7"/> mm <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> it's essentially value free <pause dur="1.4"/> the

trained historian checks the authenticity <pause dur="1.3"/> of any particular <pause dur="1.0"/> piece any particular trace of the past make sure it really is a trace of the past not something planted there <pause dur="0.3"/> by a forger <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="1.8"/> he compares different accounts <pause dur="0.2"/> in the sources <pause dur="0.6"/> did it happen as this document says it did is the document likely to be <pause dur="0.8"/> misinformation <pause dur="0.7"/> produced at the time to misinform someone else <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> did the event leave traces in several documents independently produced so you can compare them with one another and therefore get a bit more than objective view of what went on <pause dur="1.0"/> and at the end of such a process <pause dur="0.2"/> one has objective knowledge about past events for Elton <pause dur="0.2"/> about what actually happened <pause dur="0.5"/> one has <pause dur="0.5"/> a hard core of historical facts existing independently of any particular historian <pause dur="0.6"/> checked out authenticated <pause dur="0.6"/> but that's what happened in the past <pause dur="1.7"/> now this is what Carr's concerned to deny <pause dur="1.9"/> and perhaps the most convincing <pause dur="0.4"/> # criticism <pause dur="0.2"/> of this idea of a hard core <pause dur="1.3"/> of facts <pause dur="0.5"/> is the selection problem <pause dur="0.8"/> as i call it <pause dur="1.6"/>

the past leaves far more traces <pause dur="0.2"/> than we can handle <pause dur="2.5"/> and the recent past <pause dur="0.2"/> all the more <pause dur="1.1"/> all the historical work involves selection <pause dur="0.2"/> and selection of course involves having an agenda an interpretive framework <pause dur="0.6"/> even before historians start checking out the authenticity of the sources <pause dur="1.5"/> the reliability of the evidence inferred from the traces <pause dur="0.3"/> they have to decide what sources to look at <pause dur="0.6"/> what kind of evidence <pause dur="0.2"/> to try to infer <pause dur="3.1"/> the evidence doesn't exist independently of the historian's agenda <pause dur="0.9"/> it's inferred from the traces of the past <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to answer some predetermined set of questions <pause dur="1.4"/> which is why evidence is a more helpful term <pause dur="0.3"/> for what Carr means than facts <pause dur="0.7"/> facts you know are the kind of empiricist building block they're <pause dur="0.2"/> hard <pause dur="0.2"/> nuggets of things which have sharp and well defined edges <pause dur="0.7"/> and you can <pause dur="0.3"/> pile them up <pause dur="0.5"/> into your <pause dur="0.8"/> <trunc>b</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> building bricks to make your tower of historical narrative <pause dur="0.6"/> evidence on the other hand <pause dur="0.4"/> only exists in relation to a case being made

it's what's called in evidence <pause dur="0.4"/> in relation to a particular argument <pause dur="1.1"/> and that's what Carr means when he says that the facts of history can't be purely objective <pause dur="0.4"/> since they become facts of history <pause dur="0.3"/> only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian <pause dur="2.0"/> he quotes approvingly a description of # the historian at work as <pause dur="0.2"/> rummaging in the ragbag <pause dur="1.1"/> # for traces of the past <pause dur="0.2"/> in order to select <pause dur="0.7"/> piece and pattern <pause dur="0.3"/> evidence related to the interpretation he's seeking to construct <pause dur="0.4"/> so rummaging in this <pause dur="0.2"/> almost limitless ragbag <pause dur="0.5"/> of traces <pause dur="0.9"/> to look for the <pause dur="1.1"/> bits of information that will help you construct what it is that you're trying to construct <pause dur="2.2"/> is Carr right <pause dur="1.5"/> to dismiss the idea that there's any hard core of facts out there <pause dur="0.8"/> should we dismiss the claims of empiricist historians to produce <pause dur="0.2"/> objective facts about the past <pause dur="1.8"/> i'm not going to <pause dur="1.1"/> even begin to try to offer you any kind of definitive answer to that question because # <pause dur="0.7"/> what from one direction or another we'll come back

to it again and again <pause dur="1.2"/> # but i just want to suggest you give it some thought and to help you think about it let's just take one <pause dur="0.3"/> very well attested historical fact the Second World War <pause dur="1.2"/> right <pause dur="1.4"/> we can all agree <pause dur="0.2"/> it occurred <pause dur="1.7"/> can we <pause dur="0.7"/> whatever differences we might have are going to be about matters of interpretation <pause dur="0.2"/> causes <pause dur="0.2"/> effects <pause dur="0.2"/> and so on <pause dur="0.8"/> well at first sight yes obviously you know the <pause dur="0.2"/> the the tanks move the bombs drop the ships were sunk <pause dur="0.5"/> and millions of people got killed <pause dur="3.0"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> think again about it the Second World War <pause dur="0.8"/> if it's such an indisputable fact when did it begin <pause dur="1.5"/> mm <pause dur="0.2"/> did it begin in nineteen-thirty-nine <pause dur="0.6"/> or did it begin in nineteen-forty-one <pause dur="0.6"/> or did it begin in nineteen-thirty-one when the Japanese attacked Manchuria <pause dur="1.9"/> was it the Second World War <pause dur="1.5"/> or was it just a continuation of the first <pause dur="0.3"/> in a hundred years' time will historians talk about The Thirty Years' War of the early twentieth century <pause dur="3.4"/> i'm sure there will be great debates <pause dur="0.5"/> among historians as to whether such a concept <pause dur="0.4"/>

is more useful <pause dur="0.4"/> than talking about a first and a second <pause dur="0.8"/> or you can revise it the other way around <pause dur="0.5"/> as the uncertainty over the date suggests is it one war <pause dur="2.5"/> or is that <pause dur="0.2"/> the historian imposing a single narrative <pause dur="0.2"/> on a series of events <pause dur="0.6"/> which make more sense <pause dur="0.8"/> # looked at discretely <pause dur="0.3"/> a series of discrete squabbles hundreds of local wars and civil wars <pause dur="1.6"/> telling the story <pause dur="0.3"/> as that of and it is telling the story constructing a narrative <pause dur="0.2"/> of a second world war <pause dur="0.3"/> perhaps privileges <pause dur="0.6"/> you know Churchill Roosevelt Stalin you can see them sitting there in the <pause dur="0.2"/> photograph directing <pause dur="0.2"/> the course of history <pause dur="0.7"/> but perhaps that's not how history <pause dur="0.2"/> was made <pause dur="0.4"/> in that period perhaps it's made much more <pause dur="0.3"/> by a whole series of interlocked and interrelating processes <pause dur="0.3"/> which are not grasped by the concept of a single second world war <pause dur="0.6"/> in the longer perspective that particular narrative device and that's what it is <pause dur="0.2"/> the Second World War <pause dur="0.6"/> might be abandoned in favour of a more bottom-up approach that privileges

local and regional dynamics <pause dur="1.0"/> in understanding that period of a of global upheaval <pause dur="2.1"/> perhaps there are some facts so # i ask you just to think about that and you i'm sure you could all come up with similar examples <pause dur="0.5"/> of you know commonplace <pause dur="0.3"/> historical events <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> as soon as you start to think of them are actually constructed narratives which could be constructed quite differently <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> perhaps there are some facts which exist independently <pause dur="0.3"/> of interpretive frameworks <pause dur="0.3"/> they're probably very trivial ones <pause dur="1.1"/> most events <pause dur="0.4"/> are themselves already interpretations mental constructions by historians <pause dur="0.2"/> particular ways of telling a story <pause dur="0.3"/> to give it a particular kind of a meaning <pause dur="3.7"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> those who don't get beyond the first chapter of Carr <pause dur="1.3"/> # sometimes see Carr himself <pause dur="0.2"/> as embracing a sceptical view that basically you can get any interpretive framework you make <pause dur="0.4"/> you know there there there's no way out of this trap <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> you project onto the past whatever narrative you want <pause dur="1.3"/> though even in

chapter one he makes no secret of his contempt for such a view <pause dur="0.9"/> as he puts it the past is not a child's box of letters <pause dur="0.3"/> with which we can spell any word we please <pause dur="1.9"/> and in fact <pause dur="0.3"/> as i said at the beginning the rhetorical strategy of the book <pause dur="0.2"/> is to set that sceptical trap <pause dur="0.9"/> only in order to spring it <pause dur="1.5"/> but before <event desc="takes off glasses" iterated="n"/> turning to the way he springs it <pause dur="0.2"/> ah <pause dur="0.8"/> the glasses came off put them back on again quick <pause dur="0.4"/> <event desc="puts on glasses" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> but before turning to the way he springs it <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> let me probe a bit deeper <pause dur="0.2"/> into the sources of Carr's thinking <pause dur="1.9"/> which brings me to a section <pause dur="1.8"/> <kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> called # <pause dur="2.7"/> the sociology of knowledge <pause dur="6.2"/> now Carr is a middle class boy from a business family in north London he grows up with # <pause dur="0.9"/> a conventional Gladstonian belief <pause dur="0.9"/> in that great truth of nineteenth century Britain <pause dur="0.5"/> that the universal interests of humanity <pause dur="0.2"/> are the same thing <pause dur="0.3"/> as free

trade <pause dur="0.6"/> especially free trade dominated by the British <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="2.0"/> First World War <pause dur="0.8"/> his experience as a Foreign Office official <pause dur="0.3"/> blows all that apart and in the book i mentioned before The Twenty Years' Crisis <pause dur="0.2"/> published in nineteen-thirty-nine which is a <pause dur="0.4"/> basically a history of international relations between nineteen-eighteen <pause dur="0.8"/> and nineteen-thirty-nine <pause dur="3.0"/> well <pause dur="0.7"/> no it's not basically that it's the the that's its its ostensible subject matter <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> Carr performs a quite brilliant deconstruction of the role of ideology <pause dur="1.8"/> in masking <pause dur="0.2"/> power <pause dur="1.1"/> in masking <pause dur="0.4"/> raison d'état <pause dur="1.7"/> in international politics <pause dur="0.5"/> he shows how the apparently utopian ideals of peaceful international relations <pause dur="0.5"/> built around free trade Adam Smith Richard Cobden <pause dur="0.2"/> and then the Americans Woodrow Wilson <pause dur="0.3"/> and the idea of the League of Nations <pause dur="0.4"/> the <trunc>ut</trunc> whole utopian strand <pause dur="0.2"/> of # # thinking <pause dur="0.4"/> # built around the idea that free trade free commercial intercourse among nations will bring peace <pause dur="0.2"/> and prosperity to the world <pause dur="0.4"/> that all this in fact <pause dur="0.3"/> served

to promote the interests of the most powerful <pause dur="0.3"/> economies <pause dur="0.7"/> high-minded free trade pacifism <pause dur="0.3"/> didn't express any genuine harmony of interests it expressed <pause dur="0.2"/> the interest <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.4"/> whoever was the current economic superpower the British in the nineteenth century the Americans <pause dur="0.3"/> in the twentieth century <pause dur="2.2"/> free trade was a weapon designed to subordinate weaker economies <pause dur="1.7"/> wisdom <pause dur="0.2"/> Carr concludes in foreign affairs <pause dur="0.6"/> comes not out of the pursuit of # <pause dur="0.5"/> utopian moral goals in foreign policy <pause dur="1.1"/> but in adapting to the realities of power <pause dur="0.2"/> as he saw them <pause dur="1.0"/> for example <pause dur="0.3"/> # it's # central to that book on the Thirty Years' Crisis <pause dur="0.3"/> the # <pause dur="0.2"/> in Eastern Europe <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> there could only be one of two dominant powers it either had to be Germany or Russia <pause dur="1.3"/> and it was daft to think that you could construct any kind of society in Eastern Europe that wasn't dominated by one of these great powers or the other <pause dur="0.3"/> and therefore Carr was an appeaser <pause dur="0.2"/> in the nineteen-thirties <pause dur="1.0"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> an opponent of the

Cold War <pause dur="0.2"/> after nineteen-forty-five <pause dur="1.0"/> before the war it was Germany's area after the war it was Russia's area <pause dur="0.2"/> and it was simply stupid <pause dur="0.4"/> to try to <pause dur="0.2"/> # resist this <pause dur="2.2"/> the argument he mobilizes in The Twenty Years' Crisis is foundational as i <pause dur="0.3"/> said earlier for the realist school in international relations Carr is really founding another academic discipline <pause dur="0.3"/> or playing an important part in it <pause dur="0.4"/> # the the social scientific discipline of international relations <pause dur="0.4"/> and he's doing <pause dur="1.3"/> to pitch him at a high claim he's doing for international politics <pause dur="0.2"/> what Machiavelli <pause dur="0.3"/> had done for domestic politics <pause dur="0.6"/> getting behind <pause dur="0.5"/> the moralizing <pause dur="0.2"/> # rhetoric <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.8"/> understanding that unless the Prince # for Machiavelli or the <pause dur="0.2"/> Kissinger <pause dur="0.2"/> for Carr <pause dur="0.4"/> who <pause dur="0.2"/> would be one outcome of this kind of thinking i suppose <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and and and unless they can get behind # the i suppose its moral goals of foreign policy and understand the realities of power <pause dur="0.2"/> they'll make a mess of things <pause dur="1.7"/> now in formulating his ideas

about the relationship <pause dur="0.8"/> between <pause dur="0.5"/> ideology <pause dur="0.4"/> and power <pause dur="0.2"/> in international relations he draws heavily on the ideas <pause dur="0.2"/> of a Hungarian sociologist <pause dur="0.7"/> who came to live in Britain in the mid-thirties # <pause dur="0.3"/> at <pause dur="0.2"/> at # L-S-E and <trunc>s</trunc> had a job at London School of Economics <pause dur="0.4"/> Karl Mannheim <pause dur="1.2"/> and Mannheim's most distinctive <pause dur="0.7"/> contribution <pause dur="1.0"/> that Carr picked up <pause dur="0.2"/> was this idea of a sociology of knowledge <pause dur="2.0"/> the key idea there was that all values <pause dur="0.5"/> all truths in quotation mark <pause dur="0.4"/> are rooted in a specific time and place <pause dur="1.0"/> and the key to understanding the universalizing claims <pause dur="0.8"/> that particular groups make the claim that their <pause dur="0.8"/> # # their ideas <pause dur="0.3"/> represent the universal human interest <pause dur="0.7"/> # the key to understanding these is to unmask them <pause dur="0.2"/> to unmask the social basis of ideas <pause dur="1.9"/> to do a sociology of knowledge <pause dur="1.1"/> you always ask whose purposes are served by this political doctrine <pause dur="0.3"/> that religion <pause dur="0.6"/> this utopian project <pause dur="1.3"/> the job of the social scientist or the historian <pause dur="0.4"/> is to unmask <pause dur="0.4"/> the unacknowledged function <pause dur="2.0"/> of assertions of universal

values <pause dur="0.3"/> in sustaining or advancing particular <pause dur="0.5"/> interests <pause dur="1.9"/> but of course if knowledge production has a sociology <pause dur="0.4"/> then this is true of the production of historical knowledge <pause dur="1.5"/> as well <pause dur="0.8"/> and in that spirit Carr attacks attempts to erect any <pause dur="0.5"/> as he puts it suprahistorical standard by which to judge historical events <pause dur="1.3"/> and you should all have a sheet with quotations on it <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.7"/> on the first of which is # or the second of which is that <reading>the serious historian is the one who recognizes the historically conditioned character <pause dur="0.9"/> of all values <pause dur="0.2"/> not the one who claims for his own values an objectivity beyond history</reading> <pause dur="4.1"/> but if there are no values which have objectivity beyond history <pause dur="1.3"/> where can you find objectivity <pause dur="2.3"/> which brings me to # <pause dur="0.8"/> the final section <pause dur="0.3"/> of the lecture <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> Carr and the idea of progress <pause dur="3.0"/> he tries to mobilize the idea of <pause dur="0.3"/> progress to spring the subjectivist trap <pause dur="3.5"/> the key proposition is really very simple <pause dur="1.3"/> and almost

commonsensical <pause dur="1.1"/> the test <pause dur="0.2"/> of the objectivity of any particular historical interpretation <pause dur="0.5"/> lies in its ability to predict the future <pause dur="3.9"/> the most objective historian that's to say <pause dur="0.7"/> is the one who has the deepest grasp of the tide of history <pause dur="1.9"/> the most as Carr puts it profound and lasting vision <pause dur="0.5"/> of the future <pause dur="2.1"/> you know the quotes on your sheet <pause dur="0.5"/> <reading>only the future can provide the key to the interpretation of the past <pause dur="0.6"/> it's only in this sense that we can speak of an ultimate objectivity in history</reading> <pause dur="1.0"/> that doesn't mean of course that you can ever quite reach it because you don't actually know what's going to happen in the future <pause dur="1.3"/> but <pause dur="1.1"/> those historians who have understood the trend of history <pause dur="0.4"/> are going to be the ones who last <pause dur="0.4"/> Carr's saying and time will tell <pause dur="0.5"/> which they are <pause dur="2.3"/> now for Carr the tide of the twentieth <trunc>cent</trunc> # <pause dur="1.8"/> sorry <pause dur="0.8"/> Carr has this very firm conviction that there are tides in history that history has a direction <pause dur="1.0"/> that these tides are knowable <pause dur="1.2"/> though never of course <pause dur="0.2"/>

absolutely <pause dur="0.4"/> time tells <pause dur="1.9"/> who <pause dur="0.3"/> had understood better <pause dur="0.4"/> the objectivity of any particular informing vision <pause dur="1.4"/> for Carr the tide of the twentieth century was above all towards and a key word in all Carr's thinking <pause dur="0.4"/> planning <pause dur="3.7"/> the First World War <pause dur="0.4"/> seemed to demonstrate pretty clearly that liberal capitalism <pause dur="0.2"/> was over <pause dur="0.9"/> the future lay with the planned economy <pause dur="0.9"/> the First World War had shown how to do it particularly in the German war economy <pause dur="1.1"/> but also to some degree in the British war economy <pause dur="1.9"/> the stark contrast between <pause dur="0.2"/> capitalist crisis nineteen-twenty-nine <pause dur="0.7"/> and Soviet five year planning <pause dur="1.4"/> was an inescapable <pause dur="0.3"/> demonstration it seemed <pause dur="0.8"/> # of # where the future lay <pause dur="0.7"/> as Carr himself wrote in nineteen-thirty-one <pause dur="0.4"/> <reading>the new religion of the kilowatt and the machine <pause dur="0.6"/> may well prove to be the creed for which modern civilization is waiting <pause dur="1.0"/> this new religion is growing up on the fringes of a Europe that's lost faith in <trunc>her</trunc> in herself <pause dur="0.4"/> contemporary Europe is aimlessly drifting</reading> <pause dur="1.2"/> and that view of

things was of course triumphantly vindicated it seemed <pause dur="0.5"/> by <pause dur="0.4"/> the stupendous achievements of the Red Army in the Second World War <pause dur="1.1"/> Hitler being defeated <pause dur="0.8"/> by in Carr's view <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> triumphs of Soviet planning <pause dur="0.4"/> essentially <pause dur="2.5"/> none of that means that Carr was a Stalinist <pause dur="0.7"/> or believed that Soviet style planning <pause dur="0.3"/> was appropriate for Western societies <pause dur="1.7"/> but this <trunc>mids</trunc> <trunc>ni</trunc> twentieth century belief in planning was more or less universal among reformist intellectuals <pause dur="1.1"/> it was rooted in the experience <pause dur="0.2"/> as i indicated of Western war economies <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> # thinking about what on earth do we do about the slump <pause dur="0.5"/> as much as it was <pause dur="0.2"/> anything to do with the U-S-S-R <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> whole notions of planning in the <trunc>mid-twist</trunc> twentieth century are responding as much to the needs of <pause dur="0.4"/> big capital <pause dur="0.2"/> big business <pause dur="0.4"/> as they are <pause dur="0.3"/> to any aspirations of socialists <pause dur="0.9"/> but planning <pause dur="0.6"/> becomes a point of convergence if you like <pause dur="0.4"/> between the revolutionary drama in the Soviet Union on the one hand <pause dur="0.7"/> and Western social democratic reformism <pause dur="0.5"/>

which Carr <pause dur="0.2"/> the Times leader writer <pause dur="0.4"/> is a central figure in in Britain <pause dur="0.5"/> on the other <pause dur="4.9"/> now Carr <event desc="takes off glasses" iterated="n"/> no less than Geoffrey <trunc>entlo</trunc> Elton <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> # there there it goes again <pause dur="0.3"/><event desc="puts on glasses" iterated="n"/> Carr no less than Geoffrey Elton <pause dur="0.4"/> # opposed <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> present mindedness <pause dur="0.9"/> but in the name not of the study of the past for its own sake <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> in the name of as he put it a long term vision of a past and future <pause dur="1.2"/> so if you like he's substituting <pause dur="0.3"/> future mindedness for present mindedness <pause dur="0.7"/> and he cites his own approach to the history of the Soviet Union as an example <pause dur="1.5"/> Western views of the Soviet Union he says in a preface to some of the later volumes of # <pause dur="0.5"/> the the the history of Russia <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> Western views have fluctuated drastically as international relations shifted from the kind of pro-Soviet ethos of the wartime years <pause dur="0.3"/> to the Cold War years <pause dur="0.9"/> Carr <pause dur="0.2"/> says he stands aloof from the transient fluctuations of opinion <pause dur="0.4"/> to document a deeper story which he <pause dur="0.2"/> summarizes <pause dur="0.5"/> late on in writing

this history as <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>the determination the dedication the organization the sheer hard work <pause dur="0.3"/> which in the last sixty years <pause dur="0.2"/> have transformed Russia into a major industrial country <pause dur="0.2"/> and one of the superpowers</reading> <pause dur="1.3"/> for those who accused him of being an apologist for Stalin's crimes lacking the proper perspectives <pause dur="0.4"/> he said after all with a sideswipe at Geoffrey Elton <pause dur="0.4"/> nobody # <pause dur="0.4"/> # an English historian can praise the achievements of Henry the Eighth <pause dur="0.3"/> without <pause dur="0.2"/> being a supporter of # <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>b</trunc> being supposed to condone the beheading of wives <pause dur="2.6"/> now Carr was confident that in the long historical perspective the achievements of Soviet <pause dur="1.0"/> industrialization <pause dur="0.6"/> would outweigh <pause dur="0.4"/> would appear to be of greater historical significance <pause dur="0.3"/> than the brutalities of the Stalinist terror <pause dur="2.0"/> whatever the peculiarities of his vision <pause dur="0.2"/> and i'll come back to those <pause dur="0.9"/> it was built on the fundamental proposition that human history embodies <pause dur="0.4"/> the expansion of reason <pause dur="1.4"/> widening application of the power of reason to <pause dur="0.2"/>

place human beings in control <pause dur="0.2"/> of the natural environment and of social relations <pause dur="1.5"/> seemed to Carr to be at the core of the twentieth century revolution <pause dur="1.9"/> the transition from laissez-faire <pause dur="0.6"/> to planning <pause dur="0.7"/> from the unconscious to the conscious <pause dur="0.6"/> from a belief in objective economic law somehow operating <trunc>r</trunc> remotely from human control <pause dur="0.4"/> to a belief that man can <pause dur="0.4"/> master his own <pause dur="0.5"/> action <pause dur="0.9"/> that man can be the master of his own destiny <pause dur="1.4"/> man can plan his society <pause dur="2.6"/> now <pause dur="1.1"/> it's difficult not to conclude that Carr's contradicting himself <pause dur="0.3"/> how on earth can you combine a statement of faith in the expansion of human reason <pause dur="1.0"/> with his earlier insistence that there's no absolute values <pause dur="0.4"/> outside history <pause dur="0.3"/> that no serious historian can claim objectivity for his values beyond history <pause dur="0.3"/> Carr's values are very clearly the values of the Enlightenment <pause dur="0.4"/> and of the expansion of human reason <pause dur="3.0"/> and he admits as much actually in an essay he wrote on Mannheim i won't read it out the quote's there <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>o</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # # this is # quite late

in his life <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> he says that after all at the end of it all <pause dur="0.3"/> you have to admit there is a supratemporal reason lurking somewhere <pause dur="2.0"/> and he says you know i'm really just an old Victorian i can't get out of my head this notion of progress <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> i don't think you should judge Carr harshly for admitting to self-contradiction on this crucial and central issue <pause dur="0.4"/> when it comes to the really big philosophical questions <pause dur="0.4"/> my suspicion is you have to be slightly lunatic not to contradict yourself <pause dur="1.5"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> perhaps some of you can find ways out of this that don't involve a measure of self-contradiction i don't know <pause dur="0.3"/> but this isn't a philosophy course and we don't have to solve these big philosophical questions <pause dur="0.2"/> though we should note them <pause dur="2.0"/> but there are some particular aspects of Carr's idea of progress <pause dur="0.5"/> which are more troubling <pause dur="0.7"/> at the centre of <pause dur="0.8"/> his historical imagination planning <pause dur="0.5"/> the capacity of twentieth century man to move beyond the <pause dur="0.3"/> anarchy of the marketplace <pause dur="1.9"/> beyond that kind of

nineteenth century condition of life which as Carr sees it is much the same as the primitive savage in the jungle who doesn't understand anything and that language of primitive <trunc>sava</trunc> savages in jungles <pause dur="0.2"/> is very much part of Carr's rhetoric <pause dur="2.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> you move from that into the sunlit uplands of the conscious control over our social and economic destiny <pause dur="0.3"/> that planning gives you <pause dur="1.5"/> sometimes Carr's presented as a Marxist and thought of as a Marxist and his thinking certainly owes something to Marxism <pause dur="1.4"/> but he's more accurately located among that group of non-Marxist European intellectuals <pause dur="0.5"/> who concluded from the early from the events of the early twentieth century <pause dur="1.0"/> that some kind of socialism was inevitable <pause dur="0.9"/> they might not want it <pause dur="0.4"/> whether they liked it or not <pause dur="1.3"/> so the sensible thing <pause dur="1.2"/> was not to resist the tide of history <pause dur="0.8"/> they knew what the tide was that's <trunc>h</trunc> where it was going <pause dur="0.6"/> planning was the future <pause dur="1.0"/> but to cooperate <pause dur="0.4"/> with the tide of history with a view to controlling it <pause dur="0.3"/>

freedom <pause dur="0.6"/> in Hegel's famous phrase <pause dur="0.2"/> was the recognition of necessity <pause dur="1.6"/> you ride the tides of history <pause dur="1.1"/> if <trunc>sociali</trunc> was socialism was inevitable <pause dur="0.4"/> then the point was to make sure that rational educated people like themselves control it <pause dur="0.5"/> not to leave it to the dangerous whims of the oppressed <pause dur="3.3"/> the case against that kind of reasoning was made very forcibly by another Cambridge intellectual with whom Carr <pause dur="0.2"/> jousts in What is History Isaiah Berlin <pause dur="1.1"/> and i've given you quite a long quote from Isaiah Berlin in nineteen-fifty <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="2.3"/> which <pause dur="0.9"/> in view of the time i won't read out but you've got it there to look at let's just pick out a couple of bits of it though <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>Carr is deeply affected by the contempt for liberalism made fashionable in the last century by Hegel <pause dur="0.7"/> history is a procession of events ruled by inexorable laws</reading> <pause dur="0.9"/> and it's childish to resist them <pause dur="2.2"/> now <pause dur="1.1"/> Carr <pause dur="1.9"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> arguably is much too ready to identify progress and the expansion of reason <pause dur="0.4"/> with the wielding of

unprecedented power <pause dur="0.6"/> by intellectuals and bureaucrats in control of massive state apparatuses <pause dur="1.7"/> the history of Soviet planning which he wrote privileges the point of view of the planners privileges the <pause dur="0.5"/> view debated within the Bolshevik project of the nineteen-twenties of how do you turn a society round <pause dur="0.3"/> by a powerful state machine from the top <pause dur="0.4"/> how do you transform a society from above <pause dur="1.9"/> he's not very interested <pause dur="0.7"/> in focusing on the costs of progress or in looking at history from below as Isaac Deutscher <pause dur="0.4"/> there are his dates the biographer of Trotsky among others <pause dur="0.2"/> and one of Carr's few <pause dur="0.2"/> academic friends actually but if this is what your friends said imagine what your enemies said <pause dur="0.4"/> # was <trunc>w</trunc> as Deutscher said of Carr <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> his passion is for statecraft <pause dur="0.3"/> not for subversive ideas <pause dur="0.9"/> Deutscher was rather more interested in subversive ideas at least some of the time <pause dur="1.9"/> some of Carr's <pause dur="0.2"/> formulations show a <sic corr="surprising">surprinding</sic> <pause dur="0.2"/>

blindness to the dangers <pause dur="0.2"/> to human freedom <pause dur="0.6"/> involved in this project <pause dur="0.5"/> of conscious control <pause dur="1.6"/> you may have felt i don't know there was some disproportion <pause dur="0.2"/> in his <pause dur="0.6"/> quip at Elton <pause dur="0.4"/> comparing <pause dur="0.8"/> Henry the Eighth's <pause dur="0.6"/> treatment of his wives with Stalin's treatment of # large sections of the Russian population <pause dur="1.3"/> more fundamentally <pause dur="0.7"/> there's an impatient dismissal of the concerns of nineteenth century liberalism as <pause dur="0.3"/> nothing other than the selfish ideology of the bourgeoisie <pause dur="0.9"/> the sociology of knowledge tells you this <pause dur="0.8"/> huh <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a rather facile dismission # dismissal in the second chapter of Carr of <pause dur="0.3"/> the tension between individual liberty <pause dur="0.3"/> and the pursuit of social equality <pause dur="1.0"/> which is perhaps an abiding problem <pause dur="0.3"/> of liberalism <pause dur="1.3"/> and there's a bland assertion by Carr that <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>the modern preoccupation with social and economic ends <pause dur="0.4"/> represents a broader and more advanced stage of human development</reading> <pause dur="0.3"/> tides of history again <pause dur="0.5"/> <reading>than the nineteenth century liberal preoccupation with

political and constitutional ends</reading> <pause dur="0.2"/> we've moved on <pause dur="1.3"/> political questions constitutional questions <pause dur="0.3"/> anxieties about freedom that's behind us we're on to economic and social planning <pause dur="1.2"/> now Carr's history of reason <pause dur="1.1"/> triumphantly manifesting itself in the planning state <pause dur="0.3"/> is worlds away <pause dur="0.9"/> from <pause dur="0.3"/> those path breaking historians <pause dur="0.4"/> who <pause dur="1.0"/> from the nineteen-sixties were launching a new social history as a history from below <pause dur="0.7"/> a history concerned with losers <pause dur="0.6"/> as well as with winners <pause dur="0.7"/> a history concerned with the costs of progress <pause dur="0.9"/> a history concerned with <pause dur="0.2"/> recovering the mental world of the oppressed <pause dur="1.1"/> as well as with reconstructing the reasoning of the rulers <pause dur="1.1"/> already by the nineteen-sixties there are plenty of historians challenging Carr's rather outrageous <pause dur="0.3"/> and deeply Hegelian <pause dur="0.6"/> dismissal <pause dur="0.4"/> of <pause dur="1.1"/> # did i put the quote here as of the history of the medieval poor <pause dur="0.4"/> as not existing <pause dur="0.3"/> the medieval poor have no history <reading>they had no rational life of their own</reading> he writes <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>the mass of the people belonged <pause dur="0.3"/> like

prehistoric peoples <pause dur="0.2"/> to nature <pause dur="0.4"/> rather than to history</reading> again they were savages in the jungle <pause dur="1.2"/> you didn't have to share <pause dur="0.4"/> Isaiah Berlin's liberal standpoint which makes the same point <pause dur="0.8"/> to find remarks like that deeply offensive <pause dur="1.0"/> # indeed as we'll see when we get to E P Thompson in this course <pause dur="0.3"/> the most effective <pause dur="0.8"/> rescue of the history of the defeated was mounted precisely by Marxist historians <pause dur="0.7"/> of a very different <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> tenor than Carr's <pause dur="0.3"/> Marxist historians for whom subversive ideas <pause dur="0.4"/> rather than statecraft <pause dur="0.2"/> was at the centre of their vision <pause dur="1.4"/> so <pause dur="2.8"/> let's # try and <pause dur="0.5"/> draw this together <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="2.6"/> i think reading Carr now the particular idea of progress that # <pause dur="0.7"/> Carr places at the centre of his strategy for rescuing history from subjectivism <pause dur="0.4"/> i <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> the his idea his particular idea of what the trend of history is <pause dur="1.0"/> # seems very dated <pause dur="1.0"/> neither the Soviet Union of course <pause dur="0.3"/> nor planning more generally <pause dur="0.3"/> look <pause dur="0.2"/> like the future <pause dur="1.1"/> though a cautionary note i think <pause dur="0.3"/> you know one should never forget every historian

should have inscribed on their hearts really the # <pause dur="0.6"/> the famous saying of Mao Tse Tung's when asked <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> what were the effects of the French Revolution <pause dur="1.1"/> it's too early to tell <pause dur="0.8"/> mm <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> well perhaps that's not true about seventeen-eighty-nine # <pause dur="1.0"/> but it's certainly true about nineteen-eighty-nine <pause dur="0.8"/> # that's only ten years <pause dur="0.2"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="2.9"/> but can the link between <pause dur="0.2"/> historical objectivity and progress survive Carr's particular formulation of it <pause dur="1.2"/> and these are really the questions i want to send you away <pause dur="0.6"/> thinking about hopefully <pause dur="0.7"/> how convincing is his argument that some idea of progress <pause dur="0.9"/> of the advance of human reason of that kind of widening sphere of understanding and therefore <pause dur="0.2"/> conscious control of one's destiny <pause dur="1.8"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> how convincing is the argument this is really a precondition for any kind of historical thinking <pause dur="3.0"/> can one distinguish between Carr's particular conception of progress and any conception of progress <pause dur="2.1"/> Carr himself may not have

understood the trend of the twentieth century <pause dur="0.2"/> though <pause dur="0.2"/> it may be too early to tell <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> but does this mean it has no trend <pause dur="1.7"/> and might Carr have been right in thinking that the search for a trend for some meaningful narrative some <pause dur="0.3"/> in in <pause dur="0.3"/> some <pause dur="0.5"/> something unfolding the unfolding of reason in Hegel's <pause dur="0.3"/> term <pause dur="1.7"/> was fundamental to the practice of history <pause dur="0.3"/> i think one of the more appealing passages in in in in Carr's book i put on <pause dur="0.2"/> here <pause dur="0.5"/> # has Carr writing in <pause dur="0.2"/> rather more modest vein than he sometimes does <pause dur="0.5"/> modern man he says is to an unprecedented degree self-conscious <pause dur="0.5"/> and therefore conscious of history <pause dur="0.5"/> <reading>he peers eagerly back into the twilight out of which he's come <pause dur="0.3"/> in the hope <pause dur="0.2"/> that its faint beams will illuminate the obscurity into which he's going <pause dur="0.8"/> and conversely <pause dur="0.2"/> his aspirations and anxieties about the path that lies ahead <pause dur="0.3"/> quicken his insight <pause dur="0.2"/> into what lies behind</reading> <pause dur="1.9"/> unsatisfactory though

peering is <pause dur="0.4"/> can we do history without it <pause dur="0.6"/> # is Carr for all his inadequacies <pause dur="1.0"/> right in linking the very idea of history <pause dur="0.6"/> to <pause dur="0.3"/> some kind of enlightenment belief in progress <pause dur="1.9"/> and if history is not in some way a record of the expansion of human reason <pause dur="0.5"/> does it have any meaning purpose or function <pause dur="1.2"/> my own hunch <pause dur="0.5"/> is that if the answer to that question is is negative that it isn't in any sense <pause dur="0.2"/> a record of the expansion of human reason <pause dur="0.4"/> i think we'll disappear from the culture myself historical study i i think it belongs <pause dur="0.2"/> to the idea of progress <pause dur="0.5"/> and that if you get rid in some level of the idea of progress <pause dur="0.3"/> what you'll you history <pause dur="0.2"/> simply becomes fiction <pause dur="0.3"/> and why not have fiction novelists do it much better <pause dur="0.8"/> mm <pause dur="1.2"/> much more readable <pause dur="0.3"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> shall i just leave you with that # extremely # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>un</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> # worked out <pause dur="0.3"/> thought <pause dur="1.5"/> okay