E-story, or the New Hollywood Myth

C. Moatti
{"title":"E-story, or the New Hollywood Myth","authors":"C. Moatti","doi":"10.1017/S239856820000114X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract David Armitage and Jo Guldi’s History Manifesto has sparked an important debate in the United States. This article criticizes three specific aspects of their work. First, it takes issue with their description of a “moral crisis” of history, which they postulate without any discussion of serious epistemological and political issues. Second, it calls into question their enthusiasm for technological solutions, an ideological stance highlighted by their call for a return to long-term history and large-scale syntheses relying on the crunching of vast quantities of digitized data. Finally, it interrogates their conception of the utility of history, a notion that reveals serious confusion between research, teaching, and popularization and supports their unquestioning acceptance of the direction taken by institutions of higher learning. Although the scientism and positivism expressed in their manifesto illuminate their lack of attention to, and perhaps simply awareness of, the slow construction and transmission of accumulated knowledge, they do reflect the prevailing intellectual nonchalance and philosophical regression. The authors’ vision would see the replacement of “history” by “e-story,” the dissolution of historicity and scholarly critique and their substitution by techno-chronology and marketing.","PeriodicalId":86691,"journal":{"name":"Annales Nestle [English ed.]","volume":"65 1","pages":"255 - 260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annales Nestle [English ed.]","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S239856820000114X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract David Armitage and Jo Guldi’s History Manifesto has sparked an important debate in the United States. This article criticizes three specific aspects of their work. First, it takes issue with their description of a “moral crisis” of history, which they postulate without any discussion of serious epistemological and political issues. Second, it calls into question their enthusiasm for technological solutions, an ideological stance highlighted by their call for a return to long-term history and large-scale syntheses relying on the crunching of vast quantities of digitized data. Finally, it interrogates their conception of the utility of history, a notion that reveals serious confusion between research, teaching, and popularization and supports their unquestioning acceptance of the direction taken by institutions of higher learning. Although the scientism and positivism expressed in their manifesto illuminate their lack of attention to, and perhaps simply awareness of, the slow construction and transmission of accumulated knowledge, they do reflect the prevailing intellectual nonchalance and philosophical regression. The authors’ vision would see the replacement of “history” by “e-story,” the dissolution of historicity and scholarly critique and their substitution by techno-chronology and marketing.
E-story,或新好莱坞神话
大卫·阿米蒂奇和乔·古尔迪的《历史宣言》在美国引起了一场重要的争论。本文对他们工作的三个具体方面进行了批评。首先,它与他们对历史的“道德危机”的描述有争议,他们在没有讨论任何严肃的认识论和政治问题的情况下假设了这一点。其次,这让人质疑他们对技术解决方案的热情,他们呼吁回归长期历史和依赖于大量数字化数据的大规模综合,这突显了他们的意识形态立场。最后,它质疑了他们对历史效用的观念,这种观念揭示了研究、教学和普及之间的严重混淆,并支持了他们对高等教育机构所采取的方向的毫无疑问的接受。尽管他们在宣言中表达的科学主义和实证主义表明,他们缺乏对积累知识的缓慢构建和传播的关注,或者仅仅是意识到这一点,但它们确实反映了普遍存在的知识冷漠和哲学倒退。在作者的设想中,“历史”将被“电子故事”取代,历史性和学术批判将被消解,取而代之的是技术年代学和市场营销。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信