Technical Choice, Innovation and Economic Growth: Essays on American and British Experience in the Nineteenth Century. By Paul A. David. London, Cambridge University Press, 1975. Pp. x + 334. $21.00 cloth, $5.95 paper
Business History Review, 1975
and Charles Kindleberger, make it clear that the approaches that Barzun rather vaguely calls quan... more and Charles Kindleberger, make it clear that the approaches that Barzun rather vaguely calls quantitative can indeed provide suggestive evidence, help scrutinize theses, inform judgment. Though not all work in psychohistory or quanto-history is terribly impressive, one might observe that the guild should be large enough these days to abide a few dissidents and sophisticated enough to profit from the wrangling over method that does follow the appearance of flawed works. Clio, the virgin muse whom Barzun so vigilantly protects from the clutches of broad-shouldered disciplines, may not be as much in danger of rape as of frigidity. Still, another look is in order here. No one standard of historical literature is necessary or desirable, it may be true; perhaps no one can really act as arbiter in any case. All the same, we should pay serious heed to Barzun's definition of history if only because it does allow plenty of room for innovative work and may very well encourage the interdisciplinary writing that will prove of widest lasting importance. Rather than abandon a view of history demanding logical soundness and literary grace, historians interested in new problems and approaches might reconsider their own self-view and scholarly canons. What Barzun is saying is that, if we see ourselves as historians first and accept the premise that history is meant to be eclectic, we can have valuable history and be imaginative in our searching for evidence, posing of questions, and structuring of answers as well. As we mull over the implications of Barzun's ideas, certain fundamental questions seem to become less troublesome: is the proper business of history the study of persons, groups, systems, or forces; should history aim at explanation or understanding? What in theoiy are the obligations of the historian who borrows from other modes of inquiry? No doubt we will continue to disagree fruitfully on these matters. Nonetheless, we ought to agree that any history we write can tell a story, deal with it in time, talk about large intellectual problems in terms of a particular subject, and do it with vividness and discrimination. Though Barzun is a bit stuffy in places, he asks us to be conservative in the best sense. He is at war with "history" that is ahistorical, with scientific pretension, arcane theorizing, sloppy thinking, bad grammar, and clumsy style. We all should roll bandages for him.
Uploads
Papers by Daniel Resnick