Read more
This book examines the legacy of philosophical idealism in twentieth century British historical and political thought. It demonstrates that the absolute idealism of the nineteenth century was radically transformed by R.G. Collingwood, Michael Oakeshott, and Benedetto Croce. These new idealists developed a new philosophy of history with an emphasis on the study of human agency, and historicist humanism. This study unearths the impact of the new idealism on the thought of a group of prominent revisionist historians in the welfare state period, focusing on E.H. Carr, Isaiah Berlin, G.R. Elton, Peter Laslett, and George Kitson Clark. It shows that these historians used the new idealism to restate the nature of history and to revise modern English history against the backdrop of the intellectual, social and political problems of the welfare state period, thus making new idealist revisionism a key tradition in early postwar historiography.
List of contents
Introduction.-Chapter 1. Revisionist Potential: Historical Thought from Absolute to New Idealism.- .Chapter 2. The Philosophical Moment in Postwar Historiography.-Chapter 3. Revisionist Whiggism: Revisions of the English Past from the Tudors to the Victorians.-Chapter 4.The Political Thought of Revisionism.-Conclusion.-Appendix: Short Biographies of Key New Idealists and Early Postwar British Historians.
About the author
Admir Skodo is a researcher at Lund University, Sweden.
Summary
This book examines the legacy of philosophical idealism in twentieth century British historical and political thought. It demonstrates that the absolute idealism of the nineteenth century was radically transformed by R.G. Collingwood, Michael Oakeshott, and Benedetto Croce. These new idealists developed a new philosophy of history with an emphasis on the study of human agency, and historicist humanism. This study unearths the impact of the new idealism on the thought of a group of prominent revisionist historians in the welfare state period, focusing on E.H. Carr, Isaiah Berlin, G.R. Elton, Peter Laslett, and George Kitson Clark. It shows that these historians used the new idealism to restate the nature of history and to revise modern English history against the backdrop of the intellectual, social and political problems of the welfare state period, thus making new idealist revisionism a key tradition in early postwar historiography.
Additional text
“The Afterlife of Idealism is a rich history that covers a complex landscape of political theory, historical writing, and social criticism from early post-war Britain. … the book is for a wide range of readers, from intellectual historians to those interested in the history of philosophy and historiography.” (Julia Moses, European Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 26, 2018)
“The Afterlife of Idealism offers another perspective on British historiography in one of its most fecund phases. In Skodo’s book Carr’s What is History? is not the starting point of post-war historical reflection; post-war historians were already caught up in historical philosophising and philosophical history. After The Afterlife of Idealism, Elton, Clark, Laslett, et al. are far harder to pigeon hole, far more plural in their predilections than may be popularly imagined.” (Jamie Melrose, Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice, October, 2017)
Report
"The Afterlife of Idealism is a rich history that covers a complex landscape of political theory, historical writing, and social criticism from early post-war Britain. ... the book is for a wide range of readers, from intellectual historians to those interested in the history of philosophy and historiography." (Julia Moses, European Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 26, 2018)
"The Afterlife of Idealism offers another perspective on British historiography in one of its most fecund phases. In Skodo's book Carr's What is History? is not the starting point of post-war historical reflection; post-war historians were already caught up in historical philosophising and philosophical history. After The Afterlife of Idealism, Elton, Clark, Laslett, et al. are far harder to pigeon hole, far more plural in their predilections than may be popularly imagined." (Jamie Melrose, Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice, October, 2017)
