This author would say that she is not creating a new methodology, however, but rather applying the forgotten tools of psychoanalysis. Hollander argues that neoliberal power structures are plundering the planet, eviscerating democracy, sanctioning torture, violating human rights, eradicating the social contract, starving the poor, and impoverishing the middle class. To hollander, these practices have been ascendant since the 1970s. They are consolidated, and re-enforced, by the fusion of government and corporations. And collective resistance has been immobilized: as citizens, we live as isolates, paralyzed bystanders to our own predicament. This paralysis, too, is the brainchild of neoliberalism. Throughout the Americas, concern for the other is effectively upstaged by national security, by the arousal strange of hate and terror, by the invisible erosion of democratic/ economic protections, and through the mysterious agencies that operate surveillance, torture, and detention. To make her argument, hollander marshals her considerable knowledge as a psychologist/activist working with Latin American activists during and after the dirty wars.
In this, and in her prior work (. Love in a time of Hatred she unpacks the inner workings of these authoritarian regimes. She asks hard questions. How do torture regimes gain force and power? How do they terrorize, bewilder, starve, and immobilize an entire populace? In studying these questions, hollander applies an interdisciplinary lens. Freudian and Kleinian theory is used to illuminate the structure, and functioning, of these governments. But this author also has a very thorough grasp of economic, social, and political history; for Hollander, this history is inseparable from her psychoanalytic investigation. Indeed, this book makes a formidable, if secondary argument: hippie that psychoanalysis had its origins in social consciousness, and cultural critique.
Uprooted Minds: Surviving the politics of Terror in the Americas, this question comes to mind. In this formidable work, hollander peels away our remaining illusions about a just world. Interweaving history, politics, political/economic/cultural critique, and psychoanalysis, she exposes the covert power structures operative for decades in the Americas. These are ruthless forms of capitalism that deprive their citizens while immobilizing them with hatred and terror. To hollander, these forms of government have dominated both North and south America. She makes this case persuasively. Hollander is both a psychoanalyst and a social activist. She has spent many years exposing, and examining, the authoritarian regimes of south America.
Distinguished & Award Winning Global
32, summer 1999,. Diane purkiss, 'response to Professor Richard evans', in this issue of In Focus. Keith Jenkins, essay Why history? Ethics and Postmodernity (London, 1999 Chapter 4, 'on Richard evans and elsewhere in the same book. Diane purkiss, 'richard evans, yet Once more', in this issue of In Focus. In addition, this reply also considers some of the points raised in letters published in The times Higher Educational Supplement on 19 and 26 September 1997 in reply to my article 'truth Lost in vain views published in the same periodical on 12 September 1997.
Evans, november 1999) Original review (by Prof. Antony easthope) A response. Diane purkiss A further response. Diane purkiss Back to reviews index Back to top. Author: Hollander, nancy caro, publisher: New York, ny: routledge (2010 reviewed By: sue grand, december 2012. Is it possible to maintain hope, when massive forces are arrayed against us?
Daniel Johnson, 'the history man Prospect, november 1997,. Matthew Trinca, 'history's Impossible Dream The australian, 3 December 1997. Chris Harman, 'subjects and Objects socialist review 215 (January, 1998. Rudrangshu mukherjee, 'clio versus pomo sapiens in The telegraph, calcutta, peter Schöttler, 'prologe im Himmel der Theorie in die zeit, 10 September 1998. Nils Minkmar, 'keine Plots zum Holocaust in Süddeutsche zeiting, rebekka habermas, 'wenn Klio (ein kleines bisschen) dichtet in Frankfurter Rundschau, peter Ghosh, 'laid Down by ranke in London review of books, (and subsequent correspondence in the lrb).
Bernd roeck, 'rächer der Verderbten in Frankfurter Allgemeine zeitung, 3 november 1998. Lynn Hunt, 'does History need Defending? in History workshop journal, Issue 46, december 1998. Anthony easthope, in Textual Practice, winter 1998,. Roy porter, 'the Untrustworthy in The new Republic, 14 December 1998. Ernst Nolte, 'auschwitz als Argument in der Geschichtstheorie in die welt, marie theres Fögen, 'geschichte vor dem Zusammenbruch: kann ein faktenkult sie retten? in neue zürcher zeitung, 16/Steve weinberg, 'not all ways of recalling the past are equal in Christian Science monitor, boston, david Gress, 'the "End" of History? in Orbis: a journal of World Affairs, Spring 1999,. Doug Munro, in journal of Social History, vol.
Global Capitalism, The history and Nature of Capitalism
The times Educational Supplement, 26 September 1997. Samuel Brittan, 'the many essay failings of post-modernism The Spectator, 27 September 1997. John Charmley, 'time to move past postmodernism? The daily telegraph, 27 September 1997,. Steven Kassem, 'in Defence of History epigram, keith Thomas, 'a good kicking new Statesman and Society,. Grayling, 'historical truth put on the line the financial Times, weekend Supplement,. Joyce Appleby, 'does it really need defending?' The times Literary supplement,. Steve smith, 'truth in an age of challenge the times Higher Educational Supplement, 28 november 1997,. Stefan Collini, 'the truth-vandals The guardian, 18 trunk December 1997,.
This reply does not deal with reviews which made no synthesis criticism of substance. It deals only with the following critical, though not necessarily always hostile, reviews and reviewers, which are listed here in order of appearance: Michael Burleigh, 'making history or making-up history? The sunday telegraph, 14 September 1997, review section,. Roy porter, 'defending History bbc radio 3 book of the week, 15 September 1997. 3) Bernard Crick, 'the truth, the whole truth - and nothing but The Independent Saturday magazine, 20 September 1997,. Niall Ferguson, 'history is dead. The sunday times, 21 September 1997. Ronald Hutton, 'what is history really about?
September 1998; the American edition. In January, 1999; and the german edition, fakten und fiktionen: Über die grundlagen historischer Erkenntnis, translated by Ulrich Speck and published by campus Verlag, Frankfurt am main, in October 1998. A korean edition has also been published, and Italian, japanese, portuguese, swedish and Turkish editions are in preparation; my linguistic limitations mean that I will regrettably be unable to reply to most reviews that might appear of them, as of the sole review that has. The text of the book was revised and updated for the us edition, partly to rectify mistakes, partly to deal with criticisms and clarify passages that had given rise to misunderstanding, and partly to take account of significant work in the field that had appeared. The book's central arguments, however, remain essentially the same. The us edition also contains some new examples drawn from American history. It serves as the basis for all translations. Contrary, perhaps, to the impression given in the present reply to critics, the book has met with a very positive response from reviewers and others. But inevitably it has also aroused a good deal of controversy.
The book defends a conservative approach to history. The book's concept of a fact is untenable. The book misunderstands key arguments of the postmodernists. The book is unfair to those postmodernists whom it help criticises. The book's arguments are contradictory. I will deal with each of these basic criticisms in turn, taking in subsidiary points made by various reviewers along the way. Some repetition is, unfortunately, inevitable, but I have tried to keep it to a minimum. This response was written in november 1999.
Books - nyu press nyu press
Author's response to his critics, book: In Defence of History, richard. Granta,.,.99 (hardback reviewer: Professor Antony easthope, manchester Metropolitan University. Evans's introduction to his response. This reply tries to deal with the various points made by critics under a number of headings. The criticisms that have been made both of the original hardback edition and of subsequent editions of the book can be summed up very roughly under the following propositions: The book is unnecessary because history doesn't need defending. The book is unfairly critical of conservative historians. The book fails to engage directly with the major postmodernist philosophers. The book defends an outmoded empiricist concept of objectivity.