|
View the h-german Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-german's November 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-german's November 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-german home page.
Submitted by: Alan Buel Kennady
ehrlich606@aol.com
On the subject of this thread I would like to add two considerations
relevant first to the level of criticism that Goldhagen has received and
secondly on the matters raised by Mr. Riemer.
Reports in newspapers and magazines seem to indicate that Goldhagen may be
pursuing charges of defamation against Ruth Bettina Birn for her review
that appeared in _The Historical Journal_. Mr. Riemer has suggested,
quoting Goldhagen, that the charges merely involve the _Historical
Journal_ and not Ms. Birn, but more on that momentarily.
It appears that the majority of those who have contributed so far to this
debate are of the opinion that it is poor form (at least) to sue another
scholar for a negative appraisal of their work. Some (including Mr.
Wiggers) are of the opinion that there should nevertheless be some limits
to such criticism.
On this point I would simply say that it is my experience that generally
scholars will address each other in a civil tone, only deviating from that
tone when one side or the other indicates their unwillingness to abide by
such respectful civility. Whether we regard Goldhagen's style as "attack
dog" or something else, it is I think inarguable that his comments on
senior scholars in his book or in his review of Arno Mayer do not differ
substantially in tone from the comments that others -- including other
senior scholars -- have made about him.
Then the question becomes one of where such a free-for-all descends into
the region of defamation. Mr. Riemer seems to feel that such a matter
cannot be separated from an analysis of Ms. Birn's and Mr. Goldhagen's
respective arguments, and ultimately from the argument proposed in Mr.
Goldhagen's book. But I must demur. No secondary text can be "The Truth"
and neither can any "interpretation." Whether we feel that Mr.
Goldhagen's thesis is "simplistic," or merely involving a "different
appreciation of complexity," is not something that can be factually
ascertained.
Mr. Riemer seems to feel that in 50 pages of argumentation Goldhagen has
satisfactorily shown that Birn's representations of his book are "false,"
therefore they are "untrue" and therefore she may be legitimately sued for
defamation. It appears then that what is happening here is that Birn
interpreted Goldhagen's book one way, Goldhagen interprets it another way,
and now the courts are being asked to referee. I submit that historians
do not need the courts to establish the "truth" of interpretations.
I have read Ms. Birn's review, but I have not read Goldhagen's reply. I
have seen no evidence of "defamation" as we would normally use that term,
as, for example, in the well known suits involving Leon Uris, Tolstoy, or
others in Britain. Her review is harsh, but I repeat that it is no more
harsh than reviews that I have read by American academicians in American
venues. Therefore we must ask why a suit is being pursued in this
instance, but not in the others. The publication venue therefore appears
to be a relevant detail.
Some contributors so far have perhaps overstated the case when they have
suggested that Goldhagen's effort is part of a larger scale effort to
suppress dissent of any kind over the most currently popular (read:
Goldhagenian) interpretations of German history. But that there has been
added in here the element of intimidation is I think perfectly obvious,
and this element is present even if -- as Mr. Riemer suggests -- the
people being asked to apologize are the publishers of _Historical Journal_
and not Ms. Birn _per se_.
To be sure the community of historians will be able to relax once they
know that they need not fear defamation suits as the result of criticizing
interpretations they do not like, if only because reviews will, citing
this instance, refuse to carry them! Therefore we will all be able to
save $125, and save ourselves the effort of analyses which, in some future
court of law, will be shown to be empirically false. _Gaudeamus igitur!_
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|