Response to Alun Munslow

Abstract

I have two contradictory responses to Alun Munslow's reply to Discipline of Fact/The Freedom of Fiction? The first is to wonder what all the fuss is about. Both of us think highly of Hay den White's work, feel that most historians are still woefully ignorant ofthat work, and agree that history is an essentially figurative discipline ? as is all written work. Indeed, Munslow agrees with my most basic point that the factual world, a world of experienced differences, there can be no meanings (p. 178). Or does he? Just before Munslow (the empiricist?) indicates impatient agreement with what he clearly considers a banality, he misreads my discussion of de Man to that de Man's relativism cloaks unpalatable ideas and intentions. I claim nothing of the sort. Relativism of whatever sort is not at issue here. Indeed, I am of the school that sees foundational claims to objectivity and the like as the source of historiographical and historical problems. More telling, Munslow ends his exposition of this line of thought with a paraphrase ofthat old aphorism (of disreputable origins) to the effect that when anyone insists on undeniable facts I look for my cultural context. But, again, this misses my main point that In order to establish the historical specificity of a convention..., one must assume that discoverable facts can confirm or disprove an assertion about these (p. 173). How can Munslow establish any context without dealing with historical evidence? Contexts and conventions do not just appear out of nowhere. If I were to claim that the proper context for understanding Munslow's position is his devotion to Freemasonry, the only way Munslow could counter my assertion is to marshal some facts, e.g. provide evidence that he has never been a Freemason and collect depositions from friends and colleagues testifying to his undying hostility to or woeful lack of knowledge about anything to do with Freemasonry. Empiricism is dirty work but somebody's got to do it. Generally, I do not think anything is gained by accusing me of empiricism nor do I think that we should remain content endlessly to praise Hayden White's work without recognizing that he has a problem of showing not only how