Abstract
Martin Murray provides an excellent synoptic survey of recent trends in South African historiography in which he claims that the twin perspective Marxist approach has replaced the liberal orthodoxy as the dominant paradigm. It is argued that Murray’s survey is deficient in at least three ways. Firstly, the implicatiom; of the divisions between “social historians” and “structuralists” are not sufficiently explored. Secondly, the contentious periodisation issue is ignored. And thirdly, the impact of Merle Lipton's monumental study and the consequent possibility of a synthesis emerging are neglected.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
