Revisionism in the twentieth century: a bankrupt concept or permanent practice?

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGKOTZARIDIS, Evi
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-23T13:39:48Z
dc.date.available2011-05-23T13:39:48Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description.abstractWritten in the wake of a critical incident which the author considers worrying and yet characteristic of the times we live in, this article contends that the conflation heretofore evident between critical historical thinking (revisionism) and negationism is ultimately harmful to the historical discipline since it can serve the interests of the deniers and indirectly grant an argument to radical postmodernists who demote history to a loosely constructed form of personal fiction. On the other hand, it also eschews the belief in historical scholarship as an immiscible category demarcated by impenetrable boundaries, which is habitually associated with empirical positivism. Furthermore, it argues strongly for the introduction of a diachronic perspective in the study of revisionism not only to show the steady process of professionalization of the discipline but to disclose an often neglected or denied aspect: its contribution to the evolution of philosophical thought.
dc.identifier.citationEuropean legacy, 2008, 13, 6, 725-741
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/10848770802358112
dc.identifier.endpage741
dc.identifier.issn1084-8770
dc.identifier.issue6
dc.identifier.startpage725
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/17364
dc.identifier.volume13
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectRevisionism
dc.subject20th century
dc.subjectHistory of ideas
dc.subjectProfessionalization
dc.subjectDiscourse analysis
dc.subjectHistorical analysis
dc.subjectSocial history
dc.subjectHistorical analysis
dc.titleRevisionism in the twentieth century: a bankrupt concept or permanent practice?
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
Files
Collections
HEC Articles