Fundamental changes have occurred in the historical profession over the past thirty years. The central revolutionary change is that workers in the historical profession can no longer ignore theory and philosophy of history. A built-in resistance to theory causes historians to abjure philosophical analysis of their discipline at a time when such analysis is recognized to be indispensable. If one doesn�t have an explicit theory, one will appropriate one uncritically, without the felt need to articulate and defend the theory. The dominant theory in history over the past century has been positivism, a conception of disciplinary work that ruled history and the social sciences during the twentieth century but has been stripped of rhetorical and persuasive power over the past three decades. Although positivism has been overwhelmingly rejected by theoretically informed historians, it continues to dominate among the vast majority of historians, who fear adulterating history with philosophical examination. The most common version of positivism among historians is the assertion that the only evidence from the past that is valid is testimony based on empirical observation. This essay focuses on recent comments by Dan Vogel and Christopher Smith, who deny this dominance of positivism in the historical profession, and in Mormon history in particular, by misunderstanding positivism without even consulting the large scholarly literature on the topic that rebuts their assertions. They make no attempt to engage the sophisticated literature on the transformation in historiography and philosophy of history that has made most of history written to standards of the 1970s obsolete and revealed it as ideologically inspired; while at the same time these historical researchers assert their own objectivity by appealing to a conventional wisdom that is now antiquated. This version of positivism is especially hostile to religious belief in general, and in particular to that embodied in the LDS tradition.
About the Author
Alan Goff is a professor in the department of Liberal Arts and Sciences at DeVry University, Phoenix, where he has taught humanities and history classes for 20 years. He received his baccalaureate degree from BYU with a double major in political philosophy and English. He also received master�s degrees in those two fields from BYU. In 1993 he received a Doctor of Arts degree in Humanistic Studies from the University at Albany where he was able to combine the study of philosophy and literary theory in the interdisciplinary program. His main publishing focus since 1989 has been on Mormon scripture and history, staking out that overlapping territory between literary criticism and history called narrative theory. Part of the necessary preparation for publishing in this area is to study the scholarly literature from philosophy, historiography, philosophy of history, biblical criticism, and literary theory to apply approaches from these disciplines to the writing of Mormon history and the Book of Mormon. He is also currently the president of the learned society Mormon Scholars in the Humanities.