Pseudo-history, and related issues

[Sean Manning]

Of course, study of the wrong kind of theory isn't any garantee that people can think logically. And there is a lot of nonsense passing for theory in the humanities and social sciences. But of course “every source provides a particular perspective and must be understood in context” is a theory too, and we all know amateur historians who get into trouble because they haven't absorbed that.

This does seem to be a cultural thing: I don't think any 1st year History or Greek and Roman Studies course at my university would include a handbook on theory, although the practical type of theory I mentioned would be discussed at some point. Or an issue like whether the term "feudalism" is useful for medieval history might be discussed. More advanced courses tend to have a higher proportion of theory and are more likely to use jargon; for example, the professor of a military history seminar I took recently kept hammering home at what technological determinism is and why its a bad explanation for most events in military history. And both departments have a special seminar for undergraduate who plan to continue to graduate school which emphasizes theory and historiography among other things. My only detailed knowledge of Max Webber is your posts here. Again, I can't say whether this is good or bad, just different from what you seem to be used to. When I've gone through grad school, and studied theory and historiography there, I'm sure I'll have an opinion on how useful formal study of theory has been.