Rewriting the Past

Abstract

This article seeks to answer the following questions: is Quentin Skinner right to claim that actions in the past should not be described by means of concepts not available at the time those actions occurred? And is Ian Hacking right to claim that such descriptions do not merely describe but actually change the past? The author begins by arguing that it is not clear precisely what Skinner is claiming and shows how, under the pressure of criticism, his methodological strictures collapse into trivialities. The author then argues that, although Hacking has given us no reason to accept his claim, we can make sense of it by appealing to the idea of a “Cambridge change.” The author concludes by suggesting that as long as we are exercising the right kind of concepts, a suitably modified version of Hacking’s conclusion can be retained.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anscombe, G.E.M. [1956] 1986. The reality of the past. In The collected papers of G.E.M. Anscombe: Volume two—Metaphysics and philosophy of mind. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Anscombe, G.E.M. [1979] 1986. Under a description. In The collected papers of G.E.M. Anscombe: Volume one—From Parmenides to Wittgenstein. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Anscombe, G.E.M. 1999. Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Beard, Mary . 2000. Was I raped? London Review of Books 22 (16): 34-35.

Danto, Arthur C. 1986. Narration and knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.

Geach, Peter . 1959. Mental acts: Their content and their objects. London: Routledge.

Graham, Keith . 1988. In Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics, edited by J. Tully , chap. 8. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Hacking, Ian . 1995. Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the sciences of memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Hacking, Ian . 1999. The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Hampshire, Stuart . 1970. A critical review of “The concept of mind.” In Ryle: A collection of critical essays, edited by Oscar P. Wood and George Pitcher . London: Macmillan.

12.

Hill, Christopher . 1972. The world turned upside down: Radical ideas during the English Revolution. London: Temple Smith.

13.

Hursthouse, Rosalind . 1999. Intention. In Logic, cause and action: Essays for G.E.M. Anscombe, edited by Roger Teichmann . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Jardine, Nicholas . 2000. The scenes of inquiry: On the reality of questions in the sciences. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15.

Mellor, D. H. 1981. Real time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Novick, Peter . 1988. That noble dream: “Objectivity” and the American historical profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Rorty, Richard . 1984. The historiography of philosophy: Four genres. In Philosophy in history, edited by Richard Rorty , J. B. Schneewind , and Quentin Skinner . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Ryle, Gilbert . 1963. The concept of mind. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

19.

Searle, John R. 1995. The construction of social reality. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

20.

Skinner, Quentin . 1969. Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. History and Theory 8 (1): 3-53.

21.

Skinner, Quentin . 1988. A reply to my critics. In Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics, edited by James Tully . Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

22.

Urmsom, J. O. 1970. Polymorphous concepts. In Ryle: A collection of critical essays, edited by Oscar P. Wood and George Pitcher . London: Macmillan.