My primary aim in this investigation is to trace the history of the invention of the Marxist historian’s persona in the Communist Party Historians’ Group, and thereby reveal its specific...Show moreMy primary aim in this investigation is to trace the history of the invention of the Marxist historian’s persona in the Communist Party Historians’ Group, and thereby reveal its specific configuration. This is to be an exercise in the recently emerging research program of what I have termed the empirical philosophy of history, as developed by Herman Paul. I supplemented this framework with certain Bourdieusian insights, adopting analytic tools — concepts like forms of capital and fields — that were specifically constructed to reveal more clearly the social elements and forces at play in the development of the dispositions or embodied commitments to goods that constitute personae. After elaborating my methodological framework, I move to outlining the basic elements that went into the making of the Marxist historian’s persona; the primary commitments to epistemic, moral and political goods that were embodied by the Historians’ Group’s founders — Dona Torr, A. L. Morton, Maurice Dobb and Christopher Hill — who played a primary role in its making. These consisted of the epistemic commitments to obtaining a dialectical and historical view or understanding of history, the moral commitment to the emancipation of the proletariat and the political commitment to Communism of the Soviet variety as espoused by the Communist Party of Great Britain. The obtaining of these commitments required the exercising of the appropriate virtues like employing the dialectical and historical materialist methods, engaging in class analysis and maintaining loyalty to the Communist Party. These virtues in turn implied an opposition to vices that consisted of their lack in other historians’ scholarly personae, pejoratively referred to as ‘bourgeois’. However, there was also a struggle internally regarding the proper interpretation of these commitments and virtues, one that played out both within the Historians’ Group itself and the wider Party. The contours of this struggle and the practices of contestation it involved —abounding in virtue and vice language — is clarified through the prism of dispositional variations that existed among the Group’s members, which I distinguish as the academic and non-academic. However, these are not presented as discreetly definable entities, but rather as consisting of a common network of commonalities (as in a family resemblance concept), thereby allowing for consideration of the variations that existed among members of each, while also allowing for the role of contingency that had a major effect on the making of the Marxist historian’s persona.Show less
