I have no reason to doubt that the indicated book used these terms in a
specialized way. (The book appears to be anti-Marxist, and a
pro-Marxist book would likely use it in a different way.) Neither way
advances anybody's cause in these debates. It's the "specialized way"
that gives the problem, and turns the term into jargon. If there is no
definition of a term which the participants in a debate can hold in
common, then perhaps it would be better to find a more appropriate term.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Marxist studies uses the terms "revisionist"
and "traditionalist" in a
specialized way. See page 2 of In Denial, ISBN 1893554724.
Fred
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:10:35 -0700
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172
>
>Stan Shebs wrote:
>
>
>
>>daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is very unfortunate when a talented contributor leaves the project
>>>in disgust, and other people consider doing the same. In this case,
>>>172 was bullied off by people who have yet to respond to the content
>>>of his arguments beyond some rhetorical ranting about things which
>>>are barely relevant to the content at hand. It was done with personal
>>>attacks, using terms such as Stalinist, revisionist, totalitarian, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>Just for the record, the sense in which Fred used "revisionist" is a
>>well-understood technical term (it's the first of the definitions in
>>[[revisionism]]), along with "traditionalist" and
"post-revisionist".
>>Cold War specialists describe their own positions relative to these
>>groupings for instance. It can hardly be construed as a personal
>>attack by anybody who understands the meaning of the term.
>>
>>
>The fact remains that the term "revisionist" is nothing more than
>jargon. It is far less clear than the other two terms on the above
>list, "Stalinist" and "totalitarian", and they're debatable
enough.
>"Traditionalist" and "post-revisionist" may be defined in terms
of
>"revisionist" and are thus also jargon. The current Wikipedia article
>has no less than eight definitions of "revisionism" several of which
>could be applicable. Since we are criticizing several articles the
>assortment of possible definitions could follow from one to the other.
>Indeed the indicated "first of the definitions" states
>
>
>
>>Among historians, revisionism has traditionally been used in a
>>completely neutral sense to describe the work or ideas of a historian
>>who has revised a previously accepted view of a particular topic. This
>>usage has declined among historians because in recent years the word
>>has come to be used in the following sense:
>>
>>
>In other words we have an unsubstantiated "traditional" usage which has
>declined in favour of one or the other of the remaining seven other
>definitions, but we can never be sure which. The term "well-understood"
>is pure sophistry.
>
>Then you would have us believe that the position of "Cold War
>specialists" would somehow be relevant. Most of us have not been
>indoctrinated into the brotherhood of "Cold War specialists"; we're not
>specialists of any kind. Why should we be presumed to have accepted the
>definition used by a specialist group
>
>The commentary ends with a rhetorical flourish that diminishes the
>validity of any understanding that is not based on the understanding
>asserted by the commentator.
>
>I looked in the "New Oxford Dictionary of English" for what it had to
>say about "revisionism". It begins by saying that it is "often
>derogatory" and adds the meaning "a policy of revision or modification,
>especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist (rather than
>revolutionary) or pluralist principles." It adds as a secondary
>meaning: "the theory or practice of revising one's attitude to a
>previously accepted situation or point of view."
>
>Not all Wikipedians are members of an ivory tower cabal of historians.
>We have not, as it were, paid our dues to historical orthdoxy. Perhaps
>we are their worst nightmare when we ask them to substantiate their
>positions without descending into jargon.
>
>Ec
>
>