Article which earned me my first peer reviewed rejection, and which I'm now reconsidering for submission at some other journal. It found its way to some readers at least when I posted it on academia.edu and it got noticed on some site called Bookforum.
Was there ever a “scientific revolution” in the Humanities, and to what extent is that notion applicable to the Humanities at all? In this article, I formulate various ways in which to answer that question. These options emerge from a discussion of what I identify as the “Standard Account” of developments in the Humanities, the essentials of which are in the work of Foucault, Gadamer, and Berlin. Although the notion has rarely been applied to the Humanities, I argue that the Standard Account amounts to a description of a scientific revolution. I then proceed to analyze how this Account works as a model and a set of tacit assumptions rather than as an explicit article of faith, point out some of its shortcomings and list some of its critics. This leaves one with four alternatives: 1. in spite of all shortcomings and criticism, the Standard Account is largely correct in its description of a scientific revolution; 2. there was a revolution, but it was different; 3. there were various breakthroughs and more or less revolutionary events rather than one revolution; or 4. there was no revolution at all.
Full version >>