Historiography PPT

History and Historiography 

Historiography  1) a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods; b : the principles, theory, and history of historical writing
 A Few Wide Strokes  The

goal of this lecture is to explain approaches to historiography and historical nowledge

 !e

will see to understand how different approaches "represent# and discuss the past

The past vs. history   Though

not all historians would agree with this distinction, it is useful for our sae to acnowledge the difference between the past and history

The past  $verything

that happened in the past %% the events, the people who lived, the thoughts they had  &eoffrey $lton: the past#s 'ob(ective reality is guaranteed; it is beyond being altered for any purpose whatsoever*

History   !hat

is 'left* of the past and its interpretations

 +t

exists in:

rtifacts !ritten

accounts -history boos.articles)

/emory The

"left%overs# of the past

Why is this difference significant?   This

difference is central to much debate about history and what comprises historical nowledge

 There

is a past, but how do we now about it0 ow accurate can our interpretations of it be0 o our interpretations change the past0

Three epistemological  perspectives  !hat

follows is the 'nuts and bolts* of three different perspectives of history and historiography

 This

description will hide much of the nuance of the three approaches, but will hopefully still offer some insight into how historians thin about writing history

Empiricism  istory

as an area of nowledge is as an endeavor to now the ob(ective past  The past is nowable and it is unalterable  There are remnants of the past left over -primary sources) and the careful historian can fully understand what actually happened 

 Again Elton!  3ecause

the past#s 'ob(ective reality is guaranteed; it is beyond being altered for any purpose whatsoever,* all we must do is find evidence left over and synthesi4e it into historical truth

 !ith

enough time and patience, we can now what happened in the past

"anke es eigentlich gewesen$: we should write history as it actually was  istorians should refrain from interpretation and (ust write down how things happened  5or example, 6eopold 7an 8ane wrote long histories of many, many volumes  9ne history was 1 volumes: this is what it taes to write history wie es eigentlich  gewesen  #wie

Empiricists on %ias and  perception  oesn#t

the historian#s own experience shape his interpretation of primary historical sources0

 9f

course histories have bias, but the empiricist would argue that with een insight and self%criticism, the historian can overcome bias

 The

empiricist acnowledges the limits of historical nowledge and the problems of bias, but ultimately believes that the past can be ob(ectively nown

Skeptical approaches  5urthest

from the empiricist approach is the "septical# approach

The gist of the skeptics  The

past does not exist now , there are only leftovers, and they can only be interpreted  !e cannot access the past

What is historiography then?   !hatever

we write down about the

past  ltimately, a language game '6oo* says the poet hlebniov in his &ecrees To The 'lanets, 'the sun obeys my syntax* '6oo*, says the historian, 'the past obeys my interpretation* -=enins, "e(thinking history )

)nowing the past  >eptics

argue that we cannot now all the past !e in our being are removed; we are ontologically cut off from the past

 +f

we could be there, the past is too vast, too large, for us to now

)nowledge and 'ower   That

which gets written down and remembered is usually the stories of the elite, the rich, the powerful

 nowing

that, the historian can try to write oppressed groups bac into history

*ias  3ecause

historians have culture, they are going to be biased no matter what

 The

times we live in 'write* history: our experiences, media, values, norms, all shape and, to some extent, determine our interpretations

The +pragmatic, approach  /ost

historians fall in between the conservative, empiricist approach of $lton and away from the sub(ectivist, "there%is%no% such%thing%as%ob(ective%truth# view of the septics

-n truth  Truth

can be nown, the past is real

 Though

we cannot access the past, we can now real things about it

 9f

course these things we now are limited by bias, language, culture, our past

 3ut

these obstacles can be in large part overcome

-n su%ectivity   9ur

interpretations are sub(ective because they come from sub(ects -people)

 3ut

that sub(ectivity is not wholly limiting: we can be aware of it and compensate for it by being critical, aware, and thorough

-n %ias  +t

exists, and the competent historian engages it, and tries to neutrali4e it

 +t

is not a wholly limiting factor to accurately describing the past, but an obstacle

&oes all this matter?   /ost

historians spend very little time agoni4ing over "what ind of historian# they are

 +nstead,

they (ust do history, using all of the sources they can and their best historical (udgment

Still/  !e

should now that historians disagree over the nature of historical nowledge and that these debates do have a real effect on the historical nowledge we have

-ther kinds of history   istorians

write history through different lenses $xamples:

 Annales: istory

relying on insights from all areas of nowledge

?opular

century

in 5rance in the mid twentieth

The 0fragmentation0 of history   5eminist%!riting

women bac into history after centuries of their absences

 +ntellectual%  >ocial%The

The history of ideas

history of society

 /ilitary%istory  6egal%istory

of wars, more or less

of the law

 And so forth/  8acial  ?olitical  @uantiative  nd

the list goes onA

Schools of American Historiography  Puritan (1600s) Patrician (1700-1850) Professional (Mid 1800s-) Progressive Historiography (100-1!0"s) #onsensus ($raditional) Historiography (1!0"s-160"s) %e& 'eft Historiography (160"s-180"s) %eo-#onservative Historiography (180"s-Present)

Schools of American Historiography  Puritan (1600s)

Patrician (1700-1850)

Professional (Mid 1800s->)

Progressive Historiograph (1!00-1!"0#s)

$onsensus (%raditional & 'eo $onservative) Historiograph (1!"0#s-1!60#s)

'e eft Historiograph (1!60#s-1!80#s)

'eo-$onservative Historiograph (1!80#s-Present)

*illia+ ,radford

%ho+as efferson .eorge ,ancroft /rancis Par+an

Henr da+s /rederic acson %urner 

$harles 2 ,eard 3ernon 2 Parrington  rthur 4chlesinger 4r 

ouis Hart aniel 2 ,oorstin ichard Hofstadter 

Michael Harrington Hoard 9inn

:ric /oner  Patricia i+eric

What are the maor differences in perspective? 

Three Schools of Historical Thought( Foreign Affairs 'ationalist Histor

ealist Histor

adical Histor

4a+uel /lagg ,e+is %ho+as ,aile ,radford Perins arr 4cheiart and Michael Patric llen

.eorge ;ennan Hans Morganthau

*illia+ pple+an *illia+s .a
What are the maor differences in perspective? 

 Application !here istorians isagree: 'The merican 8evolution*  Barl 3ecer, = 5ranlin =ameson, 8obert $ 3rown, $dmund > /organ, 3ernard 3ailyn, &ary Cash, &ordon !ood 1)ow do these individuals line up with the school they are associated with0 2)!hat could factors could have influenced shifting scholarship associated with the revolution . the interests of these historians0