History, Agendas, and Microhistory
One of the things that I found bothersome about the readings was the fact that some historians have interpreted history to serve a predefined purpose. This type of agenda driven history was, and still is in some cases, regular and some feel it serves a purpose. Whether it’s to galvanize a people behind a common goal or to back a specific group/program, creating an official version of history does not necessarily present the past in its truest sense. Historians should strive to present past events holistically and as accurate as possible through sound research methods. Corrections continue to take place as new scholars attempt to correct the fallacies of past research but I wonder if the new versions are free from the agendas of their creators. It is almost impossible to leave all one’s preconceptions and agendas out of the picture. Can these be left out of research and revisions? Is it possible to be completely neutral on an issue and present a truly unbiased narrative? This leads to another question of why all the revisions in the Ward reading took place. I’d like to think it was to correct past mistakes, but in each instance the new history has a purpose. This makes me wonder if, and when, the versions of history currently being presented will undergo revision.
The history of history was well represented in this week’s readings. The topic was at times fascinating and at other times dense and difficult for me to follow. John Tosh’s showed how time, place, theory, social perspective, and other facets determine how the past is understood, written, and presented by historians. One of the things I found most interesting was his discussion of microhistory. I am taking Oral History and this is one way the stories of individual, voiceless people fit into the grander scope of history. Oral history fills in the small details that are often lacking in the search for the past. These details help complete the story of a specific time and place, and it comes straight from the voices of people who lived through a particular event.
David,
I agree that it is bothersome that history is oftentimes taught to serve a specific purpose or for a means to an end instead of simply telling history as it stands, without over-interpretation. Certainly, some interpretation is required for all historical studies (unfortunately) for it is difficult for those of us removed from the past to know fully what happened when we ourselves were never there. It seems a shame that history seems unable to be the completely objective subject that so many historians of the past (and the present) wish it to be.
I also agree that oral history can serve as a means by which to acquire those stories and aspects of history that may otherwise be lost, microhistory, as you mentioned. Certainly, there are some issues with oral history (as we have already seen in just one week of class) but I do believe there is something to be said for the first-hand accounts of those individuals who lived during whatever time period being studied. I think it is far too easy to simply disregard the stories of the ordinary rather than the extraordinary. And yet, it is from ordinary individuals that we often times find the most illustrious and colorful stories about the past. And thus, the importance of oral history and what it can contribute to historical study, in general, can not be overlooked or understated.
David,
I agree that agenda is an important issue of historiography, and there is possibility that new versions also serve specific purposes. However, I think maybe they have some functions even they serve specific purposes. For example, we have a project named “the local history that the government never told you before.” This project is part of Transitional Justice to find people who were missing or illegally executed during Cold War. This project has its political purpose against the current ruling party, but it also corrects history and works as therapy, just like Tosh mentions. I do agree with you that even “new” version have their purposes, and I think it may be not bad to serve a purpose if it can lead more revisions, as I think more revisions may make us closer to facts.
Hi David,
On the subject of objectivity, I think that the best we can do as researchers is try to acknowledge our own biases and the biases of available information, striving to get as close to objectivity as we can. Though I am interested in the postmodern critique of objectivity as something unattainable and essentially non-existent, I think that approaching history with this mindset could lead to a sense of futility unless we find it acceptable to get as CLOSE as we can to what actually happened. Continuing new research will ideally correct fallacies in existing ideas, but we will never know all of the facts or be free from our own biases.
Claire
Claire makes an excellent and important point in reminding us that “objectivity” and “the truth” are illusory. We are all “truth seekers,” but must acknowledge the constraints of our own biases, the sources about the past that are available to us, and the biases of those sources. Turning these “limitations” into opportunities for insight is where the real work begins. Oral history and micro history are valid, important, and even essential, but are no more (or less) “truthful” or “accurate” than other histories we study and create.
“Historians should strive to present past events holistically and as accurate as possible through sound research methods.” Rolling with Claire and Dr. Nelson’s, I feel like “accurate” is an illusion, along with “sound research methods.” If part of what we are learning this week is that our field is evolving, then “sound methods” will change over time as well as the accuracy of our conclusions. For example, our generation is starting to drift toward non-traditional theses, such as digital projects. When we apply for PhD programs and perhaps research based careers, we are taking a chance that the new type of research and presentation will be accepted along side those who decided to go the “traditional” route. Thus, for the poor souls who are brave enough to break the traditions that historians hold high, old-school historians may not find their research and conclusions to be legitimate until the field accepts the new methods, which may take decades.
Not to change topics here, but I too find microhistory very interesting. While new history allows room for histories that, historically, had been marginalized, it’s in microhistory that we can truly begin to get our hands on the essence of history. Without the quotidian details so often revealed through microhistory, I think it would be difficult to address the larger themes that constitute mainstream history. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s “A Midwife’s Tale,” for example, allowed for an intriguing microhistory while also providing insights into the more broad field of women’s history.