“In our contemporary or postmodern world, history conceived of as an empirical research method based upon the belief in some reasonably accurate correspondence between the past, its interpretation and its narrative representation is no longer a tenable conception of the task of the historian.”
Wrong, Mr Munslow, although otherwise you are perfectly right! One need not go into detailed explanation of this somewhat opaque retort of mine to place a sceptical question mark after the above quote. The mere presence of contention inevitably clouds the clear, straightforward set of circumstances seemingly implied in Munslow’s statement. Even if there is only one oppositional voice to his view, how can there be a “contemporary or postmodern world” that literally takes all of us into account, making it a storehouse of generally accepted ideas, making it “our” property. Given that perspectives other than the “postmodern” do exist, could it not be that ‘facts’, including those of an “empirical research method” and its guiding beliefs, are moulded just as well by perspectival interpretation? Thus, is the “task of the historian” really conceptualised in the way Munslow describes it? If not – if it is itself a deliberately created spectre invoked only to be subsequently exorcised in the intellectual conflict about what constitutes history and what this discipline has to deal with – do we have to stroll from the beaten path at all? Are Clio’s followers so helplessly entangled in reveries that they need to be awakened from them?
These questions, and their echoing connotations, sketch out the frame within which my discussion of postmodernist ideas and their validity for the practice of history will take place. It is well-nigh self-evident: we are moving on highly theoretical ground. Although postmodernist critique is aimed at methodological problems of the historical discipline, it departs from the very battlefields of occidental philosophy. What is reality? Is there any ontological truthfulness ‘out there,’ beyond our representations of the world?
Postmodern answers to these questions do not only undermine the intellectual premises of a self-indulgent group of academics, burdened with theory [...]
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to the Postmodernist Challenge
2. The Pillars of Historical Methodology
3. Language and the Problem of Representation
4. Interpretation and the Narrative Mode
5. Social Purpose and the Future of History
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Themes
The primary objective of this essay is to critically examine the "postmodernist challenge" to the traditional methodology of historical research, focusing on the purported tension between empirical truth and narrative representation. It investigates whether historical knowledge can maintain its claim to objectivity in the face of poststructuralist critiques regarding the influence of language and subjectivity.
- The epistemological validity of the correspondence theory in historical work.
- The impact of language and linguistic turn theories on historical objectivity.
- The role of the historian in constructing meaning through narrative emplotment.
- The social and pedagogical consequences of adopting a postmodern approach to history.
Excerpt from the Book
The Pillars of Historical Methodology
Postmodernism’s most uncomfortable cannonades aim at the very pillars of historical work – “the belief in some reasonably accurate correspondence between the past, its interpretation and its narrative representation,” as Munslow puts it. What does that mean? To understand the full significance of the ‘correspondence theory,’ often referred to in the pamphlets of postmodern theorists, it is worthwhile scrutinising each of its explanatory terms in its own right.
What exactly is the ‘past’ historians are confronted with? Suffice to say, it is not an entity one suddenly stumbles over while doing historical research. The ‘past’ is the designation for an open-ended temporal space, extending from the present up to infinity. It can include a sole season in a rural village on the upper Nile or the whole evolution of mankind – the historian decides what part of it he analyses. However, as said before, the past is not just there, it has to be reconstructed. Means to this end are historical sources. Any remnant of bygone days, be it left behind deliberately or by accident, may serve as a tool to get to grips with past ‘reality,’ i.e. to show “how things actually were.” The Rankean motto already includes a second aspect of the correspondence theory; reconstructing the past presupposes that contexts are being established, lines are being drawn from one piece of evidence to another; in short, that the historian traces back the furrows of causality.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction to the Postmodernist Challenge: This chapter outlines the tension between traditional empirical history and the postmodernist critique, questioning the tenability of the historian's task.
2. The Pillars of Historical Methodology: This section examines the "correspondence theory" and the fundamental concepts of the past, historical sources, and the search for causality.
3. Language and the Problem of Representation: This chapter explores how linguistic structuralism, particularly the work of Saussure and Foucault, challenges the objectivity of historical language and textual representation.
4. Interpretation and the Narrative Mode: This analysis focuses on how historians construct meaning through narrative "emplotment" and the influence of the historian's own perspective on the final account.
5. Social Purpose and the Future of History: This chapter considers the social utility of history and the consequences of adopting postmodernist views on the educational and public role of the discipline.
6. Conclusion: The concluding section synthesizes the debate, suggesting that while postmodern critique is valuable, traditional history remains a resilient and adaptable discipline.
Keywords
Postmodernism, Historical Method, Correspondence Theory, Narrative Representation, Historiography, Linguistic Turn, Leopold von Ranke, Hayden White, Epistemology, Social Constructionism, Empirical Research.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
The essay explores the impact of postmodernist theory on traditional historical methodology and whether the traditional claim of representing "how things actually were" remains valid.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
Key themes include the nature of historical evidence, the role of language in constructing historical truth, the influence of the historian's subjectivity, and the future of history as an academic discipline.
What is the author's primary research question?
The author questions whether history can still be conceptualized as an empirical research method or if postmodern critiques have irrevocably undermined its claim to objective truth.
Which scientific methodology does the author utilize?
The author employs a comparative and critical historiographical analysis, contrasting traditional Rankean methodologies with poststructuralist and postmodernist theories.
What is examined in the main body of the text?
The main body examines the "correspondence theory" of history, the challenge posed by the "linguistic turn," and the debate surrounding the narrative nature of historical writing.
How would you characterize this work based on its keywords?
The work is characterized by its engagement with epistemology, the critical evaluation of historical narrative, and its focus on the intersection of philosophy and historical practice.
Does the author agree with the postmodernist view of history?
While the author acknowledges the validity of some postmodernist criticisms regarding language and perspectivity, they argue that history remains a functional and adaptable discipline that can retain its goals.
What is the significance of the "Rankean motto" in this context?
The Rankean motto serves as the quintessential example of the traditional historical approach, which the author uses as a baseline to demonstrate the points of contention raised by postmodern critics.
- Quote paper
- Geoffrey Schöning (Author), 2002, Postmodernism - gravedigger of traditional history?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/11033
