“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 [...]
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Wrong, Mr Munslow, although otherwise you are perfectly right!
- Postmodernism's most uncomfortable cannonades aim at the very pillars of historical work
- Heretofore, the historical discipline has managed to place itself independently somewhere between social science and literature
- Ferdinand de Saussure, the figurehead of structuralism, was the first to cast a light on language's problematic nature, albeit not in the context of history
- What are the consequences for historical method then?
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This essay critically examines the validity of postmodernist ideas for the practice of history. It explores the challenge posed by postmodernist critique to the traditional "correspondence theory" of historical research, which assumes a direct link between the past, its interpretation, and its narrative representation. The essay investigates the implications of postmodernist thought for the nature of historical sources, interpretation, and narrative.
- Postmodernism's critique of historical method
- The "correspondence theory" of historical research
- The role of language in historical interpretation
- The relationship between history and literature
- The implications of postmodernist thought for the practice of history
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
- The author begins by challenging a statement by Alun Munslow, who argues that the traditional conception of history as an empirical research method is no longer tenable in a postmodern world. The author contends that the mere existence of contention inevitably complicates the seemingly straightforward circumstances implied by Munslow's statement. This leads to the introduction of the main topic of the essay: the validity of postmodernist ideas for the practice of history.
- The essay then delves into the "correspondence theory," a key concept in the traditional approach to historical research. This theory posits a direct link between the past, its interpretation, and its narrative representation. The author examines each of these elements in detail, highlighting the challenges posed by postmodernist critics.
- The essay examines the traditional view of history as a discipline situated between social science and literature. It discusses the epistemological basis of historical research and the claim of having its own form of knowledge. The author then introduces the postmodernist critique of this view, arguing that history belongs to the realm of literature.
- The essay explores the postmodernist perspective on language as a flawed medium for representation. It draws on the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida to demonstrate how language can obscure the relationship between reality and its representation. The author argues that language's arbitrary nature and its ideological contamination make it an unreliable tool for historical interpretation.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
This essay focuses on postmodernism, historical method, correspondence theory, language, interpretation, narrative representation, historical sources, and the relationship between history and literature. It examines the impact of postmodernist thought on the traditional practice of history and explores the challenges posed to the discipline's epistemological foundations.
- Quote paper
- Geoffrey Schöning (Author), 2002, Postmodernism - gravedigger of traditional history?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/11033
