Different purposes as in religious (Bede), political (Marxism/public history), search for the rational causes of history/learn from the past (Carr), reach the general public (public history/Schama), and to recreate the past. I'm sure sure theres quite a few more as well. I don't think that it is always a conscious thing (maybe for some historians it may have been-Bede's sole purpose was to convert people to Christianity). I think that it could be more of an inherent thing as I don't think that a historian cannot write without a personal purpose no matter how hard they try.
Here are some other purposes that I can think of 
Social / revisionist history - written with the purpose of inserting diverse perspectives according to current agendas. I'm not sure if Bede's sole purpose was to convert - his audience was already largely religious (almost "preaching to the converted"). I think he had two purposes - to express HIS interpretation of the world and to promote the political agenda of the Northumbrian King (his sponsor). So I definitely agree with you that one's historiographical 'purpose' can be really inherent to the author! However, I do think one can be very forthright with their purpose - Simon Schama is a good example Despite his liberal background and beliefs, when he was hired by the Conservative British Government to start producing history for schools, he presented a very "apologetic" vie of the British Empire - suggesting that though the impacts where negative, it was an "Empire of Good Intentions", thus in many ways acting as if the British were this benevolent force, improving their imperialist image.
But yeah, that is my perspective on the issue
Sarah
I think I agree with you Katie, that most purposes are inherent, rather than actively pursued. Like I don't think that many (not all, but many) historians, when they sit down to write their works think "I'm going to write this history in order to justify US imperial expansion". However, it is just by nature their perspective, as perspective is subjective! I love your insight through Sarah - because you're right, though I'd say most of the time it is unconscious, there are definitely many historians, particularly those that are commissioned such as Schama, that will have ulterior purposes readily set out before they begin to construct their works, which ultimately will distort their search and perception of evidence. Another example of this would be the works of Tacitus, who aimed to criticise the Principate under which he lived, however could not do so, so instead, he wrote about the dynasty before (the Julio-Claudians), presenting them in a very negative light so as to just put the whole idea of a Principate under a negative light, and encourage individuals to strive for a Republic. Definitely that would have played a major, conscious role, when writing his works - at least in my opinion. I also very much agree with your assessment of Bede Sarah! He was definitely essentially preaching to the choir, and I do think that it is important to remember that religion functions in a similar way to ideology, in the sense that it is for many all-consuming, and informs an individuals identity, their perception of their past, their experience of the present, and their anticipation for the future. Many (though again, not all) religious historians will find it extremely difficult to divorce themselves from these beliefs, because it literally informs their perception of reality - and that is all they can write about - their perception of a past reality. This is the same for ideologues, eg. communist historians will always view society through the Marxist conception of history, and thus may interpret events much more differently than a capitalist historian, as they have such radically different world views.
Not really. I think that we would still study and try to understand things even if it really doesn't provide any relevance to the present/future.
Why though? Why do you think that we should still study history if it doesn't provide any relevance? What are your other reasons for studying history?
Yeah, I think that we still want our history to be relatable to us and I believe that it is really nationalistic. I had to look up the word Eurocentrism-and I don't know if i've got it completely right. I do believe that we tend to interpret the world as European-we focus a lot on European history. I don't really know why? Africa's population today is 1.2 billion people while Europe is 740 million. I would not be able to tell you anything about African or Latinx history-I have not learnt anything about it at all. In the last two years i've only spent one term in Ancient on a civilisation other then Europe (Year 11-Qin Shi Huangdi and the terracotta warriors). I think that the fascination with 'national history' is wanting to feel more connected to our country and our traditions/history. Yeah, I think that it is definitely flawed, except I don't really know how it could be changed.
In what way do you think that national history is flawed? In my opinion, the whole concept of "nations" is a flawed one. Last year I was originally going to do my major work on Scottish nationalism and the highland myth, and in the process read the entirety (found out later I didn't need to do this...) of Eric Hobsbawm's 'Nations and Nationalism since 1780', and it was very very interesting. Because really - what, at our core, ignoring the constructs of culture, makes us different from another individual from another country? Literally the only difference is geographical. Culture has overtime developed, however, if you had an individual that was born in one country, but raised in another, that culture would also be their culture, no matter their previous heritage, ie. you're not born with culture, it is nurtured. Thus, I think national history is flawed, because it inherently validates this idea of "the nation", which I personally believe is outdated - particularly in our ever more globalised society.
Why do you think that for the most part, we only focus on Eurocentric history? Do you think it is an implicit bias of the West (and a bias that the west, through imperialism, has enforced on members from other groups such as the East), in that they perceive the West/Europe to be culturally superior? Do you think that is inherently, a) racist/xenophobic, and b) reductionist? For example, why, when I say "Dark Ages" we immediately think of Medieval Europe, when in reality, the "Dark Ages" was a Golden Age for the Islamic World! Have you heard of this concept called 'Orientalism' by Edward Said? I think this relates very well to this concept as well. Here is an outline of the concept (From wikipedia lol, but I actually think this is a pretty good explanation): Orientalism is a" subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arab-Islamic peoples and their culture", which derives from Western images of what is Oriental (cultural representations) that reduce the Orient to the fictional essences of "Oriental peoples" and "the places of the Orient"; such cultural representations dominate the communications (discourse) of Western peoples with and about non-Western peoples. These cultural representations usually depict the ‘Orient’ as primitive, irrational, violent, despotic, fanatic, and essentially inferior to the westerner or native informant, and hence, ‘enlightenment’ can only occur when “traditional” and “reactionary” values are replaced by “contemporary” and “progressive” ideas that are either western or western-influenced."
Really good article!! She makes some great points-I love the quote 
. Will file to look at closer to exams.
Mary Beard is a babe.
Yeah, I definitely see how misrepresenting the symbolism in religious garments could tell a completely new version of history. However, I get that leaving it black and white can change our perceptions on the event as well. I haven't seen the Addams Family (i'm not a huge movie person-except for Harry Potter), but can see how each picture looks really different even though only the colours have been changed.
Definitely
I think what we have learnt here is that colour does play a lot more of significant role in our lives that we originally perceived. It's most definitely highly symbolic (even just down to the emotions we attach to certain colours, ie. red = anger, passion, etc. - if we really wanted to go down the postmodernism rabbit hole, we may even be able to say that just the inherent subjectivity of colours and the responses they elicit, will alter the accuracy of a photograph!)
I don't think that i'm a post modernist because I believe that some things have to be true. Even small truths, like I was at the Ancient lecture can't really be contended as we both saw each other there.
Ayyyyyyeeeeeee
I think this is an example of what many call a lower order fact. These are definitely difficult to argue against - for example, we KNOW that WW1 happened. We KNOW that Hitler was around during WW2, etc. etc. However - is that what history is made up of? Lower order facts? In my opinion know - that would just be a book of stats and figures, not history. History is concerned with the higher order facts, ie. the interpretive, and subjective responses to the "how" and the "why"! "
Why did World War I happen", "How did Hitler achieve significance during WW2", "What factors led to Katie's decision to attend the Ancient History lecture" etc. etc.
For ancient history we can never be sure of the truth, but if 3-4 sources say the same thing you can assume that it may have happened. I believe that it is a lot harder to know what is truth but some things have to be true. I think that by saying that the Holocaust never existed is going way too far but post modernists believe that saying this is ok.
Interesting - you know Stephen Speilburg used a very similar argument to assert the historical accuracy of his film 'Schindler's List'. He said that as they got 2 accounts for each events/issue that was depicted, the film was objectively accurate... However, just my nature (ignoring really the implausibility of his statement by suggesting that truth can be ellicited through the account of only two individuals) films can only ever be a representation of truth, not truth itself. For example, a script will always be subjective. We don't know 100% that this is what was said exactly at the time, nor do we know if it was said in this way (i.e. inflections). Sets are sets, not actual historical locations. Costumes are costumes, not actually what figures wore. And actors are actors, not real historical individuals! So, even if he managed to complete the impossible task, and look at EVERY source available, he still would never be able to present an objective account of the past, simply due to the medium in which he is creating within - cinema.
Interesting how you mentioned Holocaust denial and postmodernism, because David Irving, a really controversial historian who does deny the Holocaust, used postmodernist rhetoric to "validate" his work (I think i court!), suggesting that as all history is essentially an interpretations (as EH Carr says "Interpretation is the lifeblood of history"!), whose to say that one persons subjective interpretation is better or more accurate than another individuals... personally I just think he's an idiot, but it definitely does indicate one of the holes in postmodernism, in that by putting all history in the same category of "just an interpretation", it fails to account for the fact that, though yes, no interpretation can be 100% accurate, some are just better and more researched than others.
So, I guess i'm more of a relativist. I'm not really sure how someone's interpretation can be more valid. I guess that there methodology and purposes would have something to do with it, but I don't know exactly how to judge what source is better.
I think the I kinda misread your question and then went on a tangent about truth. Sorry, if I have.
I agree with you! I definitely think it comes down to a historian's methodology. For example, While researching for his book 'Killing Reagan', Bill O’Reilly neglected to interview Reagan’s aides Ed Meese, Jim Baker or George Shultz, all of whom would have provided invaluable insight if O’Reilly’s claims that Reagan was often mentally unfit to serve as president after his attempted assassination were true, which demonstrates a significant flaw in O’Reilly research methodologies. As George Will states, “[O’Reilly’s] is an interesting approach to writing history: Never talk to anyone with firsthand knowledge of your subject." As all three aides provided an alternative perspective to O’Reilly, he chose to ignore them so as not to spoil his narrative. In contrast, other historians, such as Bernard Porter, apply rigorous methods to formulate their analysis, utilising a wide variety of sources – many of which were rarely considered by other historians – to gain a better understanding of their subject matter. Although there are limitations to Porter’s methods, such as its Anglo-centric view and class focus, it is evident that Porter employs a much more rigorous and effective approach than O’Reilly, thus, one could argue that Porter's interpretation of the British Empire is going to be more valid than O'Reilly's interpretation of Reagan!
And don't worry about tangents - I love em
Especially for this thread, it opens up new areas of discussion!
Ok, so i'm not really sure how to explain it. I'm going to use my major as an example;
The two historians, Browning and Goldhagen both used the same piece of evidence (testimonies from holocaust perpetrators, especially the men of police battalion 101), but came to very different conclusions based on the way they used their evidence. Browning used interpretations that were truthful only some of the time and may have been lying, on top of those that were very self-incriminating. Goldhagen however, decided that he would reject the testimonies that had the potential to be exculpatory and would only take testimonies that were very self-incriminating. This greatly affected his interpretation of the event as he only had evidence that would lead to his hypothesis (which basically said that all Germans were evil).
Browning said this to argue against Goldhagen;
If you go back to Goldhagen’s methodology, if your argument is that all Germans were ‘little Hitler’s’ and you only use the testimony in which people admit that they are evil you have a methodology that can do no other but to confirm the hypothesis it was meant to test. It is guaranteed that you can come up with the result that you want and historians can’t really operate in that way.
I think that even if we had one methodology historians are going to put different weight/importance on evidence and you can come to different interpretations based on your use of evidence.
I don't know if that completely makes sense and i'm not really sure if I answered you question (again!).
ooooo how interesting! Thanks for sharing, because this would be a fantastic case study to mention within a 'What is History' essay! And I see what you're saying here - a very similar issue to one I raised earlier in regards to O'Reilly. However, I'd argue that just the nature of a hypothesis will result in this to some extent. Like it sounds like Goldhagen took it a bit too far, however I'd venture a guess that Browning was also pretty selective. I mean, even just by qualifying some sources and bad and some as good means that he had a preconceived notion about the history that he aimed to write. It's like EH Carr's fishing analogy (I've mentioned it on this thread before I think!).
Some of the criticism of Von Ranke were:
‘To the next generation, Von Ranke was not Von Rankean enough.’
OOoooo great quote!
Didn’t handle his sources carefully enough.
In what way?
Used only one type of source and focussed on the upper classmen of the time.
Definitely a strong critique - offical documents are not sources available, and will definitely lead to a distorted perspective if only they are consulted. And yes, love the link to top down history as well there!
Chose his sources from a narrow range and became a prisoner of his sources.[/i]
I don't do modern so I haven't had to do too many source analysis but the Von Ranke method is used by everybody so it's been pretty important even though it's been criticised a lot.
Modern source analysis is child's play in comparison to what actual historians need to do, so don't worry
Everyone is in the same, inexperienced boat. I think, though his application of source analysis was definitely flawed, the concept is still one that it is impossible to deny is significant. Like, no matter what, history relies on source analysis.
No, I don't think it has to be universally true to considered truth. Yeah, I think your interpretation would still be truth. The meme: I have no idea because how could we know what is the right number. I think that they are both right, but it is a subjective truth: to those people it would have looked like a nine or a six, depending on where they are standing.
Exactly
This is my belief as well. I think we can definitely have personal truths, but it is important to remember that our truth is not universal. I think if more people recognised that, humanity could spare a lot of conflict...
Awesome work Katie/Sarah!! Keep it up
Susie
Home
Help
Search
Login
