Thank you
Was just wondering if anyone could suggest how they would approach this What is History question?
The construction of history can never be divorced from its purpose
Thanks
Hey,
This was actually my trial question last year (but the source could have been different).
I argued that history cannot be fully objective as it's construction cannot be divorced from it's purpose.
My points were:
- History can be written with a purpose & initial hypothesis in mind and historians are guided by their beliefs. I talked about public history and how this is funded by the government and could push different political beliefs/ideologies.
- You could also talk bout teleology or how some historians selectively use evidence (I used E.H Carr's fishmonger analogy for this and the historians in my major did this as well).
- I also talked about marginalised groups & how post-modernism gave rise to the acceptance of marginalised groups writing history. The purpose of post-modern historians was that there is no truth and everything is equally valid. I talked about Foucault and how he was influenced by his post-modern beliefs and focussed on concepts/power struggles due to his own context.
- I also talked about 'outside traditional academic practises' through the Annals school which aimed to have a total history and therefore constructed history using branches such as oral history, genealogical research, maps, and science.
Those were some of my points (some were a bit weak though) but you could definitely come up with others as well (especially as you could have a different source).
Hope this helps!!