- This topic has 3 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
Study question? I wouldnt even know where to begin, this one requires a fairly long exposition I think.
Study question? I wouldnt even know where to begin, this one requires a fairly long exposition I think.
Agreed. I hesitated in even trying this one myself. Perhaps if our esteemed emperor were to give the "official" definition of it, we might go from there. I don't even think I could define it at this point without some help.
Well, to paraphrase what one of my professors would say, if you say you know something but can't explain it then maybe you don't really know it after all. ;DActually, I'm kind of just talking trash with that last quote, particularly because I bet you guys can give me a definition, but you're probably thinking I'm looking for a precise, all-encompassing definition. I'm not. I'm more interested in knowing what it means in a few sentences, even if it's not 100% accurate. I don't have a working definition in mind, but the word came up a lot in a journal article I was reading. Years ago someone gave me a definition, but I've forgotten what it was exactly and I'm not sure it was all that correct to begin with.
I will take a stab at it and say that it is getting back to the zeit geist of some historical time…i.e. the socio-economic and cultural mentality or spirit of the age. Historicity is the state of being verifiable in the historical record, and historicism probably means focusing in on what is verifiable and attune to the time period. Just my guess and no I'm not going to look it up until somebody else does. 🙂
I have always thought that historicism was the premise that one event follows another in historical development, in effect, that the future is determined by the past.However, here is Webster's definition:
Main Entry: his?tor?i?cism Pronunciation: hi-ˈstȯr-ə-ˌsi-zəm, -ˈst?r- Function: noun Date: 1895 : a theory, doctrine, or style that emphasizes the importance of history: as a: a theory in which history is seen as a standard of value or as a determinant of events b: a style (as in architecture) characterized by the use of traditional forms and elements
available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historicism
So based on what you two have described, and based on very vague understanding of it beforehand, historicism is something like the belief that history is really the result of the convergence of previous events/influences and that to understand history it is necessary to understand the events/influences that affect any subsequent period of time. Does that sound somewhat correct?
So based on what you two have described, and based on very vague understanding of it beforehand, historicism is something like the belief that history is really the result of the convergence of previous events/influences and that to understand history it is necessary to understand the events/influences that affect any subsequent period of time. Does that sound somewhat correct?
Yes, you have to capture the social mentality and transcribe it into a modern analysis without trying to "get behind" the available evidence...in other words without trying to piece together things that are either unknowable beyond certainty, or things that are irrelevant to your overall thesis.
It seems that it would be awfully difficult to make an analysis only with historical information that is known with certainty. One could make an argument that much written evidence needs to be viewed with a discerning eye due to unverifiable claims.
You would be surprised how much information is available about many historical periods. Part of history is also inference and that is part of the historians job is to infer from known facts. For example, it is possible to infer much about Medieval religious beliefs from the statuary, churches, and writing left behind.
You would be surprised how much information is available about many historical periods. Part of history is also inference and that is part of the historians job is to infer from known facts. For example, it is possible to infer much about Medieval religious beliefs from the statuary, churches, and writing left behind.
Agreed, and in my field this is a significant part of what we do. I guess my question for historicists would ask what their definition of "certitude" really is (in light of Donnie's last post). I mean, we can find historical documentation regarding something and we can challenge the certitude of information contained therein. Do we take Josephus at his word? Do we trust everything Herodotus says? Going forward, is Voltaire a reliable source if we know his prejudices? Perhaps I am using an extreme view of "certitude" and should consider it with a grain of salt. If we see a man enter a building holding an umbrella and wearing a wet raincoat we can infer that it's raining outside. Of course, he could conceivably have walked through a sprinkler, been part of a theatrical production, etc. We generally understand the circumstantial evidence to be convincing, even if it's not airtight. I think such inferences would rise to the level of "certitude" when discussing history.
I was referring to what people thought or what motivated historical figures without direct evidence such as diaries, autobiographies, or other publicly recorded statements. Simply put, if it is not recorded, you should avoid adding inferences to the story. Archaelogists and anthropologists can get away with this since they have no choice most of the time, but historians have more evidence to work with and should refrain from writing about something that is purely speculative.
Certitude will never exist. That is where interpretation begins. The facts are not at issue, but individual motivation can and is endlessly discussed. It is part of the reason that history is interesting. Everybody wants to know the why. My major difference is that I think the historian should make it clear where known facts end and his interpretation or guesses begin.
Obviously historians must theorize, but not speculate. Speculation is at best educated guesses and at worst fantasizing. Theories are based on factual premises that still have unanswered questions. The idea in History is to move the story along with the facts you have, and then leave it open for the next historian to come along with newly discovered facts to move the story to its next phase.
