- This topic has 5 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
In a class of mine they've touched a big on the methodology of studying history (art history, actually, but I imagine it applies to general history as well). Essentially, interpretations of history can be made through a variety of “lenses” which affect the way in which we understand underlying events. For example, someone might view history through a “post-colonial” view, a “feminist” view, etc etc (I think there are a few major “lenses” out there). For example, the way in which you or I might interpret or approach the history of Iraq will be quite different from the way a native Iraqi studies it. I don't know. Some of this actually bothers me, although I think it's probably important to know the common "lenses" through which historical criticism is applied. Anyone have any thoughts and/or experience with this?
Studying wars and the causes and outcomes are probably where this is affected most.If I understand what you (and your professor) is saying, I agree. An "objective" lens would be to look at the view of all sides, but not to emphasize one over the other. With Ireland, for example, I've come across some of what a Brit would say as opposed to what an Irish historian says. Same with the tribes. Was it a barbaric invasion or a tribal migration? The fall of Rome or the birth of Europe? Guess it depends upon if you're a Roman or a Celt.I think it would bother me somewhat if the approach was from a purely anti-religious or anti-Catholic POV.
....I don't know. Some of this actually bothers me, although I think it's probably important to know the common "lenses" through which historical criticism is applied. Anyone have any thoughts and/or experience with this?
Thematic history is okay as long as one remembers the lens though which you are viewing event. I tell my students about the cultural filters we have (can't help it, just is the case) and as long as we understand they are likely to distort our view we can deal with them. FWIW.Wally
Yes, I think that terminology of “cultural filter” is a good one, Wally (at least this is my understanding of how historical methodology views it). Ski, I wonder if this approach even says that an “objective” lens could be used. And I think that is the problem I have with this whole thing – the less we consider ourselves to be able to have an “objective” handle on history, the less we are able to think we can find truth in history…and this makes it less intelligible. While I do agree that our visions of history are filtered, I think that perhaps an acceptance of this and argument as to the facts is the only way to go. I know, I know - easier said than done. But I feel that getting caught up in the process of studying history at the expense of studying history itself isn't really all that beneficial in itself.
It is impossible to completely remove our cultural filters, that is why it is imperative that research be peer reviewed (differing cultural filters), and tested through rigorous presentations of evidence along with thorough explanations. The best historians will subject their work to redactions by their peers to weed out the blatantly biased material so that a more polished product can be obtained. Then after the finished product is submitted for publishing, it will be extensively reviewed and criticized by scholars. If the work stands the test of time, it will be remembered as a “good” work of History.
But I feel that getting caught up in the process of studying history at the expense of studying history itself isn't really all that beneficial in itself.
Could you please explain that more. What do you mean by the 'process'?
By “process” of studying history, I mean when we start talking about or critiquing an historical argument or approach, but then backtrack or use a caveat such as “but of course I'm only speaking from the position of a white male in 2008…”. Or, if we read a journal article and then say, “Well, so and so is coming from the perspective of a raging black woman” or whatever the case may be. It seems that these kinds of caveats aren't really necessary because of course each person has a means of filtering and processing information and criticism. This is the same for a lot of areas of study, including those outside of history. Instead, why not just react to the argument itself, rather than to the subject making the argument? Donnie, I can see the validity of having peers review works so as to remove bias and perhaps to correct other faults. I think in my area of study it is a bit less likely there will be bias in such research but I'm sure it exists. It raises other questions, though, such as - how do we know the reviewing peers come from an effectively "balanced" range so as to detect bias? How does one account for views that won't be represented at all? Do we even need to take all views into account?
Yes we need to take all views into account because all views are based in some positive truth more or less, however, we should not allow others to impose their cultural filters on us or shame us into backtracking just because we come from a culture that has been oppressive to other cultures. Historians aren't in the business of apologetics (though some think they are). Historians are fact finders and fact presenters. When facts are ambiguous or absent, then Historians can fill in the pieces with their best critical analysis, and nothing more.
It is impossible to completely remove our cultural filters, that is why it is imperative that research be peer reviewed (differing cultural filters), and tested through rigorous presentations of evidence along with thorough explanations. ....
Agreed; as long as we know we have a bias we can try to accomidate it and work around it, peer review is a good step too.
Historians aren't in the business of apologetics (though some think they are). Historians are fact finders and fact presenters.
But I think that it might be impossible to separate the two. As you know not all historical research is accurate, and I imagine some of it is grossly inaccurate; in such cases, challenging the status quo beliefs may amount to apologetics in defense of an alternative position. Better yet, think of this when the underlying issue has political ramifications in modern times.
Historians aren't in the business of apologetics (though some think they are). Historians are fact finders and fact presenters.
But I think that it might be impossible to separate the two. As you know not all historical research is accurate, and I imagine some of it is grossly inaccurate; in such cases, challenging the status quo beliefs may amount to apologetics in defense of an alternative position. Better yet, think of this when the underlying issue has political ramifications in modern times.
Yes true, but apologetics falls more in the realm of Political Science than History even though the two disciplines often overlap topically...but rarely in methodology. When History turns apologetic, it flirts with transforming into a useless polemic or diatribe. We've had enough of those through the years, so we all should be wise to recognize a polemic when we run across one and leave the diatribes to the political scientists.
Yes we need to take all views into account because all views are based in some positive truth more or less, however, we should not allow others to impose their cultural filters on us or shame us into backtracking just because we come from a culture that has been oppressive to other cultures. Historians aren't in the business of apologetics (though some think they are). Historians are fact finders and fact presenters. When facts are ambiguous or absent, then Historians can fill in the pieces with their best critical analysis, and nothing more.
A pompous approach to any view, this seems to me be.
Yes we need to take all views into account because all views are based in some positive truth more or less, however, we should not allow others to impose their cultural filters on us or shame us into backtracking just because we come from a culture that has been oppressive to other cultures. Historians aren't in the business of apologetics (though some think they are). Historians are fact finders and fact presenters. When facts are ambiguous or absent, then Historians can fill in the pieces with their best critical analysis, and nothing more.
A pompous approach to any view, this seems to me be.
How so?
