The problem of history: Part two
The observations made in part one raise an important question: what do we do with history?
There are at least three potential solutions to the problem of history [1]. They are:
1. Argue for the ‘end’ of conventional History:
Essentially, this position suggests that historians can never overcome the problem of history in any meaningful way. It claims that we can and should welcome an end to conventional history especially the attempt to build clear, structured and ‘objective’ interpretations of the past. This position is commonly held among those who espouse deconstructionist and post-structuralist ideas (often referred to simply as Postmodernists). Keith Jenkins and Alun Munslow are two prominent exponents of this view.
2. Call for a rigorously empiricist method:
This solution claims that the problem of history is not so great that it is impossible to overcome. Historians arguing for this would acknowledge that the Problem of History still exists but that with the right training and method historians can rise above it to produce true and objective accounts of the past. This training and method usually involves learning foreign languages to ensure source material is ‘properly understood’, the peer-review of historical literature to ensure that ‘correct’ methods have been used to produce historical studies and a general distaste for interpretations that do not strictly adhere to documented or ‘verifiable’ evidence. One of the most outspoken supporters of this position is Keith Windschuttle. His book The Killing of History (1994) argues that historians can truly know the past given enough time, effort and training.
3. Accept the problem and slightly alter the way History is done and presented:
This is generally the more moderate of the three solutions. In broad terms, it accepts that the problem of history cannot be completely overcome but neither does it claim that conventional history should be ‘thrown away’ altogether.
Instead, this position suggests that historians need to widen their practises by making use of theories, models and insights provided by other disciplines (eg. anthropology, sociology, linguistics, gender studies, etc.) and relax the truth claims of their work. Historians arguing for this solution would generally claim that their studies discuss the ‘real world’ of the past but that it can never be known or represented in a completely true or objective manner. Perhaps the most famous exponent of these ideas is E.H Carr who, in his book What is History? (1961), famously argued that history will always be ‘… an unending dialogue between the present and the past.’
Conclusion
Turning the past into history has never been an uncontested process. In the 21st century, the debates about the past and how it should be represented have only become more urgent as the calls for an end to conventional history mount. Is there some way of ‘saving’ history from these criticisms by developing a way around the problem identified? If so, what will this ‘new’ history look like?
These kinds of questions are serious but they are also exciting. They offer an opportunity for every person to decide how they will engage with an age-old question: does the past really have anything meaningful to say about our present or our future?
Footnotes:
[1] These are loosely based on the ideas put forward by Alun Munslow in the introduction to The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies, 2005)
