What is History and how is it produced

  • Slides: 18
Download presentation
What is History and how is it produced? L/O – To define what history

What is History and how is it produced? L/O – To define what history is and identify how it is produced Philosopher (loud and clear): Men cannot really know the past. Historian (stupidly): What did you say? Philosopher (irritably): I said, ‘Men cannot really know the past’, and you know damn well that’s what I said… J. H. Hexter, History Primer Starter Question – What is ‘History’? What is the ‘Past’?

Definitions • Past – a term used to indicate all the events which occurred

Definitions • Past – a term used to indicate all the events which occurred before a given point in time: everything that has ever happened to everyone, everywhere at any time before now. The past is neither the present nor the future. • History – is a narrative text, written in the present, about the subject of the past, using evidence that the past has left behind. This is important because all history must be an interpretation of the past and never the ‘same thing’ as the past.

What is History? • History is to society what memory is to the individual

What is History? • History is to society what memory is to the individual = a collective memory. • History isn’t what happened in the past. It is not even surviving evidence from past. Rather, it is ‘what historians choose to interpret from the surviving evidence of the past’. • Therefore it is important to consider (1) what the nature of surviving evidence is and (2) how historians choose, select and present it. SOURCES HISTORIANS HISTORY!

But Remember… • Sources are not evidence by themselves! Sources only become evidence when

But Remember… • Sources are not evidence by themselves! Sources only become evidence when we ask questions of it for a particular enquiry. • Historians therefore approach evidence with a Big Question. With a question, you can approach the historical record (sources) and assess what evidence it provides for your enquiry. What questions could we ask to turn these sources into evidence?

How is History Produced? - Sources • Before a source can be used as

How is History Produced? - Sources • Before a source can be used as evidence, a historian asks three things: 1. Source Comprehension – What is this source and does it provide relevant evidence? 2. Source Analysis – Is this source reliable? 3. Source Evaluation – Is this useful?

1. Source Comprehension • This involves understanding what information the source is telling you

1. Source Comprehension • This involves understanding what information the source is telling you in order to find relevant evidence. • Sometimes the evidence it provides is clear, other times we have to infer evidence i. e. what does the source suggest? • To comprehend what a source is telling you, you need to ask certain questions: What? When? Where? Who? Why? What is this source & what is being said or shown? When was it produced? Where was it produced? Who produced/wrote or created it? Why might he/she/they have produced it?

2. Source Analysis • Next you need to analyse the source and decide whether

2. Source Analysis • Next you need to analyse the source and decide whether the evidence you gathered is reliable. This involves doing two things: 1. How trustworthy is the source or witness? Use PACT – Purpose, Author (Origin), Context, Tone/Language 2. How typical is it? Does it represent the views of many people or few? It maybe reliable but sources are by their nature unrepresentative. Therefore, does the source represent a true picture of the past? How could we tell? We need to compare and cross-reference it with other sources! How could a trustworthy source still be unreliable? AND How could an untrustworthy source still be reliable?

3. Source Evaluation • Even if a source is trustworthy and reliable, does that

3. Source Evaluation • Even if a source is trustworthy and reliable, does that automatically make it useful to the historian? • Does the source provide useful evidence for our enquiry? If not, does it provide evidence for different questions? • Evaluation requires you to ask three questions: 1. ) What value does the source have to the historian? 2. ) What limitations does it have? 3. ) What other questions might the source be useful for?

Using Sources - Conclusion • Comprehension - Sources only become evidence when we ask

Using Sources - Conclusion • Comprehension - Sources only become evidence when we ask questions of them. The 5 W’s can be used infer relevant evidence from a source. • Analysis - To make justifiable assertions rather than unsubstantiated opinions, a historian needs to ensure he uses reliable evidence by testing the trustworthiness (PACT) and typicality of sources. • Evaluation - A historian finally has to check whether a source is useful. What values and limitations does it have? Does it answer his enquiry question? A reliable source may turn out to be un-useful for an enquiry whereas an unreliable source may provide evidence but for a different question.

How is History Produced? - Historians • Sources are not always reliable and useful.

How is History Produced? - Historians • Sources are not always reliable and useful. ‘All history is contemporary The historians job is therefore to: SELECT history’ evidence to use, based on what questions Benedetto Croce need answering and INTERPRET and present (1866 -1952) evidence to the public. • This process of selection and interpretation can lead to distortion. • Historians have their own views and biases, formed by upbringing, social class, political views etc. • This will determine the questions they choose to investigate, the evidence they choose to focus on, the interpretation they put on that evidence and even the words they use! What does the above statement mean?

How is History Produced? - Historians • Remember, Sources + Historians = History! •

How is History Produced? - Historians • Remember, Sources + Historians = History! • The ‘history’ we are presented by is inevitably a very diluted form of the past - some evidence is lost and destroyed, the remainder is unrepresentative at best, unreliable at worst! ‘[History • Then historians are thrown into the mix, they use their imagination to fill gaps in the records, select is]…a damn dim candle the bits of evidence which they think are the most interesting or relevant, then interpret and over a present that evidence to the public. damn dark abyss’ • Therefore is history more fiction than fact? W. Stull Holt

Is Objective history possible or even desirable? • If history is more fiction then

Is Objective history possible or even desirable? • If history is more fiction then fact, should we try and aim for objective history? – to limit ourselves to only those things which can be proven beyond doubt? To tell it as it really was? • No! Even whilst some facts are beyond dispute, this does nothing to challenge the view that history is essentially a fiction. • Firstly, facts are dead and meaningless, telling us nothing about the past unless historians interpret them: It is a fact that Hitler was born in 1889; but this only becomes of any relevance when a historian uses this to make an argument e. g. that Nazism sprang from late 19 th century Austrian nationalism.

Is Objective history possible or even desirable? • Secondly, such facts maybe the truth,

Is Objective history possible or even desirable? • Secondly, such facts maybe the truth, but not the whole truth! Example, Hitler refused to shake hands with black American athlete Jesse Owens, who won 8 gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. • However it is also true that Hitler refused to shake anyone’s hand after the first day (he got into trouble for only greeting German Athletes). Owens also said that he was treated more courteously in Nazi Germany than back home in the USA, where he couldn’t sit down in a bus because he was black! Historians ignore all this because it doesn’t fit into their narrative!

What does good history look like? ‘The events must be not only registered within

What does good history look like? ‘The events must be not only registered within the chronological • The point of history is not to collect framework of their facts, but to deal with interpretations, original occurrence lessons, morals, values; to engage in a but narrated as well, dialogue with the past with one eye on that is to say, the present. revealed as possessing a • So what does society consider to be structure, an order of good history? Factual accuracy is important but as already discussed, facts meaning, that they do alone tell us nothing – the historian must not possess as mere weave or narrate facts into his ‘imagined sequence. ’ • Factual (objective) history is impossible but it is also completely undesirable. interpretation’. White, H. V, 1990, The Content of the Form, p. 5

What does good history look like? • If you look on the back of

What does good history look like? • If you look on the back of any historical bestseller and read its reviews, they do not praise the author for ‘getting the dates right’. • Praise is more likely for the historians depth of research or ability to ‘bring the past alive’ through their interpretation. • Bringing the past alive relies on the historian’s art; a creative, artistic ability that is rarely acknowledge.

Example of Good History • Read the extract from Orlando Figes (1996) as he

Example of Good History • Read the extract from Orlando Figes (1996) as he describes the events of Bloody Sunday, 1905. • If you stripped away everything apart from the factual essentials, what are you left with? Is it history? • Clearly, the essence of a what makes good historical writing comes from the imagination of the historian – selective emphasis, anecdote, poetic scene setting, dramatic structure of the story, figurative language, moral judgement and significance.

Tasks 1. Why is history so important to society? 2. Why is it simplistic

Tasks 1. Why is history so important to society? 2. Why is it simplistic to describe history as ‘what happened in the past’? 3. In what ways does historical evidence distort our view of the past? 4. In what ways do historians themselves distort our view of the past? 5. How could it be argued that this distortion is completely unavoidable? 6. How could it be argued that the impossibility of attaining ‘factual history’ is actually a good thing? 7. Produce a mind-map based on the information today. The three main branches should be: A) Why is history so important to society? B) How is History produced? C) Is ‘Objective’ History possible or even desirable? Use colour and illustrations as appropriate.

Plenary • DSDS

Plenary • DSDS