English Language and Literature
The works of Michael Foucault, Diana Taylor, and Carla Freccero’s thoughts on history share underlying similarities yet differ in their approaches to understand the past. The differences that are brought out by these historians are based on the traditional and contemporary definitions as well as the extent of study directed to history. Within these three arguments, there are correlations as well as deviations in ideologies and interpretations, generating contention and debate on the true meaning of history.
Foucault (2011) describes history as a field that is composed of both proper thoughts and historical thoughts that generate similar problems while focusing more on the documented information than on the real issues that took place at the historical time.
The arguments posed by Foulcault are based on formerly raised arguments that separated history into two forms, the proper history and the history of thought (Abercrombie, 1998). Foucault argues that the longstanding misconception has been on the separation of ideologies based on the documentations rather than focusing on the real issues that took place at that time.
The interpretation by Foucault (2011) is that history entails the documentations as well as the activities that took place in history. The interpretation is that being a representation of the past, history should encompass the events as well as the people who took part in documenting the activities.
Foucault (2011) therefore demonstrates that the interpretation of history should be a diverse and integrative issue rather than being a thing that separates the activities from the people who documented them. History should be interpreted in from of its elements and at no one time ...
... middle of paper ...
...l the entities rather than separating them as it has been commonly accepted. Taylor argues that history is part of the present and should therefore remain as such, while Carla states that history is identified based on the uniqueness of the past events. This means that despite the varying approaches used to define it, history remains the formal report of the past events.
Works Cited
Abercrombie, T. A. (1998). Pathways of memory and power: Ethnography and history among an andean people. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
Foucault, M. (2011). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Retrieved http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/arch/section1.rhtml
Freccero, C. (2007). Queer Times. South Atlantic Quarterly Summer 106(3): 485-494.
Taylor, D. (n.d). Staging Social Memory: Yuyachkani. Retrieved from http://hemi.nyu.edu/cuaderno/yuyachkani/DTaylor_Yuyachkani.html
To study history, the facts and information must be passed down. To do so, historians record the information in textbooks and other nonfiction works. Whether or not the historians retell facts or construct their own version of history is debatable. History can be percieved as being “constructed” by the historians due to their bias, elimination of controversy, strive for entertainment, and neglect to update the information.
The study of past events have been a common practice of mankind since the verbal telling of stories by our ancestors. William Cronon, in his article “Why the Past Matters,” asserts that the remembrance of the past “keeps us in place.” Our individual memories and experiences shape how we act in our daily lives. In addition to influencing us at an individual level, our collective history binds us together as a society. Without knowing where we have been or what we have experienced, it is nearly impossible to judge progress or know which courses of action to pursue. The goal of the historian is to analyze and explain past events, of which they rarely have firsthand memory of, and apply the gained knowledge to make connections with current and future events.
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
In The Houses of History, many different schools of historical thought are presented and light in shed on what exactly it means to be those different types of historians. Not all historians think the same way or approach history from the same perspective, but some similar groups of thought have converged together and have formed the various types of historians that will be presented, such as empiricists, psychohistorians, oral historians, and gender historians. All of these groups can approach the same event or concept and look at them in an entirely different way simply due to the way the historical approach they are accustomed to views things.
“It [history] is like a river. From any vantage point, a river looks much the same day after day. But actually it is constantly flowing and changing…one day, when the banks are thoroughly weakened and the rains long and heavy, the river floods and bursts its banks, and may take a new course.” (Kay 1948)
What is history? Many believe that history is what is read in textbooks, or what is seen on the news. If Susan Griffin were asked that question, she would probably argue that history is much more than that. It is about the minds and souls of the people who went through the historical event, not simply what happened. In her essay, Griffin incorporates stories of people from totally different backgrounds, and upbringings, including herself, all to describe their account of one time period. Each person’s history is somehow connected with the next person’s, and each story contr...
Second, the historian must place himself within the existing historical debate on the topic at hand, and state (if not so formulaically as is presented here) what he intends to add to or correct about the existing discussion, how he intends to do that (through examining new sources, asking new questions, or shifting the emphasis of pre-existing explanations), and whether he’s going to leave out some parts of the story. This fulfills the qualities of good history by alerting readers to the author’s bias in comparison with the biases of other schools of scholarship on the topic, and shows that the author is confident enough in his arguments to hold them up to other interpreta...
History. What is history? History is not just a complete story from the perspective of a man nor women. But it is a replica that tells the story of our communities, cities, countries, and the world. History by definition is the account of change over a period of time. For centuries, people have altered the environment in order to meet their needs. The effect of these changes have brought upon both positive and negative effects on the environment, societies, and regions. Some include the development of irrigation in ancient Egypt, the construction of chinampas by the Aztecs, and the mining of coal in Great Britain. Throughout time, many of the ancient civilizations have gone through inconvenient setbacks while trying to complete their goal. Nevertheless,
In Marshall G. S. Hodgson’s article, The Interrelations of Societies in History, the idea of our egocentrism influencing our perception and education of history is more deeply explored and analyzed. The piece outlines how history primarily focuses on Western Civilization, although in reality the studies are usually only on European states. It argues that large scale history should be studied not as individual areas that are separate in nature, but through the interrelations throughout these societies in world history. In other words, that the achievements, declines, successes, and failures of all world societies through history have been connected to one another in some way, and it is impossible to understand a time period without understanding first the connections of societies. Hodgson makes this argument through two main points, first there is critiques of the current models of studying world history for their lack of interrelational studies. Second, he presents his own method of tracing large scale history by comparing societies involved in history. The Interrelations of Societies in History presents a theory on the faults with
John Lewis Gaddis, in his book, The Landscape of History, generates a strong argument for the historical method by bringing together the multiple standpoints in viewing history and the sciences. The issue of objective truth in history is addressed throughout Gaddis’s work. In general, historians learn to select the various events that they believe to be valid. Historians must face the fact that there is an “accurate” interpretation of the past ceases to exist because interpretation itself is based on the experience of the historian, in which people cannot observe directly (Gaddis 10). Historians can only view the past in a limited perspective, which generates subjectivity and bias, and claiming a piece of history to be “objective” is simplistic. Seeing the world in a multidimensiona...
In Graham Swift’s Waterland, Tom Crick says, “Children, it was one of your number, a curly-haired boy called Price… who once… asserted roundly that history was ‘a fairy-tale’… ‘What matters… is the here and now. Not the past… The only important thing about history, I think, sir, is that it’s got to the point where it’s probably about to end’”(6,7). It is very likely that we all have come to a point in our education, at one time or another, where we have encountered sentiments similar to those of Price. In most schools the subject of history is treated more or less in the same way- as a recounting of events, an examination of how the past has led to the present. This seems to be a good definition at first glance, but perhaps it is lacking in that it fails to account for the “here and now”(6). In Waterland Graham Swift not only addresses the problem of the fears his students face in the here and now, and the prospect of a nightmarish future; but, he also gives an unlikely solution in Tom Crick’s theory of history as explanation and personal story.
What is history? History is the analysis and interpretation of the past. History allows us to study both continuity and change over time. It helps to explain how we have changed throughout time. Part of history is using pieces of evidence to interpret and revisit the past. Examples of evidence include written documents, photographs, buildings, paintings, and artifacts. Is history important? When looking at what the definition of history entails, it is clear to see history is in fact, important.
History is a series of important past events that connect with something. History is what makes people make better decisions. There are many definitions of history and everyone has their own.
I define history as important events that have happened in the past, and the ones that are presently happening. At some time or another everything will be considered history. History tells a story, whether it’s written, painted, carved, or sung; a collection of events that someone explains to you that is usually important.
History is a body of knowledge that has surrounded not only the events of the past but also their consequences. History is concerned with evidence about human beings who have lived in the society. It’s so concerning with how human lives have changed through time. It’s not only the explanation about the distant past but also that contemporary world. History is concerned with people in the society, their interaction and their relationships with their environment. History had an impact on society because interaction between society and its past is an unending one, the interaction is mutual and continuous. The past exists only in the mind and memories of those in the present. Since history is said to be concerning with people in the society, their