Jenkins, Rethinking History
Green and Troup, Chapter 12
Comments?
Tuesday, 1 November 2011:
Leave a comment ?
15 Comments.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jenkins, Rethinking History
Green and Troup, Chapter 12
Comments?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Let’s start posting comments on this page beneath each week’s reading assignment.
Couldn’t find where to post a comment for the Green and Troup reading on chapters 8 and 9, so I will share my thoughts here.
Although flawed, I found Hayden White very compelling with respect that there is not necessarily a relationship between the structure and historical evidence of a narrative. More specifically, I’m intrigued by his idea that there are no grounds on which a historian can claim greater authority for one historical interpretation over another, because each representation of history contains an, “expungeable relativity.” (209) To me this helps to explain why there are so many contradictory methods to studying history, as well as interpretations and representations of history.
Overall, I thought that Jenkins made a number of strong arguments regarding how history is constructed and understood. Jenkins definitely expands on the thoughts of Hayden White who frequently mentions as an inspiration. In particular, I liked how he delineated between the past and history to clearly demonstrate that they are not the same thing. I also found his writing style fairly straightforward and mostly free from unnecessary deconstructions. In addition, his debate over how words do not always correspond with the world will be something in my mind during my own writing.
The sections where he asked the reader to substitute history for literature in regards to certain strands of literary theory was somewhat troubling. Although I bought his argument that history is like fiction, I do not think that such theories can pass between the two so cleanly.
I’m not sure that Jenkins would claim that the field of history is lacking as much theoretical treatment now as it did twenty years ago. However, I think that his observations remain useful because they force the reader to be more critical about their own reading and construction of history.
Green and Troup borrow a distinction from another scholar to distinguish between post-modernism and post-structuralism. In short, post-modernism is the period whereas post-structuralism is the set of theories and concepts. The most significant aspect of this approach to me was the emphasis placed on authorship. By abandoning objectivity, post-structuralists are being more open about their biases and perhaps producing a more authentic history despite the author’s admittance that it is not wholly factual. I thought that Jenkins’s discussion was clearer than this one regardless of the length of these two works.
The example that they provided at the end clearly showed the value of approaching a topic from all angles. However, I think that by profiling this particular woman the author was trying to make larger observations about the world which I thought was counter to post-structuralist thought. I may have misunderstood this aspect, but I felt that it somewhat represented a functionalist perspective in that Weldon’s experience was supposed to show how women and spiritualism were regarded more generally.
First of all, Happy Halloween everyone! Regarding Jenkins, I found it to be very interesting but I am not a convert to the postmodernist school. Still, he brought up some interesting points that I found very thought-provoking. However, it felt to me less like a work in history than a philosophy text. I don’t think Jenkins would take offense to that statement as his central goal in writing is to challenge other historians to examine their epistemology methodology and ideology.(12) In other words, he wants other historians to think conceptually. To paraphrase Aristotle, “the unexamined history is not worth reading.”
What really stood out to me about Jenkins was his central point of reframing the question of what is history, to who is history for?(22) By addressing the question from this perspective, Jenkins is able to show the subjectivity of different historians and schools of thought, as well as the relevance of these different descriptions of the past. Most plainly, when he contrasts historians’ histories to teachers’ histories and so on, it shows the ways a single “objective” truth just doesn’t work.
Another aspect I found interesting was his explanation of the epistemological fragility of history, Jenkins explains the limits of historians in a clear and concise way.(13-16) To Jenkins, the historian’s epistemology limits his/her study. Acknowledging this, the historian then frames their study through their ideology, which determines their methodology.
One other idea that really stood out to me was his contrast of evidence versus traces of the past.(60) This was a very interesting way of showing the limits of historians’ reach to the past. It also emphasized the importance of language and terminology which was shown throughout the text. Earlier, when he addressed the distinction between past and history for English-speakers.(7) This reminded me of psychological studies I have previously read about the ways that language affects perception and mindset. Different languages have words that don’t translate well to other languages, and affect how people speaking different languages perceive things differently.
Lastly, while I understand Jenkins’ reason for his refusing a position of authority in his writing, I find it difficult to read. Understanding implicitly that a historian presents a subjective vision is one thing, while being explicitly told that it is opinion robs me of something as a reader. I much prefer an authoritative approach by the writer, and then examine their points. By refusing to take a firm stance, it makes it difficult to dispute the argument.
Poststructuralism as explained by Green and Troup is an interesting concept, but also at times seems too extreme to be useful. Reading against the grain is helpful when studying marginal groups. At the same time if everything is relative and subjective, and therefore fictitious, then what is the point of history? It does seem to venture into Nihilism. One writes a work of fiction supported by meaningless evidence. Foucault thought that there is no historical truth but knowledge gives power, therefore historians are powerful. I understand the concept, but at the same time they are powerful over fictitious knowledge. This is a very interesting concept to consider, but does not seem like a very practical stance when it comes to one’s writing. This would explain the authors’ mention of a lack of much scholarship written from this stance.
It seems to me that poststructuralists keep pushing the envelope. Since words contain different meanings and, therefore, historical interpretation is subjective, we are bound to reinvestigate ad nauseam. As long as there is interest, there should always be a demand for historians. I enjoyed the analogy of building a house. I certainly find that with my own little interpretations. Statements lead to questions, which leads to point of view, and it takes me forever to write a paper.
As I was reading Jenkins and his analysis of what history was I was surprised when he made the distinction between history and the past. As I read further this text began to sound more like philosophy than history. Which made me wonder what the difference between history and philosophy was?
Robert
Although I’m by no means convinced, I found Jenkins post-modernist views to be very intriguing. I must say, however, that I found his argument on history being epistemologically fragile to be contradictory of itself. On one hand Jenkins argues that no historian can truly know the past because it is far to vast to comprehend, and only a fraction of the past has ever been preserved. He also states that there is no correct account of the past, and only variations exist. In my opinion he contradicts these notions by stating that contemporary historians know more about the past than those who lived in it because contemporaries have hindsight. To brutally simplify it, Jenkins basically says on one hand we cannot truly know the past, yet we (contemporaries) somehow know the past better than those who directly experienced it. I also find this troubling because he subscribes to the notion of mentalite, and believes it is impossible for historians to understand it.
I thought one of Jenkins goals in this book, and probably his strongest argument, was to show that there is no single history, there are many histories. When reading it is important to remember this. A book on topic is not the definitive history. It is one author’s history. There are and will be more books on the topic that are different. I liked his example of taking a class with one textbook and receiving an A. One is not really an expert on the subject after the class. They are merely an expert on the textbook and professors views on the topic. History, as Jenkins states, is on shelf. It is a personal construct and a perspective.
Jenkins discussion of what history is and and it is seperate from the past and can only be accessed by language in the present makes the post structuralist and post modernist reading more understandable. Because the past is gone language as sources and language used to write about it must be understood as products of their time. Breaking down the meanings of sources as relating only to the time in which they were created relates to understanding that language we use to describe it relates only to the time in which we write.
Green & Troup managed to clarify what Jenkins was attempting to say.
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
I don’t know.
Language, gender, subjutivity, poststructrualist- people get paid for this! Maybe it is me but I have a hard time understanding essays that are written in circles. I believe that I have some intelligence, but if you spend your time trying to convince people of your arguement by talking in circles than you arguement probably is only valid to you (Jenkins). At least I could understand Weedon enough to think that I agree with him. Although writing about women’s history is difficult for various reasons, mostly being that of society and its ideas surrounding women’s roles in society. Nonetheless, I actual unerstood language as a discourse and believe Weedon’s arguement.