What is History?
Is history an art or a science? Consider where history appears in various college catalogs -- as a social science or a humanities discipline. What are the implications of grouping history with the social sciences? the humanities? What are the differences in methodolgy between these areas? Do they have other differences in terms of disciplinary assumptions about the world?
If history is a science, what would this imply about the world and about "historic fact"? If an art, how would this change our understanding of fact?
E.H. Carr's text What is History? raises a number of important points about the historian and interpretation. In your comments, please find at least two issues that stand out for you in the text and explain what implications these issues have for the study of history. Did reading this text change your view of the nature of history and of the historian's task?
posted by Dr. Deborah Vess @ 2:49 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Hi. Yes, the historian is to be as objective as possible, but often there is a great deal of subjectivity involved when one begins to interpret the sources. I would not say that historians are supposed to be subjetive, however, but rather that often we are more subjective than we wish to be. When we are crafting interpretations, we bring with us a lotof cultural and other baggage that often gets translated into our work as professionals. So, no matter how objective we try to be, one of E.H. Carrr's points is that we never become completely objective. I'd encourage you to find passages in the Carr text where he discusses this issue and perhaps to comment on them again in a post. Glad you liked the coins and the class session.
Hello, all: this is from Donnie -- he had trouble logging on so I am posting this for him.
Donnie says: Carr attempts to evaluate the impact of society on an individual. He tries to delineate between the actions and views held by an individual that are his alone and those that have been shaped by his environment. Carr states that "human nature" is formed by the time in which one lives. Carr would argue that great men, although notorious and unique, are still biproducts of their environment, and with out the society in which they lived they may have been unknown. Believing in this concept completely tarnishes the possiblility of objective history. If it is impossible to break away from society's impact then it is impossible to write history without one's biases and beliefs being apparent. Through this way of thinking, Carr believes one can learn just as much about the time period in which the author lives as one can learn about the time period in which the author is writing about. Carr makes very valid points although I don't believe he gives the individual enough credit. Carr states that "the individual apart from society would be both speechless and mindless." True, the individual would not speak English or any other known language, but he would attempt to communicate vervbally and through body language. I definately wouldn't go as far as to say that the uninfluenced human would be mindless. Although I disagree with some of his assertions, I believe he raises very debateable questions. From Donnie Clanton
Post a Comment
<< Home