You are on page 1of 9

RETHINKING HISTORY BY KEITH JENKINS

Chapter 1 What history Is a) On Theory: Jen ins says that history is a discourse about !"t categorically different #ro$% the past& There is a 'i##eren(e !et)een that )hi(h is written/recorded about the past% an' the past itself& Jen ins *i+es three i,,"strations o# )hy the past-history 'istin(tion is i$portant to "n'erstan': 1) The past has gone, and history is what historians make of it when they go to work. History is an inter-te.t"a, ,in*"isti( (onstr"(t& /) When )e st"'y or )rite a!o"t an aspe(t o# the past% )e "s"a,,y 'o it thro"*h the medium of a historian whose book we have read and believed implicitly to be correct& 0) Many groups, people, classes who existed in the past have been omitted from the histories& 1E&*&% )o$en)& Jen ins *oes on to (,ai$ that the past an' history are not stit(he' into ea(h other s"(h that one an' on,y one rea'in* o# any pheno$enon is entai,e'% that the sa$e o!2e(t o# en3"iry is (apa!,e o# !ein* rea' 'i##erent,y !y 'i##erent 'is(o"rses% )hi,e interna, to ea(h there are 'i##erent rea'in*s o+er spa(e an' ti$e& 4i##erent historians interpret the sa$e pheno$enon 'i##erent,y thro"*h 'is(o"rses that are a,)ays on the $o+e% that are a,)ays !ein* 'e(o$pose' an' re-(o$pose'5 are a,)ays positione' an' positionin*% an' )hi(h th"s nee' (onstant se,#-e.a$ination as 'is(o"rses !y those )ho "se the$& Jen ins $a es a se(on' point: Gi+en the past-history 'istin(tion% the pro!,e$ #or the historian )ho so$eho) )ants to (apt"re the past )ithin his6her history th"s !e(o$es: how do you fit these two things together? O!+io"s,y% ho) this (onne(tion is atte$pte'% ho) the historian tries to no) the past% is (r"(ia, in 'eter$inin* the possi!i,ities o# )hat history is an' (an !e& 7"rther% !e(a"se o# the past-history 'i##eren(e% an' the #a(t that

on,y tra(es o# the past re$ain% (,ear,y there are a,,

in's o# ,i$its (ontro,,in* the

no),e'*e (,ai$s that history $ay $a e& Three theoreti( areas to !e 'is("sse' are: 1) Episte$o,o*y: Episte$o,o*y re#ers the theory o# no),e'*e& Where history is (on(erne'% there is the 3"estion o# )hat it is possi!,e to no) )ith re#eren(e to its o)n area o# no),e'*e% i&e& the past& enkins says that such knowledge is likely to be tentative, and constructed by historians working under all kinds of presuppositions and pressures which did not, of course, operate on people in the past. !et we still see historians trying to raise before us the spectre of the real past, an ob"ective past about which their accounts are accurate and even true # and enkins says that this is impossible. $f there was one true account, and this was achievable, then there would be no point of writing history once that true account was achieved. There are #o"r reasons )hy history is so episte$o,o*i(a,,y #ra*i,e: $% There is no way of recording every single event of the past, no way of completely &covering' the past since the past is virtually limitless. (t best we can hope to cover a fraction of the past. $$% )o account can recover the past as it was, because the past was not an account but events, events which are over. (nd so each account can be "udged only against other accounts, not against what actually happened. III) )o matter how verifiable, how widely acceptable or checkable, history remains inevitably a personal construct, a manifestation of the historian's perspective as a &narrator &8 9n,i e 'ire(t $e$ory 1itse,# s"spe(t) history re,ies on so$eone e,se8s eyes an' +oi(e5 )e see thro"*h an interpreter )ho stan's !et)een past e+ents an' o"r rea'in*s o# the$& :oreo+er% the past that )e ; no)8 is a,)ays (ontin*ent "pon o"r o)n +ie)s% o"r o)n ;present&8 J"st as )e are o"rse,+es pro'"(ts o# the past% so the no)n past 1history) is an arte#a(t o# o"rs& I<) Through hindsight, we in a way know more about the past than the people who lived in it. $n translating the past into modern terms and in using knowledge previously unavailable, the historian

discovers both what has been forgotten about the past and pieces together things never pieced together before& *eople and social formations are thus caught up in processes that can be seen only in retrospect% and documents and other traces are ripped out of their original contexts of purpose and functions to illustrate, say, a pattern which might not be remotely meaningful to any of their authors. +istory always conflates, it changes, it exaggerates aspects of the past. /) Methodology, Jen ins than says that at the $o$ent the 3"est #or tr"th% no),e'*e an' ,e*iti$a(y 'eri+es #ro$ proposin* ti*ht $etho'o,o*i(a, r",es an' pro(e'"res% )hi(h ("t 'o)n interpretati+e #,". an' $ora, 2"'*$ents& enkins says however, there is no one method, no one set of rules that would lead to the &true past.' -ach method would be rigorous, that is internally coherent and consistent, but it would also be self.referencing/ that is, it might tell you how to conduct valid arguments within itself but, given that all choices do this, then the problem of discriminating between x number of alternatives has no solution. Therefore, talk of method as the road to truth is misleading, as there is a range of methods without any agreed criterion for choosing. 0+eartlands argument% 0) $deology, Jen ins ar*"es that history is ne+er #or itse,#5 it is a,)ays for someone. 1Heart,an's e.a$p,e)& History is i'eo,o*i(a, i&e&% the motives for writing history come from concerns external to history per se/ that it would be a vehicle for the delivery of a specific position for persuasive purposes. The predominantly delivered positions will be in the interests of those stronger ruling blocs within social formations. The fact that history is an ideological construct means that it is constantly being reworked and reordered by all those who are variously affected by power relationships% !e(a"se the 'o$inate' as )e,, as the 'o$inant a,so ha+e their +ersions o# the past to ,e*iti$ise their pra(ti(es% +ersions ha+e to !e e.(,"'e' as i$proper #ro$ any p,a(e on the a*en'a o# the 'o$inant 'is(o"rse& History is the )ay peop,e (reate% in part% their i'entities&

To s"$ "p: =History is (o$pose' o# episte$o,o*y% $etho'o,o*y an' i'eo,o*y& -pistemology shows we can never really know the past/ that the gap between the past and history is an ontological one, that is, is in the very nature of things such that no amount of epistemological effort can bridge it& Historians ha+e 'e+ise' )ays o# )or in* to ("t 'o)n the in#,"en(e o# the interpretin* historian !y 'e+e,opin* ri*oro"s $etho's )hi(h they ha+e then trie' +ario"s,y to "ni+ersa,ise% so that i# e+eryone pra(tise' the$ then a heart,an' o# s i,,s% (on(epts% ro"tines an' pro(e'"res (o",' rea(h to)ar's o!2e(ti+ity& 1ut there are many methodologies/ the so.called heartlands are of recent and partial construction, and the differences that we see are there because history is basically a contested discourse, an embattled terrain wherein peoples, classes and groups autobiographically construct interpretations of the past literally to please themselves. There is no 'e#initi+e history o"tsi'e these press"res% any (onsens"s !ein* rea(he' )hen 'o$inant +oi(es (an si,en(e others either !y o+ert po)er or (o+ert in(orporation& $n the end history is theory and theory is ideological and ideology is "ust material interests.

!) On *ractice, History is pro'"(e' !y a *ro"p o# ,a!o"rers (a,,e' historians )hen they *o to )or & >n' )hen they *o to )or % they ta e )ith the$ (ertain i'enti#ia!,e thin*s: 1) 7irst they ta e the$se,+es persona,,y: their values, positions, their ideological perspectives. /) Se(on' they ta e their epistemological presuppositions& These are not a,)ays he,' +ery (ons(io"s,y% !"t historians )i,, ha+e in $in' )ays o# *ainin* no),e'*e& Here )i,, (o$e into p,ay a ran*e o# (ate*ories e(ono$i(% so(ia,% po,iti(a,% (",t"ra,% i'eo,o*i(a, et( an' a ran*e o# (on(epts a(ross these (ate*ories% e&*&% (,ass% po)er% state% so+erei*nty% ,e*iti$a(y et(& Historians a,so "se te(hni(a, +o(a!",aries% an' these in t"rn a##e(t )hat they ha+e to say& 0) Thir',y% they have routines and procedures for working on material, ways for checking for its origins, position, authenticity, reliability et(&

2% The materials of historians vary from published works to unpublished documents, records, artefacts etc. The historian's "ob is to organise them into a coherent whole. ?) Whi,e )ritin*% episte$o,o*i(a,% $etho'o,o*i(a, an' i'eo,o*i(a, #a(tors (o$e into p,ay% inter(onne(tin* )ith e+ery'ay pra(ti(es s"(h as press"res #ro$ ho$e% )or p,a(e an' p"!,ishers& @) Rea'ers #atho$ 'i##erent a$o"nts o# a historian8s )or & c% On a definition of history, 3+istory is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present.minded workers 0overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians% who go about their work in mutually recognisable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned and whose products, once in circulation, are sub"ect to a series of uses and abuses that are logically infinite but which in actuality correspond to a range of power bases that exist at any given moment and which structure and distribute the meanings of historians along a dominant marginal spectrum. Chapter / On So$e A"estions an' >ns)ers Jen ins poses the #o,,o)in* 3"estions: 1) What is the stat"s o# tr"th in the 'is(o"rses o# historyB /) Is there any s"(h thin* as an o!2e(ti+e history% or is history 2"st interpretationB 0) What is !ias an' )hat are the pro!,e$s in+o,+e' in tryin* to *et ri' o# itB C) What is e$pathyB Can it !e 'one% ho)% )hy an' i# it (annot !e a(hie+e'% )hy 'oes it see$ so i$portant to tryB ?) What are the 'i##eren(es !et)een pri$ary an' se(on'ary so"r(es 1tra(es) an' !et)een ;e+i'en(e8 an' ;so"r(es8B

@) What 'o yo" 'o )ith those (o"p,ets 1(a"se an' e##e(t% (ontin"ity an' (han*e% si$i,arity an' 'i##eren(e)% an' is it possi!,e to 'o )hat yo"r are as e' to 'o thro"*h "sin* the$B D) Is history an art or a s(ien(eB On Truth, Jen ins ar*"es that truth is no absolute& There is no ne(essary (onne(tion !et)een the )or' an' the )or,'. Truth is a self.referencing figure of speech, a linguistic sign, a concept. In the )or's o# 7o"(a",t: =Tr"th is to !e "n'erstoo' a syste$ o# or'ere' pro(e'"res #or the pro'"(tion% re*",ation% 'istri!"tion% (ir(",ation an' operation o# state$ents& ;Tr"th8 is ,in e'E )ith syste$s o# po)er )hi(h pro'"(e an' s"stain itE > ;re*i$e o# tr"th&8 Tr"th is 'epen'ant on so$e!o'y ha+in* po)er to $a e it tr"e& On 4acts and $nterpretation, >,tho"*h so$e histori(a, #a(ts 1(hrono,o*ies) are in'isp"ta!,e% historians are not rea,,y intereste' in this& Rather% they see to as(ertain )hy an' ho) thin*s happene'% they see to interpret. It is ne+er rea,,y a $atter o# #a(ts per se !"t the )ei*ht% position% (o$!ination an' si*ni#i(an(e they (arry vis--vis ea(h other in the (onstr"(tion o# e.p,anations that are at iss"e& So$e historians ar*"e that $ost histori(a, #a(ts are not in 'isp"te% that re,ati+is$ poses no threat to the or'er,y 'is("ssion o# a !asi(a,,y a*ree' !o'y o# no),e'*e an' that o+er $ost o# ;o"r8 interpretations o# the past share' +a,"es an' +ie)s pre'o$inate& $nterpretative activity goes on but it is located on the margins where it does not call into 5uestion that shared centre/ indeed it is from such a centre that one ad"udicates between rival 0marginal% perspectives. +owever, enkins says that everything is a discursive construct, including the &non.interpreted centre' & 1Centre-Ri*ht-Fe#t e.a$p,e% pa*e 0C) >((or'in* to hi$% a spectrum can never have a definite centre, the centre can keep shifting depending on what perspective you use, and so there are no centres as such, but local patterns of dominance and marginality which are all historiographically constructed and which must be historiographically read. On 1ias, >((or'in* to Jen ins% !ias is a $yth% !e(a"se there is no "ni+ersa, tr"th% no one )ay o# te,,in* thin*s% no o!2e(ti+e i'ea,& 1ias makes sense only if it is used in opposition to &unbiased' i.e. some sort of ob"ectivity or truth& The 3"estion o# !ias% $oreo+er% o(("rs on,y in e$piri(ist a((o"nts )ho (,ai$ to ;present the #a(ts as they are8& 1:ar.ist e.a$p,e)& $f we look at

history as a series of readings, all of which are positioned # then there is clearly no unpositioned criterion by which one can "udge the degree of bias. The e$piri(ist (,ai$ that one (an e.p"n*e !ias !y atten'in* s(r"p",o"s,y to ;)hat the so"r(es say8 # is undercut by the fact that the sources are mute. $t is historians who articulate whatever the &sources say, for do not many historians all going to the same sources still come away with different accounts/ do not historians all have their own many narratives to tell? 1He is perhaps (ontra'i(tin* his pre+io"s point )hat i# )e say that e+ery perspe(ti+e has t)o e.tre$es an' a (entre% an' that any 'e+iation #ro$ the (entre is !iasB) Bias% )hen it is "se'% o"*ht to !e "se' spe(i#i(a,,y an' ,o(a,,y& On -mpathy, Jen ins ar*"es that ;e$pathy8 1to see the past #ro$ its point o# +ie)) is "na(hie+a!,e& This is !e(a"se o# the #o,,o)in* reasons: a% $t is impossible to &enter into the mind of another'. b% To all past events historians bring their own mind.set of the present. $n every act of communication, there is an act of translation. There is no presuppositionless interpretation of the past, and the interpretations of the past are constructed in the present. () *ractically # the historian is working within all kinds of assumptions of an epistemological, methodological and ideological kind # how can this be got rid off in order for him to be able to think &pastically'B ') E$pathisin* $ore )ith the historian& On *rimary and 6econdary 6ources/ On 6ources and -vidence, >((or'in* to Jen ins% the 'istin(tion !et)een pri$ary an' se(on'ary so"r(es is #"ti,e% as they both form part of the discursive practice 1see Ro,an' Barthes 3"otation% pa*e ?G)& The e+i'en(e o# the past per se (annot a(t ,o*i(a,,y as a (he( on the historian8s #ree p,ay !e(a"se% (onstit"te' !y 'is(o"rse% as an e##e(t o# 'is(o"rse% it (annot !e $a'e to #"n(tion as a (a"se o# 'is(o"rse or as a pre-'is("rsi+e (he( 1on itse,#)& 14oes #in'in* o,' (oins )hi(h pro+es a (i+i,isation ne) the "se o# $eta, rea,,y ha+e anythin* to 'o )ith 'is(o"rseB)

On 7ouplets, On 7ausation, etc, Jen ins ar*"es that there is no )ay to ta( ,e a,, the (a"sa, #a(tors re,ate' to a parti(",ar histori(a, e+ent& 1See 7ren(h Re+o,"tion e.a$p,e% Ha*e ?1)&

Chapter 0 4oin* History in a Host-$o'ern )or,': Jen ins says that post$o'ernis$ is &witnessing the death of centres'% an' that there is an &incredulity towards meta.narratives.' This $eans that the o,' or*anisin* #ra$e)or s that pres"ppose' the pri+i,e*in* o# +ario"s (entres are 1>n*,o-(entri(% E"ro-(entri() are no ,on*er re*ar'e' as ,e*iti$ate an' nat"ra, #ra$e)or s% !"t as te$porary #i(tions )hi(h pro$ote' parti(",ar interests& In(re'",ity to)ar's $eta-narrati+es $eans that the *ran' str"(t"rin* narrati+es 1:ar.is$ et(&) ha+e !een 'raine' o# +ita,ity& In the /Gth Cent"ry% t)o )ars% e(ono$i( (rises% #as(is$% NaIis$% 'e(o,onisation% #e$inis$ et(& ha' !ro en 'o)n the ,ast re$ainin* theories "n'erpinnin* notions o# ,i!era, pro*ress% o# harmony through competition an' an optimistic belief in the reasonableness of the rational man& There#ore (apita,is$ #o"n' another !asis #or +a,"e% the $ar et& This ,e' to re,ati+is$ an' pra*$atis$& This in t"rn a##e(te' the stat"s o# episte$o,o*i(a, an' $etho'o,o*i(a, pra(ti(es5 here there )ere on,y per(eptions% position% $o'e,s% an*,es% para'i*$s& There#ore% in the $o'ern )or,'% the o,' (entres !are,y ho,'% the o,' $etanarrati+es are no) ,oo e' "pon )ith s(epti(is$& Fi!era, $ar et (apita,is$ has era'i(ate' intrinsi( +a,"e& The (on(ept o# the ;,i!era, ironist8 anythin* (an !e $a'e to ,oo *oo' or !a'% 'esira!,e or "n'esira!,e% "se#", or "se,ess% si$p,y !y !ein* re'es(ri!e'& The past (an !e in#inite,y re'es(ri!e'& It (an an' has s"pporte' (o"nt,ess p,a"si!,e an' +is a +is their o)n $etho'o,o*i(a, ,i*hts% e3"a,,y ,e*iti$ate histories5 it has "n#ai,in*,y *i+en )hate+er historians ha+e )ante'5 !irths% ante(e'ents et(& >n' a,, these *enres ha+e ra**e' an' inter,appin* e'*es& The (onse3"en(e is that the interpretati+e #,". is potentia,,y e$po)erin* to e+en the $ost $ar*ina,ise' in that they (an $a e their o)n histories& A"eryin* the notion o# historian8s tr"th% pointin* to the +aria!,e #a(ti(ity o# #a(ts% insistin* that historians )rite the past #ro$ i'eo,o*i(a, positions% stressin* that history is a )ritten 'is(o"rse ,ia!,e to 'e(onstr"(tion% ar*"in* that the past is a notiona, (on(ept& Ho)e+er% the 'o$inant se(tions atte$pt a (,os"re&

Bet)een the S(y,,a an' Chary!'is o#% on the one han'% a"thorise' history an'% on the other% post$o'ern past,essness% a spa(e e.ists #or the 'esira!,e o"t(o$e o# as $any peop,e as possi!,e to $a e their o)n histories& History sho",' !e seen as a 'is("rsi+e pra(ti(e that ena!,es present-$in'e' peop,e to *o to the past&

You might also like