HOW approaches to history have changed over time? (1 Viewer)

[dougal]

I've been looking at questions that ask me to explain HOW approaches to history have changed over time, and I realise I don't know how to structure a proper answer - how to best put all my information into an argument. Any suggestions?

 

[Asheroth]

I'd just structure your answer chronologically. Then divide your essay into major sections, each section dealing with a school of history, its context and origins and things, and divide that into smaller paragraphs dealing with specifics. Don't feel constrained by this, though - feel free to make references that mess around with the timeline and paragraph structure. As long as the overall flow of chronology remains, it's fine.

Alternatively, if you were dealing with only two or three kinds of historical interpretation, you could use a structure that directly compares the characteristics of each interpretation. Like:

A
B
C

all dealing with the nature of historical truth and approaches to it, then

A
B
C

all dealing with what historians should write about

etc.

Hope that was coherent/helpful

 

[darek_arsenal]

Thats jus stupid.....if ya set it out in a chronological order u'll get a shit mark.....anyone know how to really set it out....go this exam tommoz?

 

[BronwynKate]

Stories have a real impact if they are started at the end.

Talk about how we regard history now, and then talk about how we got to where we are.

Then talk about at least three other fields you've covered in your course. Connect them thematically rather than chronologically.

Keep the story or theme or big picture in mind. John Howard has a big picture and so should you. Paul Keating was enamoured of the vision thing and so should you be. As a matter of fact talk about black armband history as an extension of the New Right and you should get some marks.

Make sure you have a topic sentence that clearly indicates what you're going to do at the start. They can even be at the middle. Signpost everything carefully.

Use words which are in the syllabus. Like time, continuity and change.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Yeah thematic is the way to go, but you can order your themes chronologically.

So maybe start at narrative history with Herodotus and Thucydides then go on to medieval, religious history with Bede, then go to social history with Marx and finally PM history with Jenkins. Your examples for each can vary but thats how i would structure it.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Thats jus stupid.....if ya set it out in a chronological order u'll get a shit mark.....anyone know how to really set it out....go this exam tommoz?

You seem to be lost.

If you tell a story, you get a shit mark, ie 'We thought history was like this, then they thought it was like this, and this and this...' when what you need to do was be more analytical about how history has changed.

If you just tell a narrative, that's when you get a shit mark, now when you structure something chronologically.

That being said, you should do it chronologically and preferably show how one school influenced the next, what they reacted against, what was new, etc. Like Brucemaster said, you structure your essay by period, but hit the ideas thematically.

In Extension History, you're really expected to move beyond the 'should I structure my essay chronolically or thematically?' idea. If you're a good writer and do plan, you should be able to do both.

 

[BronwynKate]

(I wasn't aware of this - sorry if I led any of you sheeple astray!)

 

[xeuyrawp]

(I wasn't aware of this - sorry if I led any of you sheeple astray!)

That's ok.

I think your first problem came from

Stories have a real impact if they are started at the end.

- Essays aren't a story. They're a piece of analysis.

 

[BronwynKate]

What I know about (hi)stories/essays is what I have read in Montaigne. He was just inventing the personal essay.

This is more of a formal essay, isn't it?

Look at Tony Judt's Europe. Now that is one powerful piece of analysis. I remember now: the book is called Postwar. If you read the chapters about postwar affluence you will feel it in your bones that this guy knows what he's talking about.

What about narrative history then? Is that analysis too?

 

[BronwynKate]

But newspaper articles are stories.

You can't blame me for taking a more ... journalistic/documentary ... approach to history than the HSC syllabus allows.

 

[xeuyrawp]

What I know about (hi)stories/essays is what I have read in Montaigne. He was just inventing the personal essay.

This is more of a formal essay, isn't it?

Look at Tony Judt's Europe. Now that is one powerful piece of analysis. I remember now: the book is called Postwar. If you read the chapters about postwar affluence you will feel it in your bones that this guy knows what he's talking about.

But newspaper articles are stories.

You can't blame me for taking a more ... journalistic/documentary ... approach to history than the HSC syllabus allows.

Look, we'd all love to be encouraging free thought, but this is the HSC. Get over the fact that doing well in the HSC is not about thinking, it's about jumping through the hoops. Get good results by spending a year of your life learning what they want to hear, and then you can spend the rest of your life at uni proposing your own criteria.

What about narrative history then? Is that analysis too?

Like I said, everything is worth-while in history. I'm very liberal with my ideas of history, so yes, I'd say that narrative history offers analysis, but...

Please read the whole thread. My point relates to ESSAYS in extension history.

Last time I checked, you couldn't write a narrative history account for your HSC exam.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Well you could write a narrative essay and im sure some people have u just wouldnt get very good marks thats all.

To answer your question BronwynKate narrative history isnt anayltical in itself but in an essay you would have to analyse its perspective and how it influenced the next school of historical thought.

 

[darek_arsenal]

You seem to be lost.

If you tell a story, you get a shit mark, ie 'We thought history was like this, then they thought it was like this, and this and this...' when what you need to do was be more analytical about how history has changed.

If you just tell a narrative, that's when you get a shit mark, now when you structure something chronologically.

That being said, you should do it chronologically and preferably show how one school influenced the next, what they reacted against, what was new, etc. Like Brucemaster said, you structure your essay by period, but hit the ideas thematically.

In Extension History, you're really expected to move beyond the 'should I structure my essay chronolically or thematically?' idea. If you're a good writer and do plan, you should be able to do both.

Sorry mate, what i meant to say was that it is better to structure ur essay on themes not chronological....

 

[Asheroth]

Sorry mate, what i meant to say was that it is better to structure ur essay on themes not chronological....

What I meant is that of course you should organise your essay in terms of themes and schools of history, but if you structure those themes chronologically then you can show how one school influenced the next, as PwarYuex pointed out.

Thanks for the useless flaming, mate.

 

[HallucinoGina]

What I don't understand.... is..... how have they changed over time???

like..... they haven't.

some people writing history today have exactly the same approach as somebody 100 or 500 years ago... From what i've read it doesn't seem like time to be the factor changing their approach, its just their personal opinions. Then again, i'm having a heap of trouble with extention history so please, somebody, help me!

hehe

 

[xeuyrawp]

HallucinoGina you have raised a very salient point - and a high order of thinking point at that - if I may say.

In addressing this question, it can indeed be argued that approaches to history have not changed as much as one would expect: the perpetual battlefield of human knowledge is always subject to the narrative discourse and context.

For instance, take Herdotus, and let us say, compare him to ... Bede or even Henry Reynolds. Ironically, there approaches to history are the same.... Both are subject to the limitations of oral sources, both have been accused of respective myth making.

Now, even consider Derrida's point (who may I add is a brilliant philosopher of philosophy) - that "The conscious text is...not a transcription, because there is no text present elsewhere as an unconscious one to be transposed or transported". Put simply: "An ineffaceable trace is not a trace". Off course, Derrida should not be used in an History Extension response, simply because there is no way to explain what he's saying in 200 words. If you could, then your able to distill 2000 years of Western philosophy in one paragraph (and that means I would love you, and never never never leave you alone). I've just finished reading some essays on Husserl, in Writing and Difference, and actually concluded that Derrida is not verbose... but quite poetic.

Ad rem, consider Hayden White and maybe even Jenkins as a source of stimulus.

Foucault and G.R. Elton. Foucault extends Carr's points into his concept of 'discourse'. But where are the limitations of Elton's arguement? It appears to me Foucault is a more viable contrast with Elton, than Carr. Both Elton and Carr (ultimately) concede that forensic scrutiny limits relativism. However, Foucault steps in and expounds on what he calls 'appropriation' i.e. knowledge and power relations. But CAN the personal integrity limit such excesses? (This provides a great consideration - whether Bede's power relations against the pagans or History Wars of today ect. ect....)

A Useful Checklist:

1) A great modern Historian involved in debate (think History Wars)
2) Postmodern theorist (Foucault, whose theories are readily applicable to the above)
3) Ancient Historian (Herodotus)
4) Feminist Historian (from a good journalistic, Marxist and/or Annalist background e.g. Anne Summers See the trick? You are utilising three different school of thoughts in one. Whoa, theres a radical idea in itself...)
5) Medieval Historian (Bede)
6) The Enlightenment. The smart option of course would be to use G.R. Elton and relate him to the Enlightenment priniciples.

Also, make sure you dissect the article well, and in a sophisticated manner.... Integration is key. darek_arsenal while you are right to point out the causation resulting from various schools of thought (e.g. look at glaring similarities between the Annalist and postmodernism), you are wrong to suggest that one should conform to this structure. Work on the thematic concerns first and foremost. (Also, make sure you establish a clear thesis and critique to propound your point of view)

In conclusion, if you meeting the requirements of the syllabus, and construct a complex arguement (particularly a poMo one) you should score a top band. Ultimately, the purpose of history is to rectify mistakes, and postmodernism has certainly made us rethink the values and codes on which our society implicitly rests.

Steven Spadijer

That's really helpful, thanks for that.

Reminded me of my exam:

- Postmodernism, alternate modern histories (I think I had a paragraph on reactionary histories (queer, feminism, green) and another on progressed histories (world (/systems) theory, history as alternate texts, modern specialisation vs early modern general histories),
- and the clash with early modern empiricism (Elton in your post reminded me of it),
- empiricism and historicity in the ancients, whether the histories of the empirical model differ from the postmodern model,
- how and why this was transformed from the Late Antiquarians to the Christians to the Renaissance - where did the eastern traditions, which were much older and much more empirical, fit into it?
- historical scope: tradition and the claims of classicists, 'asabiyyah' tradition being outlined in, as examples, the Muqaddimah and Sima Qian, both of which were unbroken chains of empiricism stretching back 3500+ years.

My teacher told us that it would be good if we found a few historical pieces (rather than a historiographical pieces) that worked with us to be used in the exam. Ibn Khaldun worked really well with the source that we were given in the exam -- a reasonably generic text from White & Russell. But yeah, having read working historical examples proved to be really valuable, especially the opening sections that talk about the method and aims of the historian. Khaldun's opening book is, fortunately, quite readable -- I'd even recommend looking at the contents page of the (as yet) untranslated volumes. Sima Qian is, um... one of those works which isn't so gripping. Still, they're excellent historiographical examples showing how hypocritical even historiography students and teachers are.

I think it's really important for your essay to flow, rather than you have static pieces of information which are just plopped together. Having read widely really helps... I still think it's the hardest thing to do with an essay, knowing how to link your information with itself.

{edit} And yes, don't point out that I had too many points - I went 15 minutes overtime with Section I...

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hmm. You have raised some very valid points that are of great interest to me.

Ibn Khaldun, for me, is by far the greatest of the medieval Islamic historians. Which gave me, a rather rad idea: Have you thought of contrasting the Annalist school of thought with that of Khaldun?

I have a research project that I'm currently working on - I wanted to do something which attempted to apply one of the Western historical theories onto Khaldun, but in the end it looked like too much work. =( I ended up rejecting that idea pretty much immediately.

The Kitab al-Ibar is a valuable guide to the history of Muslim North Africa and the Berbers. In his six historical volumes, however, he tends seems to be overshadowed by the immense significance of the Muqaddamah. In it, Ibn Khaldun outlined a philosophy of history and theory of society that are unprecedented in ancient and medieval writing and that are closely reflected in modern sociology (BLING. BLING): Societies (so he thought) are held together by the power of social cohesiveness, which can be augmented by the unifying force of religion (you could even say grand narrative history). Social change and the rise and fall of societies follow laws that can be empirically discovered and that reflect climate and economic activity as well as other realities. This also suggests a correlation with Bede. (Hence, notice the religious motif that pervades the Medieval school of thought?)

Hmm, that's really interesting.

Khaldun loves using history as an explicity moral story. It's certainly an interesting way of teaching religion and philosophy (through example)...

If I can take this moment I'd like to point out what a pity Khaldun highlights for me: While the Middle East was at the zenith of its Enlightenment, the Europeans were hitting each other sticks. Sadly, today that is in reverse. And Western imperalism has now devastated a culture so rich in History. I think it was Khaldun that even said: "Geometry enlightens the intellect and sets one's mind right."

Perhaps Khaldun's point - that a society is continually destroying and rebuilding itself - is a valid one, though?

But what you say is certainly true. The Middle East was seen as just a playground for Westerners between the 17-20th Centuries.

Anyways-
Without sounding ethnocentric, I'd like to give you a warning. History Extension IS a WESTERN COURSE. Meaning that redneck markers will be familiar with Anglo-Saxon historians. And I think it will be safe to stick with this. Consider using historians that are able to meld a variety of different schools of thought into one... (Which reminds me read some Edward Said and stick with the source book of readings)

Yeah, for sure. I should have probably stated that my plan is very misleading in that 95% of what I wrote was typical and predictable. However, I still think you need at least a small paragraph on something unique - but then again, I'm very pro catching the markers attention... Thanks for bringing it up, though, I hope I didn't mislead anyone in that you could just go on a tangent and never return. You need to wait for uni to be able to do that!

And yeah, don't even start me on poor Sima, or pomo, for that matter...

Steven Spadijer

Random question, how do you pronounce your surname?