When I was attempting to immerse myself in the reading, my understanding of historical inclusivity (not the same connotation as the modern word) was predictably, a little foggy at first. But as I read further, I began to understand it more, and what I was learning called to mind an illustration. As my understanding solidified, it reinforced the illustrations that made the concept of inclusivity more concrete to me and I have included them below. The first part of the illustration could be loosely compared the study of history before inclusivity made an entrance, and the last part of the illustration could be compared to the progress of history by researchers of various stripes who nonetheless utilized inclusivity.
At some point, for one reason or another, everyone has been in a hallway trying to locate a certain door. Most people at one time or another have had to take a chance in either knocking on or opening a door. Imagine someone dressed like a detective quickly tip-toeing up to a door in a hallway and after some hesitation, opening it to the sounds of many voices, all talking at the same time. You might conclude that the room was sound proof since there wasn't any noise in the hall before the door was opened. You might conclude that an interesting discussion is underway and that everyone in the room has something different to say about it. Is it a scandal? Is it a political debate? (Is there a difference?) Is it a raffle?
The person shuts the door quickly and pulls their hat closer to their eyes. Tip-toeing to an opposite door, they put their ear up next to it. They have to assume that this room is sound proof also. They open it to the sounds of several musical instruments being played along with some singing. You hear a guitar, a piano, some percussion and...hopefully not a kazoo. You are able to recognize that the people inside are songwriters, and after a minute of listening to their talk and music you realize that they all have different ideas as to what the exact lyrics and tune or melody should be. It could not be called cooperation or a group effort. The odds are that they are not going to win any record contracts.
When I was thinking about the discussion topic, and as I was reading the material, what I read reminded me of people who all wanted a say in an interesting topic and musicians who had challenges because they did not have the same exact idea of what the music and lyrics should be for the song they wanted to write. Because of the different backgrounds and biases, the historians who were on the scene before inclusivity made an entrance all had different priorities and ideas about history and historiography. It was edifying to read what each of them had to say and why, though of course I could not truly say that the different disciplines that the different researchers used were more effective than what I had gleaned after reading what researchers of all stripes produced after they chose to utilize inclusivity as a potent tool in their arsenal to further historical integrity and to encourage a more fully, well rounded approach in methodology within historiography.
Imagine once more, that the person dressed as a detective tip-toes to yet another door with a dubious expression. They open it to the sound of music and you realize that this room contains another group of songwriters. You can hear true harmony coming out the door along with someone finger-picking on a guitar, light percussion, a violin and a subdued piano in the background. When the music stops, you hear a discussion where different people are not vying to say the most, but are adding helpful suggestions in turn for how the music or lyrics could be better. When they begin once again, you think to yourself, these songwriters could get a record contract! This last group was very inclusive in regards to using their collective strengths to make something better than if they had been doing their own thing. You notice that the person dressed like a detective walks to another door and opens it very slightly and the sound of a discussion can be heard. In this discussion, one person is talking at a time, though there are number of people in the room. Every minute or so, a different voice is heard, suggesting information that seems to come from the particular strength or expertise of the person in question. You notice that the person dressed as a detective is nodding their head as if they agree, at which point, they open the door to the sounds of people welcoming them, and the person shuts the door.
Marc Bloc and Lucien Fabvre in what is challenging to classify as either a lament or an aspiration claim that “one can imagine how many excellent suggestions about methods and interpretations of fact, how many cultural benefits, innovations in intuition, would come to light out of more frequent intellectual interaction between the various groups!” This is followed up with their stated aim. “We aim to challenge these very devastating schisms.” They do not give as much attention to the schisms in question as to their intent and solutions. “We will not use methods articles here and theoretical dissertations there. We will use example and fact.”
James Harvey Robinson stated that, “History should not be as a stationary subject which can only progress by refining its methods and accumulating, criticizing, and assimilation of new material, that it is bound to alter its ideas and aims with the general progress of society and of the social sciences, and that is should untimely play an infinitely more important role in our intellectual life than it has hitherto done.” Up to that point, collective cooperation and inclusivity, if it had even been thought of, had taken a back seat to what was assumed to be the best methods in historiography, which would have been to focus on progress in relation to refining methods or the general progress of society.
Carl Becker's 'Everyman his own Historian' was very edifying. It was involved but not complex, and because he used specific illustrations to go along with his logic, the result was that the information was easily digestible. In some ways he deviated from, well, what I have seen of previous historians, in that the concepts that he discussed were paralleled by how it was applicable to real life and in some ways, at that time, this was considered by some to be a novel approach.
Marc and Lucien Fabvre departed from the interpretation of historians that preceded them by the then novel concept of conglomerating “researchers of various origins and specializations put together but driven by the same spirit of precise impartiality they will offer as the result of their research on those subjects of which they are specialists and that they themselves has chosen.” To these historians, inclusivity meant an expansion of resources in cooperation and a resource to be wisely utilized.
This idea reminds me of the American NBA all-star team. Basketball players who are normally competitors learning to work together for a common goal. And yet, before Marc Block and Lucien Fabrve, historians of different schools of research could, “come into regular contact without knowing each other.” The efforts of Marc Bloc and Lucien Fabrve added a previously unused strength to Historiography regarding the inclusion of researchers formerly, research-wise, estranged from mutual cooperation. Their adoption of this wise course of action was inclusive in nature and also a descent from affirming the interpretative weakness and methods of past historians.
James Harvey Robinson aspired to leave behind the historical narrative whose reason was for the dwelling on of “anomalous and seemingly accidental occurrences” in order to “dwell rather on those which illustrate some profound historical truth.” On the one hand this may not seem inclusive and it's slight vagueness may cause one to question if it is a departure from the past at all. But, the latter seems to harmonize more closely to what we would call order and that would focus more on the big picture. It is also more in line with what he later described as “the general progress of society.” It is less random and more comprehensive in nature. It was a departure because of Robinson's insistence that, “The old must, therefore, be studied quite as carefully as the new.” A view, perhaps, not embraced by very many at that point.
In 'Perspectives-on-history,' (The news magazine of the American Historical Association), the historian, Alexandra M. Lord compares and contrasts how useful historians can be to one another though they be formal historians or informal historians. She advocates treating high school history teachers as useful colleagues to those who are professors. (not a direct quote) This advocacy, in the end, results in a definite refinement of what the collective, or inclusive efforts of researchers of different stripes, working together, can accomplish.
My topic is the French Revolution and after having read the reading, I am going to try to find more secondary sources the I could determine to utilize inclusivity. Up to this point, I had never put history and inclusivity in the same box. So far as I can tell, unfortunately, the event I am writing about occurred before the historians who began utilizing inclusivity in history were born. As such, I can only expect that primary sources on the French Revolution that utilized inclusivity are as rare as hen's teeth. However, I intend to attempt to include further secondary sources that I could say use inclusivity because it seems to me that it will further ensure the historical integrity of my project.
For myself, I will try to ascertain from research which sources are the most concise and to the point. I will use, of course, sources that are primary and secondary. I will try to use sources that show rather than tell what happened. I will use sources that, like Carl Becker, use everyday examples to solidify or illustrate historical concepts. I will not use sources I feel may be of a questionable value or of uncertain origin. It is my intent that anyone reading my essay on the French Revolution will be a little sorry when it is finished, sort of like a good movie when it is over. How will I manage that? Well, I am not quite certain yet, but if I can turn a historical event into something people like reading, it will not be because I have forgotten that I am an aspiring historian, or that I am using proper methods of Historiography. If I can keep to the rules of historical writing and historiography, while trying to be as unbiased as I can and making it a pleasurable experience, and if I can enjoy what I wrote, like a cook who sets a high standard for himself, and who enjoys his food when it is done, I can reasonably expect to have an optimistic outlook.
No comments:
Post a Comment