Hallie and I talked on the phone and discussed a number of things related to the text. In reading the text, what struck me the most was that the text itself is a piece of poorly written Rankian history because it has very few cited sources. Why should I believe this historical rendering of history when I cannot verify that any of the historical events that Fasolt talks about actually happened? Why do I believe Fasolt anyway? We deduced that history is, by its very nature, political because in order to construct historical knowledge, one must distinguish between past and present. “To study history is to take a stand, to stake a claim and to oppose real enemies,” (31). My conversation with Hallie also led us to think about subjectivity versus objectivity and of taking a historical position. I related this to my own life in that I am currently getting paid by the University to write a piece of objective history about dating and courtship in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in relation to the automobile. In reviewing both primary and secondary sources, I have found that many of them are somewhat, if not blatantly contradictory and that “how it actually happened” is incredibly complex and is realistically beyond my (and anyone else’s) comprehension.
It is impossible to tell the story of what happened at any given time because even in the present, you are confined to your own perspective and positionality. You must rely on subjective sources of information in order to construct objective knowledge, and this pulls into question the validity of objective knowledge in the first place. In order to produce historical knowledge, I need to take a position and support that position with my sources and as a result my paper will be political whether I want it to be or not. Writing history forces me to draw a line between the present, future and past and it forces me to mention some things at the expense of others in order to construct my argument. Both Hallie and I found this to be a dense and somewhat confusing text, but it certainly led us to both explore and reflect on objectivity versus subjectivity and the nature of producing history.
I appreciate that you and Hallie noted Fasolt's lack of cited sources. I hadn't really noticed that, but it's definitely important. It's interesting how he talks about the fact that written sources aren't the only legitimate sources, but then doesn't even make his own work a proper/legitimate (in the Rankian sense) written source.
ReplyDeleteNot to rush to the defense of my friend, but: what do you mean? Take a look at pages 234-239 (course packet pages 85-87). Not enough sources for you?
ReplyDelete