On a side note, this was one of the more enjoyable blog posts. I also felt that is was EXTREMELY helpful to be able to sit down and talk with someone else about the reading. For me, it really added to my understanding of the text.
As Kate mentioned, one of the first things we talked about was the line between the past and the present, and how in a sort of paradox, the past can be both dead and alive. As Fasolt eloquently writes on page 16, "The past, therefore, is not just to be found in sources preserved in libraries and archives, laboriously deciphered by specialists. It lives and breathes without assistance in every corner of the world, right here and now." Before this line, he mentions that "they stand in a dialectical relationship", a shout out to Hegel. There was another Hegel moment on page 9 ( i think) concerning the world spirit, when Fasolt talks of "a morally autonomous human being taking control of his own fate but making politics and society conform to principles of nature." In turn, this also reminded me of Michael Kohlhaas.
We also noted the Ranke "wie es eigentlich gewesen" (27) quote in relation to the study of history. Can "how it really was" ever be truly discovered? The present mentalite' is always changing, and with it, so does the past. We can only view the past through the lens of our present. There will always be a bias depending on "how it really is" NOW.
The changing of the bounds of history is a radical idea that Kate and I discussed, and one that I personally found intriguing. History used to be defined in religious terms, with the birth and coming of Jesus. History was bounded by the idea of the four empires. But when the fourth came and went, people realized that maybe the bounds of history needed to be more broadly defined, hence the "ancient, medieval, and modern" view of history was born. This change is also seen in art, how for so long, art was strictly religious, but when history became not just bound by religion, art also became not just religious.
This leads to our discussion of evidence and sources. History is not just written, but also oral and artistic. We wondered if these types of history are just, if not more useful than writing, because the meaning is a lot less clear and up for interpretation. Writing is very specific...the writer is very intentional on what he wants his reader to believe or understand. But with other mediums, we wondered if this was the case.
Lastly, we discussed the preface, and how it was/is a new way to view the concept of history. We never had really considered that there was a wrong way to view history. Textbooks are (shockingly!) not always right, as previously learned from Loewen. Fasolt makes three main points on how we view history, and they SEEM to make perfect sense. But he challenges the reader, saying that "their truth needs to be tested."
One of our questions though, that we both found a little confusing, was Fasolt's discussion of subject and subjectivity (its on page 9). Does anyone really know what he means with the sentence starting with "It scarcely an accident that subject is a word we use with equal facility..." ??
I agree that it was helpful to be able to sit down and talk with someone else about the reading. It was helpful to bounce off ideas between each other. Also, I liked how you discussed how the Ranke "wie es eigentlich gewesen" in relation to the study of history. Our group only touched on that topic and I found it interesting what you had to say.
ReplyDeleteIm glad that someone else was thrown through a loop too when Fasolt told us that the past can be both alive and dead. The things that are undiscovered are going to be living until we finally find the sources to discover them. I like the quote you guys used to describe this idea, it adds to my comprehension of it.
ReplyDelete