The pathway between history and historiography

MUDROVCIC, MARÍA INÉS

Atenas

Conferencia; History of the Twentieth-Century Historiography; 2015

The Pathways between History and HistoriographyMaría Inés MudrovcicUniversidad Nacional del Comahue-CONICETThis paper concurs with the diagnosis of the call for papers of this conference: 1) currently, it is difficult to conceptualize twentieth-century historiography as a coherent subject of study, and 2) the various turns that historiography has undergone from the middle of the twentieth century to the present are related to the ?living experiences? that have occurred outside of academia. That is, there is a connection and interrelation between the various experiences of the century, not only those considered ?catastrophic? but also those arising from feminism or decolonization, for example, and the various ?turns? of historiography. I believe that this diagnosis is correct.My aim in this paper is to explain why this is so?specifically, why there is an interrelation between the experiences of the century and the turns in historiography, between the ?outside? and the ?inside? of academia. I will attempt to show that the present situation of historiography has emerged because the living experiences ?outside? of academia made visible two unseen and repressed presuppositions of historiography since the nineteenth century, when it was first consolidated into a ?scientific discipline?: its practical dimension and the historian?s belief in the rupture between the past and the present. These two presuppositions were considered foundational when historiography was established as an ?objective? science detached from the interests of the present. First, and following the argument of H. White in his article ?The practical past?, I will argue that if we recognize the unavoidable practical dimension of historiography, we can understand disciplinary transformations such as ?gender history? or the ?historiography of decolonization? that accompany ?living experiences? outside of academia. Second, I intend to show how the catastrophic wars and genocides of the twentieth century have contributed to changing our experience of time, of which the emergence of the history of the present is a symptom. This new sub-field of historiography challenges the presupposition of the rupture between the present and the past.When historiography was founded as a science, it contributed to the practical work of founding the new nation-states. As H. White stated, ?Professional historiography was set up (in the early nineteenth century) in the universities to serve the interest of the nation-state, to help in the work of creating national identities, and was used in the training of educators, politicians, imperial administrators, and both political and religious ideologies in manifestly ?practical? ways?. However, this ?practical? function of the ?historical? past was unseen and not admitted by historians, who believed that the type of knowledge that historiography offered was that of the past ?in its own terms?. For historians, the past should not be a practical one, for that would demonstrate the historians? engagement with their present circumstances. If history must be ?scientific? and ?objective?, then historians should not be involved with the present. One attempt to detach the historian from the present interests involved opposing history and literature. However, as White notes, ?the story form imports particular kinds of valorization, most especially of an emotive or affectual kind?, so it must be detached from scientific historiography to repress its inherent practical dimension. The ?story form? was considered only a matter of style without implications for the core of the scientific historical enterprise. Forty years after Metahistory´s publication, however, it is undeniable that we cannot separate the content and the story form in historiography?s account of the past. Thus, the always practical dimension of historiography is exposed. The recognition of this practical dimension of historiography and the historian?s engagement with the present helps to explain why historiography became engaged in the construction of new identities when new experiences and subjects, such as feminism or decolonialism, appeared on the scene of the twentieth century.The second foundational presupposition of historiography as ?science? is that the ?historical past?, the object of historiography, is a past that is not only different but also distant from the present. The rupture with the present and the historical distance allow cool political, moral, and ideological involvements that could close access to the past. However, the world wars and the Holocaust aroused growing interest not only in the context of historiography but also in public space and political debates. The recent past, particularly that of the major catastrophes of the twentieth century (not only the Holocaust but also, for example, Latin-American state terrorism and the GULAG), has led to a situation in which the last third of the twentieth century has produced a new experience of time, which some call ?passéisme? and others call ?presentism?. Historiography is not indifferent to this new experience of time. The eruption of the history of the present challenged the difficult tension between the present and the recent past in historiographical reconstruction. The new living experiences outside of academia, such as the emergence of new subjectivities and the new orders of time of the twentieth century, have helped to expose some underlying and foundational presuppositions of historiography, including its unseen ?practical dimension? and the separation between the present and the ?historical past?. The exploration of this situation can help to explain why the disciplinary transformations in this field of study have had such an effect on the heart of historiography that it is becoming impossible to grasp it as a coherent field of study.