Post by Nephallim on Mar 27, 2009 16:07:23 GMT -8
I'm going to rant, because I feel like it.
There is a trend in historians to apply an "X reading" or "Y critique" of historical events and documents, X and Y being social and political ideologies such as Marxism and feminism. These ideologies often come with unique methodologies which can be useful in the analysis of history that can result in some useful insights. However, there is a certain riskiness in applying modern day ideologies to pre-modern, early-modern, or earlier-than-our-modern events and documents. Viewing history through the lens of feminism, for example, leads one to see spectres of male conspiracy that, frankly, don't exist.
The goal of history is to understand the world of the past. Historians should strive to comprehend historical events and the viewpoints of people in past times. There is an element of the study of history that informs us of how we got to where we are today, but this is done by the analysis of what past people thought. When you go out to apply femist or Marxist theory to these past events, which predate Marxism and feminism, you wind up with a paranoid view of the past. When you do this you're not doing history, but rather doing X or Y.
Thank you... I think that's all I have to say.
There is a trend in historians to apply an "X reading" or "Y critique" of historical events and documents, X and Y being social and political ideologies such as Marxism and feminism. These ideologies often come with unique methodologies which can be useful in the analysis of history that can result in some useful insights. However, there is a certain riskiness in applying modern day ideologies to pre-modern, early-modern, or earlier-than-our-modern events and documents. Viewing history through the lens of feminism, for example, leads one to see spectres of male conspiracy that, frankly, don't exist.
The goal of history is to understand the world of the past. Historians should strive to comprehend historical events and the viewpoints of people in past times. There is an element of the study of history that informs us of how we got to where we are today, but this is done by the analysis of what past people thought. When you go out to apply femist or Marxist theory to these past events, which predate Marxism and feminism, you wind up with a paranoid view of the past. When you do this you're not doing history, but rather doing X or Y.
Thank you... I think that's all I have to say.
