Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

III. Methods and tools
with an intrst in rading it. What ar th
thos
of this for th historial rord?
impliations
was rordd, for whatvr rason, in
Whatvr
form, w hav only a small fration of
whatvr
lft—tras floating through tim. Historians
it
always ask: whr do ths tras om
must
Who wrot thm, or allowd thm to rah
from?
or may hav faild to stop thm rahing us?
us,
important as ths tras ar, historians must
As
onsidr th asn of tras, th parts of
also
that thy annot s. Historians thrfor
history
to imagin (ys, you rad that right)
attmpt
thy annot s, what might missing
what
th rord, why it is missing, and what it
from
hav shown thm. Post-modrn ritiisms
ould
history argu that this is impossil, and
of
that history is fundamntally prolmati
indd
it is asd on sujtiv intrprtations
aus
this ritiism, Garill Spigl, a historian
To
profssor, and formr Prsidnt of th
and
Historial Assoiation, has rspondd
Amrian
“if txts—doumnts, litrary works,
that:
not transparntly rflt rality,
whatvr—do
only othr txts, thn historial study an
ut
distinguishd from litrary study,
sarly
th ‘past’ dissolvs into litratur” (Spigl
and
How hav historians addrssd this
1992).
This haptr has outlind a fw suh
prolm?
Dmoratizing th disiplin y inviting
fforts.
multipliity of prsptivs, for xampl from
a
notd in I.2, languag and spifially
As
hav playd an minnt rol givn
litray
disiplin’s rlian on th writtn rord.
th
ailitis to undrstand and translat
Thrfor,
hav rstritd ass to th historial
languag
among thos who sought to ontriut
rord,
wll as thos trying to gain knowldg
as
fromit.
Vitorian historian and philosophr, Thomas
Th
is attriutd with th phras: “[t]h
Carlyl,
of th world is ut th iography of grat
history
a lihé oftn satirizd y ontmporary
mn”,
ommntators, ut also rvaling of an
soial
onrn with historial knowldg:
important
individuals in th past hav had oth th
whih
and influn to hav historial rords
intrst
How should w trat ths rords?
writtn?
w s that th mthods of valuation and
Thus
driv dirtly from th natur of
intrprtation
historial rord.
th
II xplord what historial knowldg
Stion
giv to (and tak away from) individuals,
an
and nations—spially in trms of
popls
and idntity. How do w rogniz,
powr
and grasp ths tras of history? Who
find
ass to history and who an ontrol that
has
Th impliations of ass ar profound
ass?
idntity and powr. Ass an lokd
for
ovious ways—onfidntial govrnmnt fils
in
srtiv rligious ladrs that inma gors
and
wll aquaintd with—as wll as in mor
ar
and strutural ways. W hav sn
fundamntal
th mthod and tools usd in history (th
that
in whih it is rordd) an shap what
ways
as history, and who has th han to
ounts
it. rord
instan, only in th past fw dads hav
For
historis n widly rognizd, rordd
oral
inorporatd into historial rords,
and
though Oral Traditions hav n th
vn
mans of intrgnrational knowldg
primary
and transfr for a vast numr
prsrvation
popls around th glo. What might
of
impliations of this for suh ommunitis,
th
trms of thir rprsntation and influn
in
onomi, politial and ultural lif in a
in
9
of tras of th past.
gloalizd world?
non-writtn sours, is on suh xampl.
262