289 w7q1

.docx

School

University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC) *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

289

Subject

History

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CommodoreIbisPerson330

1. What approaches to historical study does each historian advocate for? What produces the best kind of history, according to Himmelfarb? What produces the best kind of history, according to Scott? 2. How does Himmelfarb critique Scott, and vice-versa? 2. Connected to historical approaches is the idea of the direction of historical narratives, and historical understanding. Some, like Himmelfarb, argue that there should be a single direction for all historical research so that every product will aid in our construction of a master narrative for history, while others, like Scott, support a more diverse and deconstructed approach to topics and methods. The critique of Himmelfarb is that her approach is exclusionary, while the critique of Scott is that her approach limits a holistic approach. Do you think that history should remain holistic even if exclusionary, or is history better in a deconstructed version that is more diverse? Essentially the question is: Do you think that it is better to have a single, unified vision for history, be it either political or social history, even if it omits many subjects, or is a broader coverage of subjects desirable even if the diverse subjects researched and methods used produces a "fragmented" history, with no single topic being deemed the "most important"? HImmelfarb and Scott, represent 2 different approaches to history. Himmelfarb is more traditional and uniform in historical approach, striving to be holistic and Inclusive. The Scott historical approach investigates the emergence of concept and identities as event in need of explanation. “There is a limit, after all, to how often and how quickly historians can “retool” themselves. Thus the older coexists more or less easily with the newer.” 1 Himmelfarb writes at historians call for a revival of narrative, narrative of a single event for a single event. Joan Scott believes politics makes the best type of history as politics in that era shape the we know about the past. 2 And now we are witnessing the 1 Himmelfarb, Gertrude. “Some Reflections on the New History.” The American Historical Review 94, no. 3 (1989): 662. https://doi.org/10.2307/1873752 . 2 Scott, Joan Wallach. “History in Crisis: The Others’ Side of the Story.” The American Historical Review 94, no. 3 (1989): 680–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1873754.

emergence of the newest of the new histories, deconstructionism which threatens to deconstruct new history history together with the old. 3 Himmelfarb and Scott represent two distinct schools of thought within historical study. Himmelfarb leans toward a more traditional, unified approach, emphasizing political history, institutions, and a cohesive narrative. She values a singular direction in historical research that contributes to constructing a master narrative for history. On the other hand, Scott aligns with a more diverse, deconstructed approach, focusing on social and cultural history, highlighting the voices and experiences of marginalized groups. She argues for a broader coverage of subjects and methods, recognizing the value of multiple perspectives and fragmented narratives. Himmelfarb critiques Scotts work as the fact she undermines the fact of reality and objectivity. In a democratic ethos of the new history, no subject, no theme, no questions should take second place to others. 4 The criticism being that Scott prioritizes class and social role over a gender role always, which should not be the case. Scott critiques Himmelfarb about his books titles of “old” history being the traditional way and “new” history style being subversive and illegitimate. 5 similar to targeting newer a new method when it’s created. Himmelfarb states that deconstruction removes the truth, basically implying no conflicting historical records, often a high amount of history is suppressed when she states the “history has always sbeen written a certain way.” 6 Himmelfarb critiques Scott for what she perceives as a fragmentation of history. She contends that this approach leads to a scattered understanding of the past, lacking a cohesive narrative that could aid in constructing a unified historical vision. Conversely, Scott criticizes Himmelfarb's approach as exclusionary, arguing that prioritizing a singular narrative disregards the experiences and contributions of underrepresented groups, leading to a skewed and incomplete understanding of history. The debate between the two revolves around whether history should be approached as a singular, unified narrative or as a diverse, multifaceted field. Himmelfarb's stance might lead to a more exclusionary but potentially more structured and cohesive understanding, while Scott's perspective promotes inclusivity and diversity, even if it results in a fragmented and less unified historical narrative. 3 Himmelfarb, Gertrude. “Some Reflections on the New History.” The American Historical Review 94, no. 3 (1989): 662. https://doi.org/10.2307/1873752 . 4 Himmelfarb, Gertrude. “Some Reflections on the New History.” The American Historical Review 94, no. 3 (1989): 665. https://doi.org/10.2307/1873752 . 5 Scott, Joan Wallach. “History in Crisis: The Others’ Side of the Story.” The American Historical Review 94, no. 3 (1989): 683. https://doi.org/10.2307/1873754. 6 Scott, Joan Wallach. “History in Crisis: The Others’ Side of the Story.” The American Historical Review 94, no. 3 (1989): 689. https://doi.org/10.2307/1873754.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help