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. 2. How does Himmelfarb critique Scott, and vice-versa? 3. 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 Sott, represent 2 different approaches to history. Himmelfarb is more traditional and uniform in historical approach, striving to be holistic and Inclusive. The Investigates the emergence of concept and identities as event in need of explainational. 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 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. As for my perspective, I see the merit in both approaches. A balance between a cohesive narrative and diverse perspectives seems ideal. While a unified vision can provide structure and clarity, incorporating diverse narratives enriches our understanding of the past, capturing a more comprehensive and inclusive historical account. Striking a balance between these approaches could potentially yield a more nuanced and holistic view of history, acknowledging both overarching themes and diverse experiences.

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