Moses-White, mostly questions.

I think I have a hard time reading heavily theoretical debates between historians because I’m not sure what the outcome of the application of the theory would be. Such is the case when I read these articles, given that there seems to be little explicit application by professional historians of what White calls “conscious meaning creation.” While historians today often do not claim to offer a definitive narrative on any particular topic, they would probably say that what they do offer is a more objective and therefore less subjective narrative on a particular topic. But where is the line drawn between the creation of history as myth, history as conscious meaning creation, and history as simply less subjective? Here is where I struggle with what both authors have to say. Though I think it’s important for historians to be aware of their own subjectivity in the creation of meaning (and realizing that meaning is by far more important than knowledge to most people) I don’t necessarily think that it’s fair to conclude that historians must write “morally responsible” history in order for history to be ethical. After all, who determines what is “morally responsible”? While I think historians will inevitably try to practice cultural relativism, I question if one can be somewhat more objective (realizing that complete objectivity is a fallacy) without having a political agenda (conscious or unconscious). At the same time, there is the question: if not morally responsible history, then what? If history is ethical but does not have to be moral then what should history be?

I would like to know how others feel about White’s final line about how it is unfortunate that historians only have professionalized history “to provide insight into the greater existential questions posed by time, aging, absence, loss, violence, and death.” What is wrong with using history as a possible means to answer these questions? If it generates a sense of meaning for people –whether it’s the general public or just professional historians—can we not conclude history is functioning in some relevant way? This ties into the final response from Moses where he is concerned with White’s practical vs theoretical history. To what extent are we as historians responsible for creating a practical history? Can the line between practical and theoretical history easily be drawn? Moses seems to think that we do not have to resort to White’s solution of myth creation and that we can continue to produce and use research methods for history (the implication being that science and empiricism do still have value). Though this research is important and relevant, I myself am questioning the validity of all research-driven history these days. The methods of research and the narratives that are produced from them are a product not only of an historian’s subjectivity but also of a particular time period. Hence, would it not be better to analyze why certain types of history have endured over others?

I also have some questions I'd like to bring in to our discussion, like how can we use these theories to broaden our discussion of history beyond the nation-state and national histories.

Look forward to hearing what you all have to say next week!

~Amanda