Beyond Narrativism: The historical past and why it can be known

Journal of the Philosophy of History, 2023

Prior to the narrativist turn in the 1970s, philosophy of history focused on action and agency. Seminal pre-narrativist philosophers of history-from Collingwood and Oakeshott to Dilthey and Gadamer-argued that agent-centred action explanation constitutes an irreducible element of historical research. This paper reexamines the agentcentred perspective as one of the key insights of pre-narrativist philosophy of history. This insight has not only been neglected in philosophy of history after the narrativist turn but also fundamentally misunderstood. The paper advances two connected arguments: (i) that the agent-centred perspective is internal to the very idea of historical knowledge, and (ii) that the agent-centred perspective is epistemically prior to retrospective (re)description, which has been the focus of narrativist philosophy of history. In conclusion, the paper contends that the agent-centred and the retrospective perspective constitute two integral and irreducible modes of thought that belong to history.

in The Routledge Companion to History and Theory, 2021

2021

How does history relate to the past? According to leading historical theorists, the relation to the past in history is reducible to evidential, psychological, practical and retrospective concerns. In contrast, this volume claims that historical relations to the past are irreducible products of the logical commitments of history as method. Ahlskog argues that the method of history shapes and enables relations to past in historical research by invoking past perspectives of meaning for rendering reality intelligible. The book provides a much-needed philosophical clarification of key concepts in one of the most fundamental debates within the humanities today. Table of Contents 1. The Primacy of Method in Historical Research 2. Metaphilosophy, Empiricism and the Historical Past 3. Narrativism and the Reality of the Historical Past 4. The Internal Relation Between Practice and History 5. The Presence of the Past 6. The Existential Relevance of the Historical Past 7. Historical Evidence and the Perspective of Meaning 8. Testimonial Knowledge and the Method of History 9. Historical Method and the Limits of Hermeneutics of Suspicion 10. Conclusion: History as the Primacy of Method https://www.routledge.com/The-Primacy-of-Method-in-Historical-Research-Philosophy-of-History-and/Ahlskog/p/book/9780367642907

2020

How does history relate to the past? According to leading historical theorists, the relation to the past in history is reducible to evidential, psychological, practical and retrospective concerns. In contrast, this volume claims that historical relations to the past are irreducible products of the logical commitments of history as method. Ahlskog argues that the method of history shapes and enables relations to the past in historical research by invoking past perspectives of meaning for rendering reality intelligible. The book provides a much-needed philosophical clarification of key concepts in one of the most fundamental debates within the humanities today.

Maurice Mandelbaum and American Critical Realsim, 2010

History and Theory, 2019

Narrativism or representationalism is founded on the idea that historical narratives and representations are 1) true and indivisible wholes, whereof 2) the truth needs to be main- tained, although a narrativist or representationalist whole cannot be confirmed or discon- firmed, and wherein 3) the past is represented in a figurative sense. These fundamental aspects of narrativism have had a positive impact on historiography, but they are also the three reasons why narrativism has neglected historical research and argumentation. To remedy these problems postnarrativism has been evoked. It opts for presentation instead of representation, cutting through all the links between the past and the historiographical product. The product is not a narrative or a representation but a thesis, a proposal to see the past in a special way. The only element postnarrativism wants to retain of narrativ- ism is colligation because it has an argumentative structure based on epistemic values. Postnarrativism leads to knowledge, built on the practice of warranted assertions instead of truth. My postnarrativism chooses a middle course between a strong narrativism and what I would like to call a “weak,” presentational postnarrativism. I agree with postnarrativists that more attention must be paid to argumentation and research. Moreover, I consider time a neglected issue in narrativism. Nevertheless, I don’t want to give up the three above- mentioned fundamental aspects of it. In my view the assumption of truth with regard to (figurative) representation needs to be maintained, but in a pragmatic, provisional form: a historical narrative or representation can be considered as true as long as it has not been replaced by a better one. Retaining truth and holism, but wanting more room for investigation and argumentation, requires that narrativism’s role in historical research and history-writing be revised. This implies the replacement of the usual research phase by a preparation phase, wherein, next to research, space must be reserved for so-called writing activities. Preparation means the conversion of a germinal narrative or representation into an accomplished whole. Holism occurs in two representational forms: a narrative and a representation. In both forms, research concepts and the associated temporalities become visible under the surface of the narrativist or representational superstructure. Keywords: narrative, representation, narrativism, representationalism, postnarrativism, postrepresentationalism, retroactive alignment, continuing entities, ideal types

Rethinking History, 2016

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

2009

This paper analyzes key issues in the work of Frank Ankersmit: narrative, representation and sublime historical experience. It argues that his recent turn to experience marks a shift from an interest in narrative and the textual dimension of the past to an examination of the notion of an experience about the past. It suggests that although Ankersmit is usually associated with postmodernist avangardism in historical theory (narrativism, constructivism), as can be seen in his theory of historical representation, his understanding of the concept of historical experience and the sublime can be seen as regression. Thus, although Ankersmit had pushed historical theory beyond the linguistic turn, his most recent work can be understood as a return to a traditional Romantic view of immediate experience combined with an Enlightenment analysis of it.

Journal of the Philosophy of History, 2021

Up till the 1980s narrativist philosophers of history were mainly interested in the cognitivist dimension of historical narrative. With Hayden White this interest was exchanged for an exclusive preoccupation with the literary aspects of the historian’s narrative representation of the past. However, it may seem that a revival of pre-Whitean narrativist philosophy of history is at hand. Two recent books suggest as much: one by Chiel van den Akker published in 2018 and one more by Paul Roth that came out in 2020. Obviously, a narrativist revival can take two different forms. It may aim at providing pre-Whitean narrativism with a more up-to-date philosophical basis or at guiding it into new directions. It will be argued in this review-essay that the book by Roth mainly does the former, whereas the book by Van den Akker does both.

2020

The post-truth era is plagued by numerous pseudoscientific theories and narratives that took root in various disciplines. History and historical knowledge belong to the enterprises abused today. The output of historical inquiry in a narrative form is often considered as a correct description of the real past from which we may draw normative conclusions about society. However, the endemic plurality of historical narratives and theories presents an opportunity for intentional misinterpretation. This paper aims to sketch a solution to this threatening situation with the help of contemporary philosophy of historiography. It is argued that it is necessary to move from historical narratives to the process of historical inquiry itself. The historiography developed over its existence many useful tools on how to guard itself against various logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and pseudoscientific methodology. The situation of a historian encountering contradictory sources about the same subject is strikingly similar to the situation of an inquisitive person confronted by pseudoscientific articles and fake news. The paper highlights a strong synergy between fully developed methods of scientific historiography and critical thinking that is considered as a possible cure to our current predicament. We should teach history as critical thinking, not as stories.