Continuing the debate. Thank you for answering, and apologies to everyone for off-topic.
I've never heard anyone use the term "common sense" to explain something about history. That is just everyday normal life term, althought open to debate whether it is a proof that ideological hegemony exists (I personally see this a little different way, more likely, there are many different ideologies, competing with equal strenght. I've lived in many countries and places and have had to survive with at least 3 "common senses" that were almost opposite from eachother.
I see the whole "what actually happened" issue to be very problematic in history (like you seem too). If I write like Carrs "History of Soviet Union", that is, filtering everything trought my own system of beliefs, then history ceases to be a science and becomes just fiction writing, or propaganda manifestos. And I would be lying, ignoring... basically acting imorally as a historian.
In the other hand, if I'd just copy the sources, without critically observing my own system of selection, I could equally write propaganda manifestos. Just by picking what suits my own way of thinking, the result would be the same. This can happen even unconciously.
While studying still in open university I got better advice on sources than ever in the "real" university I'm currently in (sorry for the postmodern use of quotation marks): When studying sources, find out who wrote it, his/her background, why it was written, for what purpose and how it is connected to other sources on the same matter, and lastly, find out about all possible political events of that period and trends in culture, ways of thinking etc.
After few hundred years of crazy and even crazier theories, I think that this is only thing I can personally do. I'm not a relativist and for me there is a reality - not one sided, of course, but still, concrete reality of what happened. I would never be good enought to find out accurately, nor the people who found out my mistakes and lapses to subjectivity, nor the people who corrected them afterwards. But, gradually, it would be clearer and clearer, what actually happened. Just to aknowledge the importance of scientific study of sources (such as period of working in museum for history students) and the importance of finding out the facts (and not in the 19th Century nationalistic sense, but, I do think we are a little more educated on every matter (except classical languages, sadly) than 19th Century academics. Take medicine of that period - it's nightmare fuel) Facts are the only way to take down purely ideological history writing after all. You cannot really argue with people like David Irving, for an example by saying that writing pro-nazi history is evil. You can only prove him wrong by showing the sources, such as photographs, videos and statistics etc.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-07-24 10:05 pm (UTC)I've never heard anyone use the term "common sense" to explain something about history. That is just everyday normal life term, althought open to debate whether it is a proof that ideological hegemony exists (I personally see this a little different way, more likely, there are many different ideologies, competing with equal strenght. I've lived in many countries and places and have had to survive with at least 3 "common senses" that were almost opposite from eachother.
I see the whole "what actually happened" issue to be very problematic in history (like you seem too). If I write like Carrs "History of Soviet Union", that is, filtering everything trought my own system of beliefs, then history ceases to be a science and becomes just fiction writing, or propaganda manifestos. And I would be lying, ignoring... basically acting imorally as a historian.
In the other hand, if I'd just copy the sources, without critically observing my own system of selection, I could equally write propaganda manifestos. Just by picking what suits my own way of thinking, the result would be the same. This can happen even unconciously.
While studying still in open university I got better advice on sources than ever in the "real" university I'm currently in (sorry for the postmodern use of quotation marks): When studying sources, find out who wrote it, his/her background, why it was written, for what purpose and how it is connected to other sources on the same matter, and lastly, find out about all possible political events of that period and trends in culture, ways of thinking etc.
After few hundred years of crazy and even crazier theories, I think that this is only thing I can personally do. I'm not a relativist and for me there is a reality - not one sided, of course, but still, concrete reality of what happened. I would never be good enought to find out accurately, nor the people who found out my mistakes and lapses to subjectivity, nor the people who corrected them afterwards. But, gradually, it would be clearer and clearer, what actually happened. Just to aknowledge the importance of scientific study of sources (such as period of working in museum for history students) and the importance of finding out the facts (and not in the 19th Century nationalistic sense, but, I do think we are a little more educated on every matter (except classical languages, sadly) than 19th Century academics. Take medicine of that period - it's nightmare fuel)
Facts are the only way to take down purely ideological history writing after all. You cannot really argue with people like David Irving, for an example by saying that writing pro-nazi history is evil. You can only prove him wrong by showing the sources, such as photographs, videos and statistics etc.