Historiography Overview PDF

Readings Lesson1.A: Historiography: An Overview History as a discipline is laden with controversies which may be due to the interpretation of historians. The historians could be influenced by their personal views, the socio-political, economic and cultural climates they were exposed to, the...

Readings Lesson1.A: Historiography: An Overview History as a discipline is laden with controversies which may be due to the interpretation of historians. The historians could be influenced by their personal views, the socio-political, economic and cultural climates they were exposed to, the methods and approaches they used in the analyses of the historical sources, the availability of the historical sources as well as the very questions they asked. The A2 History: Different American Wests: Introduction to the different schools of historiography along with the specific methods used in creating history as well as how each school of historiography views the source. Some of those included in the list are as follows: (a) Historicists. The Historicists as a school of historiography was developed in the late 19th century. It was pioneered by Von Ranke who introduced a scientific approach in the use of primary sources in the reconstruction of the past. Ranke believes that with the objective study of the primary sources, history can be reconstructed as actually it happened. This school of historiography views that people can learn lessons from the past. This is because of their Free Will, and their Free Will aided them to be in control of their own destinies. The Historicists as a school of historiography is complemented by Positivism as a method of creating history. The Positivists rely on the use of sources for accurate and complete visualization of the past. They view the significant role of sources in the reconstruction of history. (b) Accidentalist. The Accidentalist as a school of historiography subscribes to the idea that behind every historical event are accidents which served as driving force. The focus is more on why the event happened. (c) Intentionalist. The Intentionalist recognizes the roles played by key individuals in history as they were influenced by their intentions and personalities thus, they acted on a particular circumstance which led to the unfolding of history. The intentions and personalities are viewed as a factor that results to historical change. (d) Hegelian. Hegel viewed history as a relentless advancement towards freedom. The Hegelian school of historiography recognizes that behind every historical change are intellectual movements and advancement of ideas. (e) Marxist. Karl Marx on the other hand made used of statistical data to emphasize that history is influenced by exploitation and conflict among social classes. The Marxist as a school of historiography adheres to the idea that every historical change happened due to economic forces. (f) Structuralist. The Structuralist on the other hand believes in the role of political and military structures in shaping history. This school of historiography emphasize that historical events happened due to the existing political and military structures. (g) Annales. The Annales emphasizes social history, and very longterm trends, often using quantification and paying special attention to geography and to the intellectual world view of common people or “mentality”. Little attention to political, diplomatic, or military history, or to biographies of famous personalities. Focuses on the idea of the history of ideologies, world views, and mental structures within a historical context. (h) Post-Modernist. In contrast to the Historicist, the Post-Modernist was developed in the late 20th century. As a school of historiography, post-modernist is strongly influenced by Foucault when he disputed that all sources are biased and incomplete therefore the past cannot be known. The post-modernist subscribe to the belief that all interpretations of history are valid. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, for the longest time, Philippine History was written based on the perspective of the West or written by Filipino historians influenced by the West. Until a group of Filipino historians developed a discourse called “Pantayong Pananaw”. As they explained, it is a communication-based theoretical innovation coming out of the field of Philippine historiography (Mendoza, 2001). (i) Pantayong Pananaw is roughly translated in English as “A For-Us Perspective”. From the perspective of Pantayong Pananaw, language is a controlling element in discourse. It is likewise seen as corrective mechanism. The language is also  considered as a tool in the thinking process thereby results to the development of thought which in turn lead to the further development of language. However, if language becomes a barrier to thought, the thinking process is impeded or retarded which could result into cultural stagnation. The Pantayong Pananaw regard language barrier as a “Great Cultural Divide”. The Pantayong Pananaw further posits that language could even hamper the development of creative thinking, analytic thinking, and abstract thinking because it could influence memorization thereby could limit the learner. It supports Nelson Mandela’s belief “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart”. The Pantayong Pananaw is an evolution from the “pangkami” or the “we-speaking to others” into “pantayo” or the “we-speaking among ourselves. The Bagong Kasaysayan uses a methodology grounded in the indigenous or native conception of history. It refers to history as “salaysay na may saysay”. It focuses on drawing-out the meaning of “saysay” to extract its meaning, sense and relevance of events for a constituent people. Navarro (2008), identified the three elements in teaching history. These are the contents, strategies, and language or medium of instruction. He further pointed-out for effective teaching of history these elements must be congruent and must answer the fundamental questions of- “Ano ang ituturo”- (What will be taught or referring to the content) and “Paano ito ituturo?” (How will be taught? Or referring to strategy). It is important to be familiar with the various perspectives in history specially in the analysis of the narratives for clear understanding on how the historical accounts are presented. This will similarly guide the readers in the analysis thus, may lead to appreciation of a particular historical event.