The “Accepted” and the “Marginalised” of Historical Knowledge — “Whose History?” Part II
- HistoryDSC
- Jan 14, 2022
- 2 min read
Updated: Mar 4, 2022
By Kai Siallagan
This article is the second in a series that takes a critical perspective to the basis of Western history and historiography and the implicit biases therein (see part I here). Specifically, I am addressing one of the ways that Eurocentric biases exist in the basic structure of historical inquiry through what academia deems “acceptable” sources of knowledge. In effect, this article deals with the erasure or peripheralization of histories due to academia's rejection of non-recorded, non-written, or otherwise undocumented sources of historical knowledge.
Firstly, and most obviously, the practice of selective-history-creation produces a systemic barrier to the access of endogenous knowledge in predominantly non-written cultures. As a result, there is often less information available about cultures whose histories and senses of community are not recorded in ways accepted by academic historians (e.g., oral tradition); this practice excludes different cultural methods of understanding history. Not only is this approach to history closed-minded, but it also actively erases historical perspectives that do not conform to the accepted model of historical inquiry. In other words, voices, perspectives, and sources of knowledge that traditionally operate outside of academic conventions may be largely absent from the study of history. Consequently, perspectives about this type of culture or cultural group’s history may therefore originate externally, thereby representing said culture or cultural group through a exogenous and therefore incomplete lens.
This preferential treatment of particular streams of knowledge has its roots in the idea that history is best addressed "scientifically". However, attempting to "rationalise" history into a quasi-scientific field is problematic for a number of reasons. Most relevant to this article is that history does not contain “objective” truths in the same way physics or chemistry does. Of course, there are indisputable historical facts (e.g., “Harry Truman was the 33rd American president”), but history also seeks to analyse the basic facts through a critical lens (e.g., “was Truman’s presidency mainly beneficial or detrimental to social institutions in post-war America? How did his policy impact different demographics in the United States? How does my positionality as a historian impact my understanding of these questions?”). As a result, history is ultimately an interpretation of events, and therefore every person will have a different—and equally valid—relationship to historical events. As such, one would expect heterodox sources of knowledge and understanding to be accepted in historical inquiry, but this is, as stated, not the case; because academic history tends to implicitly rely on subjective interpretations at its very core, it should not attempt to portray itself as a "science" rooted in "objectivity" and "rationalism".*
Critical analysis of the way we understand, practice, and approach history is vital not only to cultural groups with histories beyond what academia permits, but also for historians to build a more holistic understanding of the world and history in general.
*"Objectivity" and "rationalism" in history are, of course, not strictly-speaking "objective", but rather culture-specific terms used to refer to ideas that conform with post-Enlightenment European "rational" thinking and inquiry. This includes the usage of the scientific method beyond the natural sciences, as in history.
"Whose History?" links to other parts:
