Interpretation and History (Modules 12, 16)

Wednesday, June 18; Friday, June 20

Amel Ahmed (University of Massachusetts)

What is historical interpretation? In one sense interpretation is a part of all historical analysis. Typically we cannot observe history directly; we learn of it only through documents and artifacts that we have to make sense of. Historical interpretation is not separate from other modes of historical analysis but lies on a continuum. Emphasizing the interpretive aspects of historical analysis means that we do not take at face value the documentary evidence of history we encounter. We question the text as well as its source, we compare narratives, placing them in their historical context, we look for silences and gaps in evidence, as well as voices that may not be heard as easily. Importantly, we also interrogate our own objectives in questioning history and examine the ways in which they may shape our own narratives. Historical interpretation shares with other interpretive methods the search for meaning in subjects’ actions and utterances. But with historical interpretation, the distance of the researcher from the subject matter produces distinctive epistemological challenges and requires a methodological orientation aimed at achieving understanding without the possibility of direct engagement or immersion. In this module sequencecourse we will grapple with some of the dilemmas of historical interpretation including reading history, questioning history, analyzing history, and writing history. We will also engage with enduring epistemological debates about the nature of historical inquiry as well as the challenges of discerning historical lessons.

Participants may enter the module sequence after it has begun, but their doing so is discouraged.

Interpretation and History (M12, June 18)

8:45am - 10:15am – SESSION 1: What is history?

The first dilemma we encounter with historical interpretation is the question of history itself. Is history a set thing in the past or is it a story we tell about the past? Are historical facts found or made? Answers range from traditional historicism (history is there for us to discover), to various forms of constructivism (history is made from the things we discover), and poststructuralism (history is fiction), with many different points in between. We engage with some of these issues in this session with a view to understanding what is at stake in our conception of history and how we might incorporate elements of different views in our own thinking.

Required readings:

• E. H. Carr, “The Historian and His Facts” in What Is History? (Penguin, 1961), 7–30.

• Michel Rolph-Trouillot, “The Power of the Story” in Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (Beacon Press, 2015).

Suggested readings:

• Michael Sawyer, Black Minded: The Political Philosophy of Malcolm X.( London: Pluto Press, 2020) Introduction.

• Linda Tuhiwai Smith. “Imperialism, History, Writing and Theory” in Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. (London: Zed Books, 2021), 21-65.

1:30pm - 3:00pm – SESSION 2: Questioning History

When we turn to history, we seek to understand the past, but our questions invariably come from the present. Therefore, historical interpretation must begin with an examination of our own questions. Where do our questions come from? What are they intended to do? Would these questions have been relevant for the context we seek to examine? Grappling with the questions helps us better orient ourselves to the subject matter and account for the theoretical priors and empirical expectations we have going into the research.

Required readings:

• Max Weber, Excerpts from The “Objectivity” of Knowledge in the Social Sciences and Social Policy” (1904) in Shils and Finch eds. Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences. Section II, pp. 63-85.

• Thomas Kuhn, “The Route to Normal Science” in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1962) 10-22.

Suggested readings:

• Thomas Kuhn, “The Nature of Normal Science” and “Normal Science as Puzzle-Solving” in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), 23-42.

• Ido Oren, “Political Science as History” in Dvora Yanow and Peregine Schwartz-Shea, eds. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. London: Taylor & Francis, 2015.

3:30pm - 5:00pm – SESSION 3: Reading History

Often the most important source of innovation in historical analysis comes from questioning the received narrative, or the dominant understanding of historical processes as it has been transmitted through the social scientific literature. But how do we do that? Typically what we know about the subject matter comes from the prevalent narrative in our field. Often, the first step is rigorous historiography – looking for alternative interpretations that may have existed previously, looking for competing narratives, challenging each interpretation by questioning the interpreter, and placing the text in its historical specificity. We ask: What kind of narrative is this? Is it a Marxist account, a liberal account? What are the consequences for our own reading of history? Rigorous historiography will often reveal different and competing narratives and we must also consider how to weigh different accounts, including the thorny issue of who has epistemological priority.

Required readings:

• Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8, no.1 (1969): Section II, pp. 22–30.

• Charles Mills. 2007. “White Ignorance” in Race and the Epistemologies of Ignorance. Sullivan and Tuana, eds. Albany: SUNY Press.

For in-class exercise:

• Alexis de Tocqueville, “On the Social State of the Anglo Americans” in Democracy in America. New York: Library of America, 2004 [1835].Chapter 3, Vol 1.

• Francis Grund – Aristocracy in America. From the Sketch-book of a German Nobleman. Vol. 2. (London: Good Press, 2023 [1839]) Chapter 1, Vol 2.

Suggested readings:

• Sarah Maza, Thinking About History (University of Chicago Press, 2017), Ch. 1 and 6

• Joan Wallach Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (1988; 2018 edition)

Interpretation and History II (M16, June 20)

8:45am - 10:15am – SESSION 1: Analyzing History

Often, we are not just reading history but also using it to make an analytical argument. Within the canon of social science history there have been many approaches developed to leverage historical analysis for scientific knowledge. We will consider three in this section: comparative history, which gravitates toward variable-based nomothetic analysis; the evaluation of ideal types, which offers a more open-ended mode of historical investigation; and geo-history which aims to uncover deeper historical structures and processes. All three approaches reside within the family of comparative

Required readings:

• Charles Tilly, “Comparing” In Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, (Russell Sage Foundation, 1984), 60-86. .

• Fernand Braudel, Excerpts from Civilization and Capitalism (1979), v.1: 23–29, 559–563; v.2: 21–23, 600–601; v.3: 17–20, 619–632.

Suggested readings:

• Max Weber, Excerpts from The “Objectivity” of Knowledge in the Social Sciences and Social Policy” (1904) in Shils and Finch eds. Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences, pp. 85-112.

1:30pm - 3:00pm – SESSION 2: Writing History

Writing history requires us to construct our own historical narrative, involving varied and seemingly infinite choices about what to include and what not to include. In addition, we must consider: How much (and when) to use secondary vs. primary sources? How much to simplify? How do we offer a credible and convincing account given the things that we must omit? How do we avoid the dreaded “one thing after another” trap? Moreover, writing history is often not a discrete stage but involves a back and forth with reading and analyzing, between theory and evidence. This also presents methodological challenges in terms of how we examine our theoretical propositions. While there is not one single answer to these questions, nor a single historical narrative that will capture history in all its dimensions, being conscious of the choices we make and the basis on which we make them can help improve the rigor and quality of our writing.

Required readings:

• No readings for this session. Instead, bring to class an historical narrative that you have written on a topic of your choosing. This can be something you have written before or something you write in advance for this exercise. In class you will have some time to annotate your narrative identifying the choices you have made (for example, your choice of questions, cases, sources, which pieces of evidence to include, what is excluded, do you focus on specific historical figures, social actors etc). The goal will be to reflect on and discuss how these choices shape your narrative. We will also discuss strategies to make historical writing more effective.

3:30pm - 5:00pm – SESSION 3: Historys Lessons?

With historical analysis always comes the temptations, promise, and pitfalls of “historical lessons” – the attempt to draw from history parallels, analogies, or models to guide action in the present. How to wield history responsibly has been a matter of considerable debate. In this section we consider several perspectives, from the more conservative to the more critical, and examine more carefully what we might make of history’s lessons.

Required readings:

• Max Weber, Science as a Vocation

• W.E.B Dubois, “The Propaganda of History” in Black Reconstruction

Suggested readings:

• Marc Bloch, On the Historian’s Craft (Vintage, 1964)