David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
History and Theory 47 (2):200–228 (2008)
This essay examines how and why historiography—defined to mean the study of the history of historical writing—first emerged as a legitimate subject of historical inquiry in the United States during the period from 1890 to the 1930s by focusing on the practice of historiography by three of the most influential American historiographers whose work spans this period: J. Franklin Jameson, John Spencer Bassett, and Harry Elmer Barnes. Whereas the development of historiography as a field of study signified a recognition that historians and historical writing are themselves products of the historical process, American historiographers in this period at the same time used historiography to further a scientific ideal of objectivity that was premised on the belief in the ability of historians to separate themselves from that process. Modern scholars have attributed to scientific historians like Jameson and Bassett a simplistic and naïve positivism; but the ability of these historiographers to recognize the subjective character of historical writing and yet affirm a belief in objectivity reveals that their understanding of historical truth was more complex than modern scholars have acknowledged. In turn, by questioning the belief that the historical profession was originally founded on a naïve faith in the ideal of objective truth, I demonstrate that New Historians like Barnes were more similar to their predecessors, the scientific historians, than they acknowledged. Thus, rather than portraying the shift from scientific history to the New History as a linear trajectory of development from objectivity to a more relativist viewpoint, I argue that New Historians like Barnes at once expressed a greater recognition than his scientific predecessors of how historical writing was the product of its context, while still insisting on his commitment to an ideal of objectivity that divorced the historian from that context
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
J. Hexter (1967). The Rhetoric of History. History and Theory 6 (1):3-13.
W. Stull Holt & The Editors (1940). The Idea of Scientific History in America. Journal of the History of Ideas 1 (3):352.
Charles Crowe (1966). The Emergence of Progressive History. Journal of the History of Ideas 27 (1):109.
Georg Iggers (1963). The Image of Ranke in American and German Historical Thought. History and Theory 2 (1):17-40.
G. R. Elton (1981). ARTHUR B. FERGUSON, "Clio Unbound: Perception of the Social and Cultural Past in Renaissance England". [REVIEW] History and Theory 20 (1):92.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David M. Driesen, Sustainable Development and Air Quality: The Need to Replace Basic Technologies with Cleaner Alternatives.
Aviezer Tucker (ed.) (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. Wiley-Blackwell.
Ranjan Ghosh (2012). Lover's Quarrel with the Past: Romance, Representation, Reading. Berghahn Books.
Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, Achim Mittag & Jörn Rüsen (eds.) (2005). Historical Truth, Historical Criticism, and Ideology: Chinese Historiography and Historical Culture From a New Comparative Perspective. Brill.
Leonidas Zelmanovitz (2010). Money and War in Murray Rothbard's A History of Money and Banking in the United States. Libertarian Papers 2.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #498,770 of 1,792,217 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #464,595 of 1,792,217 )
How can I increase my downloads?