Chronological order? (2 Viewers)

[sly_skittle]

I know that teachers and the markers always say 'don't answer the question chronologically!!!!' and i understand why you wouldn't do that for 'what are the aims and purposes of history?'
But would i loose marks if i used this format for 'how has history been constructed and recorded over time?'
For 'why have approaches to history changed over time?' i would not answer chronologically- i'd just hop between schools of history and specific historians when there was a connection.
But for the second question i can't think of a form other than herodotus/thucydides then bede/gibbon then empiricism/marxism/relativism and then postmodernism.
Can anyone help me with how i should structure this question?

Also could anyone explain to be a dumbed-down version of postmodernism because i hate how whenever you read about it is says there's no one answer- should i juts talk about it in relation to one or two postmodernists and if so which ones? I'm completely stuck on this section

 

[sly_skittle]

one last thing...
could anyone explain the difference between 'How has history been constructed and recorded over time?' and 'Why have approaches to history changed over time?'?

 

[izzy88]

ok the differences from what i understand about "how has the construction of history changed over time" and "why" is that how is asking you just that...ie. the differences between say the constructions of Herodotus' work and the construction of Von Ranke to me it would include the whole science vs literature debate of history but also things like footnoting, rigorous uses of sources and in that way what sources have been used over time ie. earlier on it was more archival elitist sources being used but with marxist and cultural historians different types of sources are being used such as oral sources etc...does that make sense?

as for "why" it has changed over time you can link that to the changing aims and purposes of history, how history (and for what purpose) it has been used in society eg. politicising like the History Wars or like Marxists who use it to promote a certain ideology. and the "why" is also linked to the changing methodology. "why" interpretations of history have changed over time really include all those questions like aims/construction/metholodoly etc

the thing about the 'what is history' question that we had been repeatedly told all year is that u cant prepare an answer, you have to take the main essence of your essay from the source thats given....so what ive been told to do is to take a couple of elements from the source (about 5) and structure paragraphs around those elements using other historians and philosophies to either argue with that point or against....so for example with changing construction over time you still wouldn't necessarily have to do it chronologcially but thematically say around areas like the use of sources, construction ie. literary vs scientific, footnoting etc

i guess it all depends on the source i mean the question last year was "evaluate Jenkins perspectives" and it gave u a source of Jenkins...

as for a simple way of summarising postmoderism i cant help u there ive been trying to read Hadyn White all day...

sorry if i havent quite answered your question and if it doesnt make any sense and is confusing...i tried...

 

[sly_skittle]

No you made heaps of sense. Thanks!
so 'why?' is asking for a combination of the other two questions- more cause and effect, rather then just effect.
The tip about just choosing 5 aspects of the source and structuring the response around them makes a lot of sense because i try to link with a lot more and it becomes confusing to read.
Thanks!!

 

[black_tongue]

essentially, the reason WHY history has changed is because each historian writing a particular history will be influenced by their own social, cultural and personal situations, i.e. their context.

In a why question you would need to point out that all historians, and all sources that are used by historians, are unavoidably influenced by the context in which they were composed. (a very post-modern stance...)

Whereas in a HOW question you just need to point out the differences and similarites between different historical schools/historians. Choose a few historians that contrast well for a questions like this, for example empiricism contrasted with relativism.

 

[eriiin]

it's easy... read the source, work out what its doing (ie presenting a perspective on history, outlining the debate over what is history, reflecting a historical debate), work out if it's a reflection of modernist/post modernist/whatever ideals, then discuss that, move to a different source, so on and so forth...

if that makes sense :S

 

[claire06]

In relation to the question you have about post-modernism.
I think the first thing about PM is that it's not as complicated as it sounds.
The things you have to remember about it are:
Essentially, it is one philosophy of history that seeks to question the search for and existence of authority in the construction of history. Post-modernists believe that history cannot provide an all encompassing, 'truthful' account of the past. Rather, history is always subjective and 'suasive' (presenting a particularly ideology). This concept has been heavily espoused by Keith Jenkins.
Post-modernists emphasise that an historian's context, purpose, methodology, sources etc have an enourmous impact on the history that is produced, rendering it impossible to ever achieve 'truth' in history. This is represented by the idea that the present shapes the past.
Historians such as Hayden White emphasise the literary and fictive qualities of history, believing that historians rely on 'emplotment' (the type of story that is being told), to give the history meaning to the reader. The types of emplotment are satire, comedy, tradegy and romance, and are innate to the Western literary culture and thus help the responder to shape meaning from the text.
Although PM denies the existence of truth, this does not mean that history is therefore worthless. Post-modernist historians believe that all historians should instead write small or personal histories that encompass many different points of view. Basically, they want histories which use a wide variety of sources but are written about very specific subjects.
Hope that helps!