In the debates about the nature of history it is possible to identify two alternative accounts of historical works. According to representationalism historical works should be viewed as representations of past events, whereas non-representationalism claims we should reject such an account and analyze historical works in other terms, namely, in ...
(Show more)In the debates about the nature of history it is possible to identify two alternative accounts of historical works. According to representationalism historical works should be viewed as representations of past events, whereas non-representationalism claims we should reject such an account and analyze historical works in other terms, namely, in terms of certain practices – argumentative, discursive or constructive. Although their respective views on the issue of evaluation of historical works are not always explicitly formulated, it is clear the two positions should differ here as well. Advocates of realist versions of representationalism typically prefer those narratives that correspond better to pre-existing past realities. Proponents of non-representationalism, however, cannot embrace the same criteria. In my paper I try to formulate their alternative view concerning evaluation of historical narratives. First, I briefly discuss the main tenets of the two accounts of historical works. Then, I turn to what realist representationalists say about criteria for evaluation of historical narratives. Finally, I focus on two contemporary advocates of non-representationalism and discuss their own views on evaluation. I articulate their alternative criteria and compare them with those of representationalism.In the debates about the nature of history it is possible to identify two alternative accounts of historical works. According to representationalism historical works should be viewed as representations of past events, whereas non-representationalism claims we should reject such an account and analyze historical works in other terms, namely, in terms of certain practices – argumentative, discursive or constructive. Although their respective views on the issue of evaluation of historical works are not always explicitly formulated, it is clear the two positions should differ here as well. Advocates of realist versions of representationalism typically prefer those narratives that correspond better to pre-existing past realities. Proponents of non-representationalism, however, cannot embrace the same criteria. In my paper I try to formulate their alternative view concerning evaluation of historical narratives. First, I briefly discuss the main tenets of the two accounts of historical works. Then, I turn to what realist representationalists say about criteria for evaluation of historical narratives. Finally, I focus on two contemporary advocates of non-representationalism and discuss their own views on evaluation. I articulate their alternative criteria and compare them with those of representationalism.
(Show less)