Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
With history being an incredibly personal term, its incorrect to assume that there is a clear-cut difference between history and historiography . Fords maxim that history is bunk (Ford, 1916), juxtaposed with Porters aphorism viewing history as an important process (Porter, 1975), highlights that defining history cannot be abridged to an orderly solution. Schinkel offers historiography as the process of writing history (Schinkel, 2004), and can therefore be seen as a more subjective concept than history ; this implies history is objective. It is therefore difficult to clearly distinguish a difference between history and historiography , with this being an exceedingly open-ended theme to grapple with.
The inference that historiography must be a subjective concept, with history playing an objective role, immediately distinguishes between the two terms. Historiography as historical interpretation, the writing of history after its events, can easily be misconstrued or constructed towards bias. Whereas, history as facts, leaves little room for the potential of such opinion. St Augustine stated that the historian does not himself produce the sequence of events which he narrates, (St Augustine, 1997), which lends understanding to the notion that history remains a static concept, where it cannot be changed, compared with historiography that can be written subjectively by every historian in their own essence. This is corroborated by Eltons view that [historys] objective reality is guaranteed; it is beyond being altered for any purpose whatsoever (Elton, 1967). History remains objective, where its facts and events cannot be changed or distorted by any means, and cannot be touched. Despite its fragmentation, it remains a hybrid discipline, a cultural subject (Cobb, 1975), whose purpose is to increase ones understanding of and over ones environment (Carr, 1961). This, therefore, denotes meaning to the awareness of history remaining a constant as a symptom of its objectiveness. This is in contrast to historiography , which relies on the approach of the historian in their writing of history and its events. Reliance to the historians approach and writing generates a multitude of views, attitudes, and opinions that interpret the events and periods of history in endless ways. This is why historiography is a subjective term, as it allows for history to be written and rewritten according to the historians approach, view, and personal agenda. Perhaps why such subjective and objective differences are clear, is that history denotes its meaning to people, places, and events in the past, as opposed to historiography which stresses the work of historians across a time scale. There is an emphasis on history as the what, compared to historiography as the how (Schinkel, 2004), and despite historians not unanimously agreeing with this dissimilarity, the acknowledgment of such a distinction is central to this debate.
Arguing between the past and present is part of the distinguished difference between the two terms, that historians are far from united over: it feeds into the overarching difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Empiricists, such as Ranke, argue that history should be written exactly how it was at the time, implying that the past is comprehensible but permanent. Therefore, historiography should not be susceptible to interpretation as historians must simply write events for how they actually happened. This empirical approach argues that historiography naturally has a bias, however, empiricists emphasize that such bias could and should be overcome. The empiricism of this argument fundamentally centers around history as the objective past (Schinkel, 2004), and therefore implies that the historiography for the permanent past opens up possibilities for susceptibility to subjectivity. The historians who foster the skeptical approach, profoundly argue that the past cannot be accessed as it is too vast to be understood (Schinkel, 2004). However, through the acknowledgment that the past is able to exist in the present, the historiography produced by skeptics is largely based upon the remnants and remains available from the past in the present, for example, through primary sources. Hence, the distinction between history and historiography is clearly evidenced here through perceptions of the past and present in their relation to their objectivity and subjectivity. Another approach to identifying in highlighting this difference between the two terms is the pragmatic approach. This approach maintains that the past is real, but although it is inaccessible in the present, historians are able to distinguish its truth. Most historians are likely to fall into this more moderate category, who view interpretations and such historiography as wholly subjective as such interpretations derive from subjects (Schinkel, 2004). History is therefore centered around the past and its concrete facts, giving it its label of objectivity, whereas historiography is open to interpretation in the past and present, and is, therefore, able to be more subjective. Its subjectivity arises from a debate centering around the notion of importance (Schinkel, 2004), with historians subjectively deciding which elements and aspects of history deserve the most attention. Its this idea that lends understanding to the marked difference that can arise from this: if historians subjectively choose their information and sources from their perception of importance, this creates a vast scope amongst historians for the historiography they produce. Fundamentally, history remains an objective constant in the past, contrasted with the endless scope for historiography which sustains its subjective nature.
Its therefore important to distinguish and identify the difference between history and historiography , as there are various approaches employed by both terms that add to the fragmentation of the debate; both terms are vastly different despite a strong correlation between the two. Historiography as a subjective term, existing in both the past and present, is the reason why history can be read and interpreted in boundless ways. Haskells assertion that the writing of history and the writing of fiction are kindred activities (Haskell, 1990), is interesting within the context of this debate, as it creates and strengthens the assumption that history comprises genuine facts, whereas historiography as the writing of history, is a fictional process that detracts value from the facts. The difference between history and historiography matters because it demonstrates how history comprises the permanent past, that cannot be changed, whereas historiography is something that is constantly occurring, allowing us to experience and face alternatives to live that we may not have previously encountered. Historiography provides ever-changing accounts and writings for how things happened in the history of the past (Tosh, 2010), and can only be understood through acknowledging the distinction between the two terms. Those who deny that history provides us without any lessons are in some respect correct, as are those who affirm that history offers a sign of human destiny (Tosh, 2010): as such open-ended concepts, all responses can be argued. However, its the way in which history is interpreted and presented to us through historiography that the latter can provide us with lessons in response to questions and concerns experienced in the present. History s objective nature of the past is therefore distinct from historiography s subjective offering which allows for limitless opportunities in which we can view the past and its associated events.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.