History Bump

my vote is for "no"--what he wants isn't that narrative be abandoned but that it be more closely examined, more reasonably presented as what it is--whatever it is (i.e. the different types, modes, etc. that he defines)--rather than as the necessary way of telling any history.

i'd have to say what keeps narrative valuable in an age of skepticism is what's always kept narrative valuable--it's a way of making sense of a complex world. what's important, however, is that we don't take each narrative as indisputable truth, instead recognizing that each truth has many narratives; that there are as many ways of making sense as there are sense-makers.

that might be a too-easy answer to the question you're asking, jen. i'm burning out on his syntax, though, so it'll have to do.

I concur. White borrows from Frye to talk about "conceptualized myths" (58), and if we are to follow this concept, as White seems to,

then in follows that there are at least two levels of interpretation in every historical work: one in which the historian constitutes a story out of the chronicle of events and another in which, by a more fundamential narrative technique, he progressively identifies the kind of story he is telling. (59)

This leads to assertions about history being limited by the ways of telling it (60), and more directly to the Modes of Emplotment of Romance, Comedy, Tragedy, and Satire that fit into White's nifty little four-square world (70).

Oh yeah, and narrative is valuable because it "dictates the mode of explanation that [the historian] will tend to favor," which in turn has a direct effect on production and reception of a particular historical vantage point (66).

White refers to “a ‘narrativist’ explanation of history” (55) -- one of two ways “contemporary theorists have resolved the problem of history’s epistemological status.” In note 12: the ‘story’ the commentators construct after the game. Proponents hold onto this idea as a “contribution to objective knowledge because it can be verified and disconfirmed like ‘science.’ I think White would like us to leave this behind.

But, narrative itself, apart from this formalized term seems to be an inevitable result of interpretation: “there can be no explanation in history without a story, so too there can be no story without a plot by which to make of it a story of a particular kind” (62). In White’s text, some writers circulate in heroically while Ranke seems to be the foil. White also explains that ways that various historians “each tell a different story about the French Revolution (61). White argues against the view that the best history of the French revolution depends on an objective analysis of the ‘facts’ and who explained them most clearly; the mode of emplotment (tragedy, comedy, romance, etc) begins to identify where they are coming from and why they write different stories with the same facts.

i haven't decided yet. and i don't know if my indecision is based on my views of the narrative. i just read joan morgan's manifesto (y'all should check it out, _chickenheads come home to roost_), and it dealt with her perspectives as a self-identified "hip-hop feminist." while most of the text is situated in her "present-ness," she does briefly touch upon the history of feminism and how the movement, at first, was largely a white woman's struggle. she folds in history and makes connections to the present in a narrative fashion. and i don't doubt the credible of her "facts," and i don't question her motives. and yes, i am well aware of how my ethos. i guess i'm holding onto the narrative because in the african-american rhetorical tradition, the narrative has been the way to network, transmit information, and build discourse communities. at this point in my post, it would be easy to segue into a conversation about standards and exclusion, but i'll keep that gem for my project. anyway...

white contends that "the historian must draw upon a fund of culturally provided mythoi in order to constitute the facts as figuring a story of a particular kind..." (60). i'm wondering if he's making room for ways in which those stories can be told.

I don't think abadoning the narrative is necessary. Perhaps my love of literature is coloring my perception, but if history is already filtered through the perception of a "storyteller", than how can we realistically or honestly claim that what we are not dealing with narratives when we talk about history.

Also, in keeping with Elisa's comment, what accomadations are being made for cultural traditions that approach the telling of history in a method other than the ones we are exposed to in academia?

Beyond whether or not it's desirable, I'm not sure abandoning narrative is even possible.

Dangerous: Master-marratives that dictate the nature of life, the universe, and everything (thanks Douglas Adams!).

Useful: I echo Tyra here in citing the imporatnce of multiple narratives. That is, at this particular moment, what most of us seem to be committed to: creating space in academia (and other places) where previously excluded narratives can be shared.

In our current set up, to tell one's story (one's history) is to exist -- and to remain beyond the now. I don't see that changing.