Is History a Science
Examination number: HJ427 Is History a science? Recently uses of the term "science" have in the 21st century been applied to fields of which are not canonically sciences. One of which being history. The idea of history being considered a science is one, which has been debated since the concept of science historiography was derived by historians such as Niebuhr, F. A. Wolf and Ranke. In order to evaluate whether history is a science or not, it is important to assess how both of these studies work. The question, what is history? Seems straightforward enough an enquiry, but it is often a concept hard to define. History, in the broadest sense of the word can be easily vaguely defined as simply the study of the past. This study is concluded by dates and facts that are put together to creative a piece of narrative history. For example it is a historical fact that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066. This is a fact that we accept without question. E.H Carr defines these dates, facts and figures as the "backbone" of history. History would be nothing without them, they are essential factors in the piecing together of a historical narrative. Whether history can be considered a science or not is debatable. History can however be defined simply as accounts of what happened in the past. This is an absolute truth. It can also be more generally identified as an academic
Is History a Nightmare
'History' Stephen said, 'is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake' (James Joyce, Ulyssess). Is history a 'nightmare' and, if so, is it possible to awake? History has been represented by some as a triumphal march. As a progressive, unlinear, emancipating process. Fukyama, for instance, has heralded liberal democracy as the 'end of history'; while orthodox Marxism also posits a liberating 'end goal' in the form of 'communism'. History is understood as teleological and determined; a dream. It will be argued that history is more accurately understood as a 'nightmare'; as contingent and determined by conflict or struggle within specific networks of power-relations. In this respect, crude, reductive, teleological understandings of history are rejected, in favour of those that analyse history as based on contingent inter-relationships between structure, agency and discourse. Paradigms such as historical materialism, post-structuralism and critical-discourse analysis will be drawn on to show how relations of power and domination are constructed through conflict. It is these relationships which are the 'nightmare' of history; the nightmare of 'power' and the 'conflict' over it.1 Historical scholarship in historicising social relationships, de-naturalises relationships of power and showing the agency of historical actors can act as a critique to past and present