Repensar la Historia

by Keith Jenkins, Jesús Izquierdo Martín (Translator)

Como en El pudor de la historia de Borges, lo más interesante y luminoso, lo verdadero del libro de Jenkins no es lo que dice sino lo que hace, no es sólo lo que contiene sino aquello que anuncia y está aún por venir.


Como señala Certeau, la autoridad de la que se inviste el relato historiográfico intenta «compensar lo real del cual está exiliado (...) juega con lo que no tiene, y extrae su eficacia de prometer lo que no dará».

Ante esta tensión paradójica entre los presupuestos epistemológicos de la historiografía contemporánea y las exigencias disciplinares, que podría conducir a la autodisolución del conocimiento histórico, Keith Jenkins propone una nueva mirada, abre una posibilidad a este aparente callejón sin salida, siguiendo la más escrupulosa lógica historiográfica: el saber histórico tal y cómo lo conocemos es un producto de la institucionalización de la disciplina en el siglo XIX, es el resultado de un contexto histórico específico.

Los cambios que se han operado desde la segunda mitad del siglo XX han provocado y están provocando transformaciones en nuestra forma de entender y de aprehender el pasado. El fin de la historia que conocemos dará paso a nuevas formas de conciencia histórica y ésta promete nuevos e insospechados saberes.

Genres: History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, Academic, Grad School, World History

113 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

About the author

Keith Jenkins is a British historiographer. Like Hayden White and other "postmodern" historiographers, Jenkins believes that any historian's output should be seen as a story. A work of history is as much about the historian's own world view and ideological positions as it is about past events. This means that different historians will inevitably ascribe different meaning to the same historical events.

Jenkins is professor in history at the University of Chichester.

Reviews

[Malakh · Rating 3 out of 5]

En este pequeño libro de Keith Jenkins, que ha sido descrito como «breve, barato y polémico», el lector podrá introducirse al pensamiento posmoderno aplicado al estudio de la Historia, expuesto mediante una serie de argumentos que no conducen sino a conclusiones absolutamente desoladoras. Comenzando por el final, las consecuencias lógicas de las ideas de Jenkins le llevan a aseverar que «podemos abandonar la historia ya», pues es algo que se encuentra «a punto de caducar». La conciencia histórica no constituye una necesidad y carece de utilidad en nuestra época, por lo que no tiene sentido continuar bajo la tiranía del «discurso histórico».

Keith Jenkins es uno de los mayores exponentes de la teoría posmoderna de la historia junto a Hayden White y Franklin R. Ankersmit. La base de este pensamiento es la crítica incisiva tanto de las construcciones metanarrativas del discurso occidental como de los métodos historiográficos aplicados por la academia. La Historia no puede ser concebida como una disciplina que busca el conocimiento real del pasado, pues ello oculta su verdadero ser como una práctica discursiva que permite que, desde el presente, nos dirijamos al pasado y lo reorganicemos según nuestras necesidades. La palabra y el mundo se encuentran absolutamente desconectados entre sí, por lo que la verdad no se descubre, sino que se crea.

Esto es para mí lo esencial de esta obra en particular y del pensamiento posmoderno en general: la negación total y absoluta de la existencia de un criterio de verdad. La verdad no es sólo inalcanzable, como trata de demostrar Jenkins, sino que además es innecesaria, pues no representa más que la clausura de las interpretaciones («la verdad actúa como un censor que establece los límites»). La verdad no deja de ser una «ficción útil» que sirve como herramienta del poder para ejercer su control y establecer «regímenes de verdad» en los que la libertad es cercenada por la imposición de este criterio.

El argumento parte de su distinción entre la Historia y el pasado en sí mismo. El pasado sería todo aquello que ha sucedido anteriormente, mientras que la Historia respondería al conjunto de relaciones entre el pasado y la historiografía, es decir, el discurso pergeñado por aquellos que interpretan el pasado. Por tanto, ambos conceptos se sitúan en categorías diferentes y entre ellos media un abismo ontológico, que será la clave para demostrar que existen razones epistemológicas, metodológicas, ideológicas y prácticas que provocan que la transformación del pasado en historia sea «problemática» o simplemente imposible.

De esta forma, el historiógrafo británico toma partido en contra de toda forma de conocimiento que pretenda poseer la verdad. La pregunta inicial (¿Qué es la Historia?) deja de tener sentido y es reformulada (¿Para quién es la Historia?). La Historia es un conjunto de prácticas reguladoras, ejecutadas por trabajadores posicionados y cuyos productos están sujetos a una serie de usos y abusos que se corresponden con las bases del poder existente, por lo que existe «para alguien», como discurso o «campo de fuerza», ya que nunca es en sí misma ni puede articularse de manera inocente. Para Jenkins, la historiografía no ha reflexionado sobre sus propios presupuestos metodológicos, y ello ha producido un atraso relativo frente a otras áreas del saber representado por «el fetichismo del documento, la obsesión por los “hechos” y la metodología del “realismo naíf” que lo acompaña».

Naturalmente, no es difícil entrever las consecuencias que este tipo de pensamiento implica para la Historia como disciplina. Si bien Jenkins en principio defendió la posibilidad de una Historia de tipo posmoderno, finalmente acabó por adoptar una postura antihistoriográfica, por la cual consideraba necesario deshacerse de la totalidad de las historias, incluyendo las propuestas historiográficas posmodernas. El «escepticismo reflexivo positivo» se tornó en nihilismo teórico, como no podía ser de otra manera. Para el autor, «el relativismo moral y el escepticismo epistemológico constituyen los fundamentos de la tolerancia social y del reconocimiento positivo de la diferencia»; sin embargo, a lo que conducen es a la erosión progresiva de la labor de enseñanza e investigación de la disciplina. Ante el descarte de la verdad y el hecho real por imposibles se produce la inviabilidad del análisis del pasado, relegando a la Historia a un conjunto confuso y desordenado de microhistorias, memorias y relatos inconexos.

En definitiva, un libro recomendable para todos aquellos interesados en las nuevas corrientes historiográficas y que busquen comprender las consecuencias que el pensamiento posmoderno supone para las distintas áreas de conocimiento. Escrito en un lenguaje sencillo y elaborado de manera concisa, los argumentos se expresan sin rebozo y en el caso de la segunda parte, en forma de preguntas y respuestas. Además, esta edición incluye una entrevista al autor de la que podemos obtener una mayor información sobre el desarrollo de su pensamiento.

[Viola · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lai gan uzrakstīta 1991.g., daudzi jautājumi par vēstures teoriju, faktu interpretācijām, vēstures vietu postmodernajā pasaulē utt. Ko lai 21.gs. darīt nabaga vēsturniekiem? Neviens tā īsti nezina...

[Mrinalini Greedharry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jenkins classic 1991 text about doing history in the postmodern world is, as the many endorsements in the front pages attest, valuable for its remarkable clarity in setting out why it matters that we give up our common sense notion of history and think seriously about the implications of post-modern and post-structural theory for doing historical work. It is a text that I would definitely use to teach undergraduates, and it is squarely aimed at walking them, intelligently and sensibly, through their most likely reservations. (What about bias? What about empathy and having a ‘feel’ for the people you write about?) It is also useful, though, for those at more advanced levels who are starting to think about historiography and philosophy of history, laying out key questions and arguments in such a way that allow you to take your reading of Jenkins book with you as you start reading Hayden White and others for yourself. For the intermediate or advanced student of history, there is very little that is new for you here, but it is a useful way to reference a whole line of thought. Although you might not like Jenkins’ conclusions about the task of the postmodern historian, it is a logical extension of his view of history and a meaningful attempt to answer the question ‘what now?’ from inside his own intellectual context.

It is worth noting that the book emerges from a very British context, by which I mean that Jenkins is writing in relation to a British way of doing history (and a British way of not doing postmodern history) that doesn’t necessarily reflect developments in other academies. That shouldn’t stop you from reading his book, or taking his reflections seriously, it just means that you probably won’t be able to transfer his conclusions across—in exactly the same form—to how history is done, and has responded to post-modernism, elsewhere. The interview with Alun Munslow that precedes the text in this second edition, is also helpful in historicising the original. What is particularly interesting about the context of this book is that it emerges from the practical problem of teaching history to undergraduates profoundly disinterested in problems of methodology. The result is a polemic, as he admits, but it is the generous forcefulness of a teacher who believes in his subject, not a rant.

One further thing to note, especially for students of literature, is that Jenkins claim English literature has been far better and examining its nature as a body of knowledge than history has been (referring in the main to work by Tony Bennett and Terry Eagleton). As a reader trained in literature, I find that claim rather extraordinary, but it is an interesting reflection of how our insider/outsider status in any given discipline shapes our view of the field.

[Melanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

History is the written account as perceived by an historian. It is the historian’s quest to learn what has passed and why it is significant. The historian is tasked to give the past meaning; thus creating an historical narrative. Some historians, such as Keith Jenkins, question this narrative and its validity as being the “factual truth”. Jenkins posits the idea that the ability to recreate history is a myth. His philosophy is that the real truth of the past is unattainable. To elaborate, an individual might think they are learning the facts of what happened during a point in history, when in reality the reader is absorbing the historian’s perception of the facts and thus the author’s relation to the truth. Two historians may look at the same facts, but their training and experiences that they have may heavily influence the narrative that the historian writes. Consequently, the reader is left to wonder whose “truth” is correct. Jenkins does not believe this situation to be defective. He argues that each different reading can add to the general understanding of the past as a whole. Jenkins states that “to be in control of your own discourse means that you have power over what you want history to be rather than accepting what others say it is”. This view is liberating for the field of history and its scholars; for it allows an historian to deconstruct the history of another and thus incorporating their interpretations to the academic discussion. In the meantime, historians must recognize that there is a certain subjectivity to be found in each historical narrative. Jenkins continues that this viewpoint “consequently empowers you, not them”. Future historians now have the power to question historical writing of their predecessors. Although the truth will never be ultimately recreated, each historical narrative will add to the canons of history and thus continuing the quest of better understanding the past.

[Pieter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not a historian, but rather an enthusiast.
In this booklet, Jenkins argues that there is a difference between history and the past.
Apparently, the consequences Jenkins drew from this were controversial in 1991.
I have no idea if this is still the case.
The booklet is a reminder that whenever you read about history, there is always an interpretation made by the author or historian.

Regarding the text itself: Jenkins overuses parentheses, subordinate clauses, and slashes. It's very irritating to read. A good editor could have improved this.

[Alberto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Estimulante lectura acerca de los debates posmodernistas en la historiografia, los cuales, aunque no se esté de acuerdo con ellos, plantean siempre cuestiones interesantes sobre el cómo y el desde donde se escribe la historia.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brief and polemic, this is a fascinating read that will definitely be on my mind as I read other history texts and works. It challenges the work of historians not as studying scientifically the past to get to some sort of true interpretation (which is stated to be a contradiction itself) that could be called History.
Jenkins starts by making this distinction between past and history to show that the discipline of history is actually historiography as it deals with creating interpretations from texts and traces from the past. He brings up the epistemological and ideological issues about this work but also the real human issues that show up as this historiography is made by humans. The book explores how ideology and power is used to determine which is the valid interpretation.
This work also approaches questions about empathizing with past peoples, the nature of Truth and how far back you have to go to actually form a discourse of cause and effect.
It ends on the matter of how to make history in this post-modern world. On this point it brings up many of the issues that post-modernism's critics use as the moral relativity and the how dismissive it is about science and the truth, but I believe the conclusion that Jenkins wants us to make is similar to the approach Nietzsche had to nihilism. After you destroy morals or the modernist discourses about history you shouldn't fall into a nihilistic post-modernity stance where everything is valid, nothing matters, but you use this newfound freedom to construct your own discourse aware of its shortcomings and where it stands along the existing metanarratives and ideologies.

[Imran Rasid · Rating 3 out of 5]

Researching some stuff on the historiographical debates in SEA has brought me to this book. Post-structuralist versus Objectivist/ Intellectual pluralist dbate in history is relatively recent, and jenkins, among Aluns Munslow and others, has been one of the few key persons in challenging the existing historical writing method.

It's quite hard to accurately situate the debate within the broader disciplines of knowledge. Was it a philosophical territory or should it lies in the terrain of social theory? Or should it be another form of historical inquiry? Jenkins does not situate this clearly, but he heavily relies upon European philosophical tools to construct his anti-essentialist arguments. The book was meant to be an introductory to a postmodern/ postructuralist history and how one can reinvent the tellings of the past in a new way.

[Dan Gorman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good points about revisionist postmodern history, taken to ridiculous theoretical extremes. There's no possibility of ever determining truth? Knowledge is about power? Empathy is solely based on ideology? There's no such thing as science? OK, Jenkins, sure....

[ada · Rating 4 out of 5]

I managed to find most of my concerns/questions about history/historiography in a 70 page text. Only wish that the text were longer and the writing clearer in some parts, but still a good read for any student of history or person interested in history, really.

[Lee Watkins · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting, punchy delivery of post-modernism's applications to history. Has the habit of changing how you look at things.

[Reader2007 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historiography.

Completely post-modernist. 5 stars for a good argument and really forcing you to think. Although quite painful to read!

[Luna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short and interesting read. Lacks in depth though.

[Justin P · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jenkin’s book could be overlooked as another historiography meant only for professional historians. I’d encourage a layperson to read it simply because the book won’t take up much time of their – it's only 80 pages. Or the book gets shelved after a reader realizes that its author, Jenkins, stands as a post-modernist critic of truths. Some people in society may be shunned for touching a book that questions historical facts. But "Re-Thinking History" offers a moment for fans of history from various worldviews to reflect on changes they’ve seen while reading or hearing about recent historical debates.

Jenkins claims that all historians bring a baggage of social and political views to their study of the past. That is to be expected by a post-modernist critic. Jenkins makes some interesting tongue-in-cheek claims that both identify various viewpoints and deconstruct those viewpoints into relative possiblities. (As an example, Jenkins fails to convince me about political left/center/right of historians' views with the following gibberish: “Here we immediately see that the center is not really a center of anything. [...] For shift the left/center/right ensemble anywhere on the spectrum and see how the center is not so much de-centered as the whole concept becomes problematic: a spectrum cannot have a center.”) I’ll ignore the poor arguments and inconsistencies because they’re not dependencies for the more interesting reflections in the book.

Readers are provided a useful categorization of the political spectrum that Jenkins argues is latent in historians’ interpretations. Critical readers should be able to detect the following when reading any historians’ work:

1. Emperical right – like G Elton, history as objective truths found in the past
2. Marxist left – like E.P. Thompson, a socially constructed view of the past
3. Emperical center – like A. Marwick, a recognition of “interpretive flux” in interpretations that can be minimized by tight methodological rules

Jenkins argues that it makes no sense to accuse a historian of bias, such as their political views, in a pejorative way. For example, to accuse a feminist historian of bias towards one sex and alignment with a political party that is pro-feminist is obvious and not necessarily negative, say, when their history is studying women of the past. Jenkins accepts historians' biases because he argues that social formations have biases and history is about society. That’s not to say bias should be simply swallowed whole. Biases should be identified to avoid misleading the naive reader and consumer of history. Essentially that warning is the easy take-away from Jenkin’s book.

To better inform consumers of history, Jenkins outlines the practice of history. Historians biases, as I just previously summarized, are the 1st category. The list of components for the practice of history are:

1. Historians' baises, ideologies, values
2. Epistemological presuppositions
3. Historical procedures and methods
4. Archival work, scholarly reading, and other research with historical materials
5. Production of the interpretation

The list seems non-controversial, especially #4, but Jenkins dives into the challenges with epistemological presuppositions as key concepts of history that affect interpretation.

Jenkins categorizes the methodological framework as one based on presumed, common concepts. These include the often seen and repeated concepts of space-time, evidence, cause-effect, continuity-in-change, etc. These “heartland” concepts of history were codified during the 1960s by scholars like Steel. Steel categorized the concepts of history as:

1. Time
2. Space
3. Sequence
4. Judgement
5. realism

These key concepts of history are not universal, Jenkins argues, nor based in objective meanings. A critical example is time. Western historical tradition interprets time as a linear progression of events (that makes a strong case for cause-effect but a challenging case for continuity). Native American oral tradition interprets time as a spiral of events that progresses towards nothing (yet still supports cause-effect and easily supports continuity). Jenkins' counterexamples to the commonality of these concepts are historical interpretations that some readers have probably encountered recently, including: dominant-marginal, structure-agency, etc. So these concepts are not common but changing. The example of time may seem trite, but it is a critical point that affects interpretation of the past.

Jenkins gives the example of how much time and evidence warrants cause-effect analysis of the French Revolution that started in 1789 -- assuming a linear progression of events. Is evidence from 1783 sufficient? 1714? 1648? For people in the US, the poignant example being debated by some historians is the founding of the country. Is evidence from 1776 sufficient for how the US was formed? 1619? 1607? 1492? The observant reader of US history will note how contentious the dates 1619 and 1492 have become in recent historical interpretations that superficially arrived by re-examining evidence in ways that fundamentally shifted from political and social changes in the US. Historians reinterpret the same evidence by expanding or contracting the timeline.

This problem of time and evidence will not go away because time stretches into the past as far back as the historian will accept evidence (though I’d add that, practically and normatively speaking, history ends with pre-history.) There is no defined, rigorous method about how much time or evidence is required in historical reinterpretation. So the historian arbitrarily splices time into chunks based on the interpretation of evidence that supports their biases. This is a critical realization for anyone reading history, but Jenkin’s argument is debatable.

Jenkins book shines light on how key concepts in the practice of history have various meanings and implications, and that the political spectrum and social formation of historians alters the interpretation of the past. Now what? It may appear Jenkins has deconstructed the study of history, like a good post-modernist. Indeed Jenkins admits that his book deconstructs traditional, or empirically certain, history:

“As far as I am concerned the benefits of this [that the past can be represented in many historians’ mode and tropes] are obvious. To work in this way is to adopt a method which deconstructs and historicizes all those interpretations that have certainist pretensions and which fail to call in question the conditions of their own making;”

This deconstruction may rub people the wrong way but fundamentally it recognizes that each of us, historians or amateurs, can – and should – ask follow up questions. Even the most rational, empirical person should feel comfortable critiquing their historian. If questions are shunned, then even a liberal conservative does have a valid complaint to levy against the socially constructed nature that Jenkins advocates. Are empirical certainists dictating a culturally normative history of the dominant class, or are relativists authoritatively saying that re-centered voices of oppressed classes should interpret the past? The book cannot answer that question, yet Jenkins gives plenty of food for thought to the critical reader who has noticed reinterpretations of history.

Jenkins provides his readers hope by advocating that we should demand more transparency of our historians. He suggests that:

“[...] you are given an explicit analysis of why the history you are getting is the one you are getting and why you are getting it in the way you are not in any other.”

Jenkins doesn’t recommend that readers rely on the prototypical, hefty bibliography in the back of a historian’s book for verification of “good” history methods. Instead, readers (and doers) of history should feel safe in asking anyone interpreting the past what that historian believes, which biases they hold, and how they view our world. The answer to those questions may determine what kind of history you will get.

[A. B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brief overview and introduction to historiography and history in the post-modern age. Many interesting concepts and criticism of the 'traditional' way of writing history. In the first third of the book, the author defines what history is and is not; making a sharp distinction between the past and how we write about it. History as a discourse is necessarily inter-textual, subject to the analytical, methodological and ideological influences of historians. Contrary to liberal discourse, there is no single 'pure and unbiased' position from which we then descend into the ideological world (as the Platonic inheritance would have us believe); but only ideological points of view with no centre. And these ideological points have of course, changed in the course of time and place.

The dominant way of doing history is again inter-textual. What universities teach us is to reproduce the ideological style and way of writing that is dominant, and this is what peer review and academia boils down to. In the second part, the author thus analyses some core conceptions of the academic way (like truth, 'facts vs. values', bias, emphathy, causation) and explores their relativity in history as a mere language-game.

In chapter 3, the development of the postmodern world under late capital is analyzed, where all hierarchies and values are overturned in favour of relativism, pragmatism and exchange-value. Thus, post-modernism is the 'last great gambit of capitalism to defeat opposition, contestation and change.'This is the fundamental pastlessness of our age, where all that seems to occur is an endless flow of insubstantial simulacra. History can thus function as a 'discursive practice' to go to the past and organize it around our needs- producing fresh insights to meet the present (for all history is contemporary history).

Hence, the author concludes by outlining his view of how to do history in our time: utilizing both a reflexive methodology and more histories of histories (always historicize). We also need a self-conscious awareness of our ideological position, and an explicit analysis of the same (this however still assumes a liberal unbiased centre, which is a difficult concept to escape from, even as we acknowledge the relativity of our own worldview). What we need are more 'histories of the present', how the cultural and discursive elements that shape us today themselves took shape. This would change our entire relationship with the past. as the sceptical and reflexive methodologies would help us understand the discourses that shape us, and not solely the events.

[Matthew Devereux ∞ · Rating 2 out of 5]

OK. When I studied history at university I kind of felt that everything was interpretation, to paraphrase Nietzsche, and that history wasn't the objective recording of facts without values. So, for example, I always took the supposed fact that Hitler came to power in 1933. On the one hand this can be seen as a verifiable fact of history. But on the other it relies on all sorts of assumptions - what, for example, is 1933 but a particular number in a particular calendar system that could be different in an alternative way of measuring time (imagine, for example, we measured it from the billions of years since the Big Bang and so he didn't exist in 1933 at all - or imagine if the Big Bang theory is wrong and time is timeless or exists all at the same moment or something bonkers); and what, precisely, is "taking power" - in this case it applies to becoming the formal Chancellor of Germany, but what Germany is and what a political office is, and what is involved in the concept of "taking power" are the result of trillions of interpretations built upon interpretations. And in many ways this is the thrust of Jenkins's polemic - that historical writing relies upon the ideological worldviews and Weltanschauungs of the historian and that it isn't some objective process of recording how the past actually was. But now, at the grand old age of 56,491,388 years old, with my university days long behind me and now feeling a bit like the Jurassic period, I am starting to come to the conclusion that, while intellectually interesting, there actually is such as a thing as a historical fact and that an appraisal of things approaching truth can actually be made to some extent, limited only by the limits of human consciousness and comprehension, and that while facts may rely upon values which are questionable and contingent they actually do exist - so Hitler did come to power in 1933, and not 1934, or not 1932, after all - and 1933 corresponds to a particular time, or moment in spacetime, even if you could write it as 13.81933 billion after the Big Bang or whatever it would be. So in other words, I have come round to the view that there is an objective reality and that while our interpretations are always subjective to a degree because of the limits of human knowledge we can attempt to get close to that objective reality through judicious analysis and that is, indeed, the purpose of historical writing. So, overall, I find the book interesting, but ultimately not entirely convincing. Others, inevitably, will disagree.

[Niandra Lades · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written book, demonstrates general issues which, then, apply to itself as well. Some generalizations are too broad, and it seems the author manipulates the central idea of his book through usage of epistemology, yet refuses to recognize "truth" as a justified belief - and this is what not-so-postmodern historians are talking about when they lay out their "proof" - justifications of their cases. Jenkins wants to show these can be no absolute truths, but we all (except people like von Ranke back in the day) understand that well, the court also understands it well but still sends people to prison. Some of them are innocent, and it's sad to think they pay the price of the necessity of accepting to sacrifice a certain amount of precision for the sake of simplicity when we get into translating reality to systems - legal system, or a historical one.

Some objections to tradition are grounded, and I give it a 3.5/5 because of the respect for the way it was written - I think it's witty and I can appreciate Jenkins for his courage in 'coming-out' as a post-modern man himself, which shows he is willing to be sincere about things he wants us all to be sincere about - what are we actually representing or trying to defend?

However, while I do applaud him for finding his way, I'll be taking the highway. I find his logic lacking, and his final appeal not to take radical relativism to heart very hard to seriously consider. A good read.

[Güney Yazar · Rating 4 out of 5]

“History” is not a window into the past. It’s a mirror we hold up to ourselves. Jenkins understands that. Most historians don’t.

As someone obsessed with truth empirical, testable, multidimensional truth. I approached Re-thinking History expecting frustration. But what I found was a welcome challenge.

Keith Jenkins does what most historians fear: he pulls back the curtain on the profession’s illusions. He separates the past (which is gone, inaccessible, and fragmented) from history (which is constructed, narrated, and always political). He’s not saying we abandon historical inquiry. He’s saying we stop pretending it’s neutral.

He reminds us that “evidence” doesn’t speak. It’s interpreted. That archives are not time capsules they’re curated silences. That writing history isn’t about truth per se, but about structure , rhetoric, and persuasion.

As a doctor, I know theories shape interpretation. Jenkins applies that logic to the humanities. And while some of his postmodern impulses go further than I would (relativism has its dangers), his core message is one I respect: if you don’t acknowledge your assumptions, they’ll control you anyway.

The writing is accessible, though intellectually dense. It’s not a blueprint but it’s a philosophical pulse check. One that many historians desperately need.

[Isabel Schmieta · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the mere 85 pages of Jenkins’ text, he seems to be rather redundant and thus has a hard time being concise. Though the topic is rather interesting and quite thought-provoking, I had a hard time following his arguments because he either kept repeating and referencing what he said previously. Additionally, he also frequently made references to historians and philosophers, as well as historical events, assuming that the reader was familiar with these names and events; perhaps it is because I am not a historian, but without context, it made his points a bit unclear - and sometimes I felt like I was thrown back into my philosophy courses, suddenly getting an overview of Marxism and the bourgeoisie. And after having read all his critiques and anxieties about how history and how we view it is problematic, I feel like I wasn’t given some form of a solution - perhaps that’s the point. I will definitely look at sources I use for me research more critically thanks to Jenkins, so I guess it was worth the read.

*This was read as a part of my Senior Colloquium Thesis course.

[Lauren · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great introduction to post-modernist views of History. In a nutshell: that power struggles within historiography define what will be considered valid and "true" knowledge regarding the past; the past as unknowable (oh dear); History as allowing for infinite interpretations; History as a democratizing force; post-modernism as ironic and skeptical - might be working with the forces of capitalism to delegitimize new voices that are writing their own history OR/AND might lead to the emancipation of those groups.
I would recommend all my History students read this short book (find your History! define yourselves! don't consume discourses that legitimize an unequal world!) however it might be too tough without prior knowledge/reflection on post-modernist theory. I did love it.

[Mike Bright · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a skeptical, deconstructionist, and post-modern review of historiography (how people 'do' history). Although Dr. Jenkins claims it is not all negative, it sure feels that way. I agree that many of his points are worth considering when doing history, but at the end of the day I think it is possible to write reasonable and useful histories - I don't think Dr. Jenkins agrees.

It is also interesting that Dr. Jenkins says anyone writing history ought to acknowledge and declare their purposes, methods, biases, etc. However, when Dr. Jenkins does some history in the last chapter he doesn't do any of those things. Yet, he expects us to use and learn from his historical narrative.

I'm glad I read this, and think much of it is useful. However, I disagree with the overall conclusion.

[Tom B · Rating 2 out of 5]

Described on the back cover as 'a must for history students a all levels' and 'written in an informal style'. I have to strongly disagree. This is a highly academic text, written in a distractively verbose style. For someone who is casually interested in history and reads history books to learn and be entertained, this text offers nothing. Yes, the author makes the difference between past and history perfectly clear, and the best chapter of the book is the first one, but chapters two and three go on incomprehensibly about topics that don't concern the casual consumer of history, nor, I would argue, aspiring undergraduate students of history.

[Rylee · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work, although short, I think is an essential read for any historian. It shows that the study of history can never fully reach the "truth" or complete objectivity because history is a narrative. I found it especially helpful when Jenkins described the difference between the past and history (not the same thing). The past is the events that occurred, history is the discipline tasked with retelling what occurred. It is formulated and therefore not exempt from power structures or bias.

[Lucy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Read this for one of my grad school courses, I was foaming at the mouth the entire time. Jenkins’ passive tone gave me and some of my classmates the idea that history is meant to be studied as theoretical rather than based in evidence; diminishing the value of primary sources. Although I agree that many historical interpretations are built from a bias, these biases still come from evidence and recorded information.

[Drew Tschirki · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite interesting. History =/= the past, but it is how the past is framed. There are countless frameworks and theories as to how to interpret events. Grand narratives have been dissolved and epistemological certainty eradicated. “Along with and for the same sort of reasons as Hayden White, I see moral relativism and epistemological skepticism as the basis for social toleration and the positive recognition of differences.” (68) I would have to say that I agree.

[Ali Kheyri · Rating 1 out of 5]

بی نظم و سطحی....ضعیف ترین اثر پسامدرنی که تا به حال خوانده ام.... تکرار بی روح چند جمله و قضاوت های سطحی و شتاب زده... نویسنده نه شالوده شکنی را درست فهمیده نه حتی فوکو را.... نویسنده یک ایده مرکزی دارد که گذشته با تاریخ متفاوت است و بعد از آن مدام به تاریخ کلاسیک حمله میکند... و تکراری و ملال آور است....

[Jude · Rating 4 out of 5]

A succinct and engaging introduction to the key questions and problems of the nature of history, the debate around it today, and how it interfaces with postmodernism.

Can on occasion be a bit obtuse but then that’s postmodernism for you! Generally this is highly readable and condenses ideas and arguments into a digestible text.

Solid read, highly recommend.

[Montse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muy interesante reflexión sobre cómo se ha entendido y se entiende la historia como disciplina, incluyendo el análisis lingüístico en la construcción del discurso histórico y las relaciones de poder que lo sustentan.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This field is a ‘field of force’ because in it these directions are contested (have to be fought for). It is a field that variously includes and excludes, which centres and marginalises views of the past in ways and in degrees that refract the powers of those forwarding them.

[Kylie Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

If this doesn't scream "I'm in grad school now" I don't know what does! Gets a little too wordy and theoretical at times, and while it's definitely important to recognize the interpretive nature of history I'm not sure I agree all histories should be treated equally.