As Kelley and Natasha have noted, reflexivity can allow historians to offer the reader an understanding of the historian's gaze. Like Kelley, these readings brought to mind Geoff Eley's A Crooked Line. More specifically, the debate in my historiography class as to how well Eley "gets away" with what some might call excessive reflexivity in his work. Eley's discussion of theoretical trends in history as an autobiography of sorts resulted from his attempt to fully disclose his political and personal proclivities, giving his readers a better understanding of his subjective approach to his subject. Our class's discussion over Eley's book remains embedded in my mind because it summarizes the debate over finding a balanced reflexivity in regards to historical research and writing.
Both Natasha and Kelley emphasized the importance of historians realizing and admitting their subjective position while conducting historical research. My historiography class's discussion focused on how reflexivity can be "used well." Essentially, the fundamental issue is that there is no consensus on how much the historians should write themselves into their narratives. Some of my classmates felt that Eley's approach benefited his reader by making his involvement with the material and his personal biases transparent. Others (myself included) felt that while acknowledgement of one's subjective position is important, excessive reflexivity forces historians' into a mode of writing that resembles "personal journals" and limits the historian's ability to convey meaning and engage his/her subjects through the text. Our class discussion demonstrated the lack of consensus on how reflexivity could be "used well" and how the concept of reflexivity incites a search for a balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment