Real history: stranger fiction?

 During the summer I have read Ken Follets trilogy in which the reader get to follow three families during the 20th century. I did not really read it to learn something new about the 20th century, even though that is always the consequence of reading. Instead I simply read it as entertainment but in the end, I came to think a bit about why fiction is needed to fully write history. 

Starting from some basic level of source criticism it can be stated that Follets writing actually seems to be well researched. Within the areas that connects to my main expertise, I did not found any major errors and the errors that existed can simply be seen as a result of it being fiction rather than fact. The only thing that actually bothered me was that the family portrayed was so very involved as government officials in the development during 20th century which seemed a bit unlikely, but still perhaps Follets point is also to describe the western world history rather than telling a realistic story about a family’s political influence. Whilst the book also have a very Eurocentric perspective it also should be noted that Follet also describes other factors such as class, gender, race and sexuality. Hence it does not become a history in the traditional school history sense, which also is the main benefit of the book. 

There is a sort of common sense understanding in society that history is always based around dudes doing what dudes do, and little notions of the common person. This is a rather boring stereotype, none the least since many curriculums today also have come to include cultural and gender history. Still this old picture lingers on, and perhaps that is due to the difference between academic and popular history. As academics we can never write how people felt or understood their life worlds. Merely because language in itself is perhaps not suitable for writing this down in a journal that I couple of hundred years later can read and understand. Furthermore there is always the layer of sourced criticism, since it is impossible to know how and why a person describes their feelings.

Thereby academic history often becomes quite grey, and perhaps this is also necessary. What books like Follets trilogy on the 20th century however do is to add some flavor to the academic history, thus creating a history more people can understand. To me there is a rather large difference between academic history and fiction, but there is no reason to this being a divide. Instead I think traditional academic history should appreciate writings such as Follets, since they create interest in our studies. Producing history in itself have no value, unless it’s actually read.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The use of history and why historians should mind the gap

Image
 Around two decades ago we can to some extent see how a paradigm hit Swedish history science in full force. This paradigm consisted of studies on how history was used in society and often came with a theoretical luggage from the German and English tradition. After having supervised student theseses on this area I still remain somewhat doubtful as too how students, and historians, often uses these theories. Perhaps this is also due to my PhD-thesis containing a similar approach when it comes to putting the past into neat little boxes. My criticism towards this paradigm is that it have come to be utilised as a way to only package uses of history, rather than what these packages contains. Let us for instance take the form of studying uses of history as narratives or if one so wishes, tropes. The idea here is to study how certain forms are expressed as stories of trauma, grief or “from darkness to light”. What this actually is about in the more theoretical work is to study how history ...
Read more

Contemporary Sexual Politics: Efforts to Silence Sexuality in Politics

Image
Following up on last week’s post, we can ask ourselves where questions of sexuality are being challenged in politics. From a contemporary perspective, I would argue that we are currently witnessing global attempts—particularly from conservative actors—to banish issues of sexuality from public discourse. In Foucauldian theory, we can speak of several forms of the exercise of power. Foucault uses the concept of biopower to analyze social views on sex, capitalism, and power. One of the central aspects of biopower is that it often operates through the individual, who is expected to internalize social norms rather than be externally forced to accept them. Yet, in the case of sexuality, we have over the past decades witnessed rather forceful attempts to silence it, thereby making people unaware of important aspects of their own sexuality. In such cases, the effort seems to lie in banishing "unwanted" expressions from public discourse, thereby limiting the individual’s scope for a...
Read more

Contemporary Sexual Politics: a Background

Image
This is the first part in a series of three posts in which I aim to discuss contemporary sexual politics from a more theoretical and research-based perspective than in my other posts. It forms part of a broader discussion on how sexuality can—and perhaps should—be understood as constituted by a multitude of actors. Therefore, we might not be able to speak of a single contemporary politics of sexuality, but rather of a range of political positions. During the 20th century, numerous philosophers and researchers attempted to write “the history of sexuality,” but the one who has influenced me the most is the French philosopher Michel Foucault. I have actually read all three of his original works on sexuality, but I believe the first book covers the essential foundations for discussing and understanding sexuality. Broadly, this can be said to consist of two levels of particular interest to this series of posts: a) the repressive hypothesis b) the discussion on power/knowledge and the multi...
Read more