Who owns history part II

 When I studied ethnology as an undergrad at Lund university one of the instructors claimed that the great thing with being an ethnologist
is that their research field as all around them all the time. From a perspective of general history, the same could be said about historians. Humans are always the product of history, consumers of history and producers of history at the same time. Still, this is not something that we possibly can feel in our day to day business. But as I ventured to the UK for the holidays, this became rather evident as much of the tourist attractions often circulates around history, from the rather obvious British museum to more difficult to grasp things as Harrods, where the latter is very aware of its historical heritage in its advertising.

Still what really struck me was my visit to the imperial war museum, which came as rather much as a surprise for me. Given Britain’s long colonial history and its strong nationalistic tendencies I was surprised that it did not really contain that much nationalism. Instead, it told various histories, all depending on your choice of perspective.



Some years ago I read the excellent work of Benedict Anderssons. To me Anderssons approach to nationalism is very interesting since he speak of the national state as a very particular part of history. Overly simplified Anderson claims that the national state arose in a very specific time in history; the 19th century. During this time the very foundations of society were at their upheaval, with the rising workers movement, the collapse of the divine right of kings following the French Revolution and so forth. According to Anderson the national state were created as a way to create social cohersion, since it contained a new framework for were people could feel community in a time where society changed. By creating a mythical past for the population, the threat of revolution could be circumnavigated. One such as way to create social cohesion is rather obvious: by great state run museums such histories could be facilitated.


From Anderson’s perspective, it would hence be evident that the imperial war museum would continue a glorious past of the Britons. When I entered the museum I was therefore expecting a dose of nationalism, which I however only found to some extent. In its galleries on the First World War and the Second World War, it was clear that a history of heroes were told. These heroes were almost exclusively that of a British, white male prepared to fight for the glory of the commonwealth. But in other aspects, the museum contained several anti-war materials, ranging from the opposition to the Falkland wars to modern day Iraq campaigns. 

What this tells us is not that Anderson’s theory were wrong. But perhaps that another aspect is key: it is only when certain amount of time have elapsed that it becomes possible to create myths. WWII is a great thing to present as a story of bravery and the fight for human rights. But it is also a story that was almost eighty years ago. And perhaps what I Really is curious about is which stories that the future will tell of our more contemporary wars. Will the need for nationalism continue? Or will history fill different functions in the future? Only time will tell.

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