Postmodernists use the term historicism (coined by Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel) which basically means that any questions or queries about something must be considered within the social context within which the question arises. Much like in anthropology, in which a researcher must be conscious of their own ethnocentrism when exploring another culture, a historian must be aware of their own biases. Ethnocentrism, first used by William Graham Sumner, is,
“a term applied to the cultural or ethnic bias—whether conscious or unconscious—in which an individual views the world from the perspective of his or her own group, establishing the in-group as archetypal and rating all other groups with reference to this ideal. This form of tunnel vision often results in: (1) an inability to adequately understand cultures that are different from one’s own and (2) value judgments that preference the in-group and assert its inherent superiority, thus linking the concept of ethnocentrism to multiple forms of chauvinism and prejudice, including nationalism, tribalism, racism, and even sexism and disability discrimination”[1]
The past is a different social or cultural context within which we engage, and while it might feel like one’s own way of life is the ‘correct’, ‘right’ or ‘ideal’ way because another way of life is different, it doesn’t not make that other way any less valid. Reflection on the potential for biases ensures that historical texts are approached in a manner that limits or removes the risk of the creation of an “us and them” dichotomy which occurs when a person is unable to understand or approach a culture due to tunnel vision because of assumptions they make based off their own cultures understanding of the world and because of value judgements that reproduce negative isms such as racism, sexism etc. This dichotomy is something that has plagued the historical roots of anthropology, with early anthropological thought having helped reinforce the foundations of slavery because of ethnocentric approaches.
The theory of historicism focuses on a specific context, such as a historical period, or geographical location or a specific culture and in doing so uses cultural relativism because it reflects on the inherent ethnocentric biases of the researcher. It is a principle that proposes that an individual’s beliefs and actions should be considered within their own culture. Key to this approach is that no-one is neutral, and that a researcher must reflect on their own biases before coming to any conclusions. In the case of my research, my personal perspective of disability through lived experience could colour my understandings of disability in the past, and so while my lived experience can provide some insight into shared experience, it is still within a different social and cultural context and therefore requires reflection and consideration.
There is a lot of overlap within historicism with anthropological historicism. Within anthropology it rose to prominence when theorists such as Franz Boas critiqued 19th century evolutionist thought, which had suggested that the non-white person were less developed compared to the European white person, and this was used to justify racism and slavery. Historicists rejected this belief and felt that in order to understand a different culture you had to use an emic approach and appreciate the unique history of that culture. This theoretical viewpoint suggests that there is no singular way to culturally develop, but that within each culture or context there are unique routes of development, as such there is no hierarchy with no route to development any better than another route. This led to cultural relativism and rejection of anthropologically reinforced racism that was prevalent at the time.
Within anthropology it has developed further since Boas, and Lacan and Foucault have proposed that each epoch has its own knowledge system, within which people are rooted and interlinked. As such, post-structuralists use historicism (new historicism) to argue that all queries about something such as a primary source must be considered within the social and cultural context in which they are raised, therefore appreciating the specifics of the period in which the primary source originates and striving not to apply modern considerations and reflections to it.
Basically, this places every text within the context in which it was created, acknowledging that it was influenced by the times the writer was living in, the societal conventions and movements specific to their location and how this would impact their world view and therefore their writing. The answer to the question won’t arise from some universal truth, but instead is inscribed within the confines in which the question arose, i.e. the social and cultural context.
A more traditional approach within history to sources proposes that exploration of texts as they are written provides a more or less accurate overview of the past, such as particular events and their overall significance. However, this means that as new information is discovered, history can change, because not all accounts might be true. While updating and revising as we discover information seems sensible, the question that arises in postmodern though is whether it is possible to provide an accurate overview of the past. Postmodernists tend to blur the lines between fiction and fact, with some suggesting that all historical accounts are works of fiction[2]
This is because truth and knowledge are only methods through which power is claimed and maintained, therefore historical fact can’t be fact but is fiction, as Poster has suggested,
“Foucault offers a new way of thinking about history, writing history and deploying history in current political struggles. Foucault is an anti-historian, one who in writing history, threatens every canon of the craft.”[3]
Truth and power are constructions used to enforce and reinforce power structures, but they do not reflect reality, because our reality is constructed by what power we have over others and this is reflected in Foucault’s writing,
“I am well aware that I have never written anything but fictions. I do not mean to say, however, that truth is therefore absent. It seems to me that the possibility exists for fiction to function in truth, for a fictional discourse to induce effects of truth, and for bringing it about that a true discourse engenders or ‘manufactures’ something that does not as yet exist, that it ‘fictions’ it. One ‘fictions’ history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one ‘fictions’ a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth.”[4]
If as Foucault suggests, Knowledge and Power is merely used to claim power over others, then uncovering and exploring history of marginalised people can gain power for them. Within postmodern history, the discipline has moved away from exploring warring nations and individuals, but towards understanding social groups and the institutions of the period. But postmodern history has to be careful to not be revisionist unless it serves a purpose and helps to fill out the picture of the past. Revisionist history empowers marginalised groups, and invariably has an ideological slant, such as feminist history exploring patriarchal structures or queer history exploring the visibility of LGBTQIA+ people in the past.
If postmodern history tends to be ideological, revisionist and therefore activist, it must serve a purpose, and by exploring the injustices of the past, the roots to the injustices of the now can be found, called out and challenged.
My hope is that my research on invisible disability will achieve the same, through the exploration of the past, it can be better understood in the present, and because the personal is political, the exploration is inherently ideological because it is not only personal as disabled researcher but because it questions the binary of disabled and able bodied and queries our current understandings of invisible disability, challenging the knowledge and power inherent within both historical and current understandings of the topic.
[1] Elizabeth Baylor, Ethnocentrism (2012) <https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0045.xml#firstMatch> [accessed 17 June 2019].
[2] Christopher Butler, Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002), 32–36.
[3] Mark Poster, Foucault, Marxism and History: Mode of Production versus Mode of Information (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1984), 73. Cited in Windschuttle, The Killing of History, 132.
[4] Foucault, Power/Knowledge, 193. Cited in Windschuttle, The Killing of History, 151.
PhD Life and Research 