College aantekeningen
Class notes LET-GESB2109-CEH (HistoryInAction)
Class notes LET-GESB2109-CEH (HistoryInAction) completed with in-class assignment and short descriptions of the assigned literature
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 18 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 18 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
HISTORY IN ACTIONexam notes
what to include in the description?
1) title
2) owner (collection, inventory number)
3) producer (year, place)
4) material & measurements
5) iconography (the description of what u see; factual description) > bridge between object and interpreta-
tion
6) historical context (i.e what is relevant?)
tables always include:
1. title (topic, place, period, counted values)
2. titles for columns and rows
3. sources reference
4. with frequency tables also mentions totals
graphs must include:
1. title (topic, place, period, counted values)
2. titles axis (labels)
3. source reference
4. legends
5. cause on the X-axis, consequence on the Y-axis
6. period / time always on X-axis
5 functions of description:
1. producing an account enables the historians to identify the features that interest then
2. help to evoke their object of study in readers minds engaging their audience in a lively manner
3. conveying the materiality of the artefact in question using words to establish its physical features
4. draws attention to the salient features that will be integral to the historical argument
5. a form of sharing, building up a common understanding, not only of specific images n objects but of
ways of talking about, conceptualising n explaining them
discourse analysis —> seeks to interpret a text not with regard to the meaning an author has invested in it,
but rather as a result of the interplay of the various linguistic elements within the text; based on various n di-
verse semiotic n linguistic theories; looking beyond the text itself, looking at the context and the language
used, studying the essence of the text and not only what the text says
method of discourse analysis (by ziemann & dobson)
1. key concepts
2. binary concepts
3. metaphors
4. narrator / reader
5. mode of emplotment
6. reality effect
7. context
checklist of the discourse analysis:
8. what are the key concepts of the source and their connotations?
9. does the text use imbalanced binary distinctions?
10. does the text employ metaphors, and what is their specific function for the arguments of the text?
11. does the sources include references to the narrator and the reader?
12. in which mode of emplotment is the text couched?
13. what is the reality effect of the source?
14. how far is the context important for the interpretation of the text?
discourse analysis approach (“funnel”):
1 of 18
,15. context of the text
• historical situation and political situation; look outside of the text
• context of the platform, audience, author:
• eloquence traditions
• the speaker: who?
• the speech: when? where? what was the purpose of it?
16. the text itself (external features)
• focus on the relationship between the author / speaker and the reader / listener
• what is the desired effect of the text? what does the author expect of the reader?
• what is the genre? how is ti structured?
• does the wording tell us something about the relationship between the author and reader?
• text type: normative? performative?
• audience: who?
17. the text itself (internal features)
• on the level of words (e.g. use of certain terms, metaphors); what is their use?
• on the level of sentences (e.g. agency), text as a whole (e.g. narrative structure)
• highlighted: how is the text structured?
“Why Bother With Method?” Gunn & Faire
G. What are ‘methods’ according to Gunn and Faire?
They are the tools or techniques appropriate to history as a field of study together with ‘methodol-
ogy’ or the larger principles which underpin the tools and techniques, and justify their usage. Methods are
the defining feature of any discipline or field of knowledge.
Method should be understood broadly here to encompass everything from the original framing of the
research hypothesis to the design of the study, the selection of the sources and the manner in which they are
analysed. In other words, method is not just a matter of technique but ‘the way the whole problem is seen’
methods are the intermediate process between theory on the one hand and the sources / raw data on
the other
H. Why should we, as historians, ‘bother with method’ according to Gunn and Faire?
We should “bother with method’ bc the way we study a phenomenon shapes (or may even determine) the
knowledge we derive of it.
it brings structure —> allows readers to understand the text (communication with the reader)
epistemology
method defines your discipline / field
I. In which ways was ‘methodology’ integral to changes in history as a discipline in the second half of
the twentieth century?
these changes in history were attended by a number of methodological departures (oral history, “history from
below”, cliometrics)
one could argue that the social history of these decades was defined by its relationship to new ways of re-
searching & representing the past
connected to social & cultural history with the new movements in history; more of a linguistics approach
impact on the discipline
moves away from the big narrative that was influencing the research up until that point
technological change that influenced the way we make research and do knowledge
J. More recently, certain areas of historical research have been critiqued for their methodology, or
lack thereof. Explain this briefly, in ca. 3 sentences. What areas have been more or less free from
this critique and why do you think that is?
Recently, there has been an increased critique towards certain areas of history like cultural or social history.
This critique stems from the seeming lack of attention to methodology, the over-dependence on linguistic
models and usage of small number of privileged texts as evidence. Peter Mandler has stressed that the ever-
increasing theoretical sophistication in new forms of historical writing has hidden a lack of methodological
precision.
Areas of historical research that have been free from this kind of criticism are economic and demographical
history. This is because in these fields cohesive research methods are still very much required for a scholarly
2 of 18
, work. Both economic as well as demographic historians have been relaying on data and numbers (quantita-
tive method) for years, and they continue to do so.
peter mandler —> argued that an increasing theoretical sophistication in new forms of historical writing has
obscured a lack of methodological precision —> too many fancy words but they don't really make sense bc
there is not methodology —> overcomplicating things is not a virtue
MODULE 1
1.1 “intro to analysing visual & material culture”
Assignment 1
Read Burke and Riello's introductory texts on, respectively, visual and material culture in historical
research.
(a) How do the two authors define visual and material culture? To what extent do you think they differ
from each other?
riello: all the objects of the past that can bring the past closer to us, can be used as evidence of something that
was part of the past; material findings do not constitute research, they r used as raw materials for the
discipline of history n the interpretation of the past; different ways in which material culture
relates both to the “big” concepts of history & to the methodologies through which historians con-
struct their scholarship; artefacts are multifarious entities whose nature and heuristic value is often de -
termined by the diverse range of narratives that historians bring with them.
burke: historians have widened their interests considerably to include not only political events, economic
trends and social structures but also the history of mentalities, the history of everyday life —
> would not have been possible if it was not for the increasing use that is being made of a broader
range of evidence, in which images have their place alongside literary texts and oral testi-
monies.
burke talks about visual culture, images but doesn't elaborate on it that much, later on mentions different
sources - page 13 - paintings, statues, prints
riello doesn't really define it, mentions artifacts, objects, non-written sources etc, makes a difference between
artefacts and visual representations of them (?)
the boundaries r not that clear but they r in fact talking about different things
(b) Burke does not entirely agree with the observation that historians are 'visually illiterate'. Using the
historiographical trends Burke outlines (from antiquity to 1995), discuss why he comes to this observa-
tion.
“the invisibility of the visual” —> “historians prefer to deal with texts and political / economic factors not
the deeper levels of experience that images probe”; historians r not trained to work with visual sources so
they dont incorporate it in their research, rely more on secondary sources etc
disagrees bc:
1) a significant minority of historians were already using the evidence of images at this time (1940s), espe-
cially the specialists in periods where written documents are sparse or non-existent.
2) some scholars working on later periods also took images seriously
3) the paintings in the Roman catacombs were studied in the seventeenth century as evidence of the early
history of Christianity
4) the evidence of pictures and photographs was also employed in the 1930 by the Brazilian sociologist-his-
torian Gilberto Freyre
5) pictorial turn in the middle of the 60s (ppl started to understand the importance of the images / paintings
to uncover history more from the perspectives of the ordinary ppl / marginalised groups bc theres not
written documentations on them BUT there r pictures)
6) 1980s and the “evidence of art” —> a turning point, an increasing use of visual sources n books written
abt visual sources
riello: In many ways, it appears that historians do not feel at ease when dealing with material thing
(c) Which three historical approaches to material culture does Riello distinguish? Briefly explain each
of these approaches using the examples Riello gives, discussing in each case the relationship between
object, method and narrative.
1. history from things:
3 of 18
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper majagierejko. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €7,16. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67163 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen