Fact, Theory, and Interpretation: The Enduring Legacy of 19th-Century Historiographical Traditions
R. Rajeshwari
Assistant Professor of History, Thanthai Periyar Govt. Arts and Science College (A), Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu.
Examining the historiographical traditions of Positivism, Empiricism, and Rankean methodology—which predominated 19th-century historical thought—this paper critically looks how Empiricism stressed sensory experience as the basis of knowledge whereas positivism, inspired by Auguste Comte, sought universal rules controlling historical evolution. Rooted on archive study, Rankean historiography sought to recreate history "as it actually happened" free from theoretical influence. These traditions combined objective truth-seeking with subjective interpretation, therefore influencing current historical study despite their methodological distinctions. The paper investigates how these methods produced ongoing discussions on historical objectivity and technique as well as helped historical science grow. Examining their philosophical underpinnings helps this study to expose the shortcomings and achievements of every school as well as challenge the degree to which history can be really objective. In the end, it contends that the choice of data, methodological preferences, and interpretive frameworks by the historian shapes historical narratives thereby contradicting the positivist concept of objective historical reality.
1. Isaac Deutscher, “Marxism in Our Time,” Marxism, Wars & Revolutions, Verso, 1984, pp. 243-255.2. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848, The World Publishing Company, 1962.3. Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991, Pantheon Books, 1994.4. Giovanni Arrighi, Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-first Century, Verso, 2007.5. Wolfgang Hardtwig, “Geschichtsreligion – Wissenschaft als Arbeit – Objektivität: der Historismus in neuer Sicht,” Historische Zeitschrift, vol. 252, 1991, pp. 1-32.6. Daniel Fulda, Wissenschaft aus Kunst: die Entstehung der modernen deutschen Geschichtsschreibung, 1760-1860, Walter de Gruyter, 1996.7. Daniel Fulda, “Historicism as a Cultural Pattern: Practising a Mode of Thought,” Journal of the Philosophy of History, vol. 4, 2010, pp. 138-153.8. John Edward Toews, Becoming Historical: Cultural Reformation and Public Memory in Early Nineteenth-Century Berlin, Cambridge University Press, 2004.9. Friedrich Meinecke, Die Entstehung des Historismus, R. Oldenbourg, 1936.10. Jörn Rüsen, Konfigurationen des Historismus, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.11. Ulrich Muhlack, Geschichtswissenschaft im Humanismus und in der Aufklärung: die Vorgeschichte des Historismus, C.H. Beck, 1991.12. Jacques Bos, “Renaissance Historiography: Framing a New Mode of Historical Experience,” The Making of the Humanities, Vol. 1: Early Modern Europe, edited by Rens Bod, Jaap Maat, and Thijs Weststeijn, Amsterdam University Press, 2010, pp. 351-365.13. F.R. Ankersmit, Sublime Historical Experience, Stanford University Press, 2005, pp. 326-328, 356-363.
