Hayden White’s Metahistory presents a unique historical-literary
method of analysis. His technique is reductive. White draws together the ideas
of various historians, philosophers and literary critics, using their work as a
surgical kit for dissecting the narratives of 19th Century historians.
From Roman Jakobson and Claude Levi-Strauss, he obtains the “Theory of Tropes”
(metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and irony). From Northrop Frye comes archetypes
in plot structure (comedy, romance, tragedy and satire/irony). Stephen C.
Pepper supplies four paradigms of discursive argument (formism, organicism,
mechanism and contextualism). Karl Mannheim provides ideological implications
which White simplifies to four basics (anarchism, conservatism, radicalism and
liberalism).
While one may look at Professor White’s categories, and
discover areas where addition or subtraction of one or another element could be
useful, the idea of examining historical writing by using literary methods is
sound. Historians do not merely provide chronologies of events. They explain
events. As soon as one takes the purported facts of a chronology and orders
them into a coherent plot, the endeavor becomes literary. It is understandable
that historians would resist a characterization of their work as literary.
Although it is obvious that investigators of history cannot claim to be doing
hard science, they like to think that their writing is based upon evidence;
therefore closer to science than literature. In spite of historians’ efforts, personal
prejudices and influences (social or historical) will affect their work. White’s
surgical kit can be used by students of history as some of the tools to examine
a composition. This provides a necessary challenge to the closed world that a
historian creates in her book; a challenge that keeps the profession honest.
After a highly theoretical introduction, revealing the tools
with which he will reduce a work, White launches into a first chapter that sets
the stage. He presents the ironic scholarship of the 18th Century
Enlightenment. After this, he gets down to the business of parsing the works of
the following century’s “realist” historians and historical philosophers. These
are some of the most fascinating minds of the 19th Century. The body
of the book is illuminating for both the unique methods employed by White and
for the brilliant individuals whose interpretations of history influenced
Western Civilization from their century onward. Chapter Two focuses on Hegel as
a transitional and foundational philosopher of history, ending Part One. Part
Two examines the historians Michelet, Ranke, Tocqueville and Bruckhart. Part
Three examines the philosophers of history Marx, Nietzsche and Croce.
White does an excellent job of avoiding pitfalls that would
distract from exemplifying his theory. There certainly are temptations. It
would have been satisfying to skewer the clownish Jules Michelet whose breathy patriotism
characterizes France, in the first year of the Revolution, as advancing
“through that dark winter [of 1789-90] towards the wished-for spring which
promises a new light to the world,” then calls this development “a miracle.” (White,
p. 151). His one digression from describing Michelet in literary and
theoretical terms is when he comments on “another of those lyrical effusions in
which he [Michelet] offended both reason and science.” (White, p. 157). But occasional
petulance is understandable when examining Michelet. With Karl Marx, it is
always tempting to interject one’s political opinions. But White keeps his head
down and remains committed to his task. “My own approach to the study of Marx’s
thought moves [political and economic] questions to the periphery of
discussion. My aim is to specify the dominant style of Marx’s thought about the
structures and processes of history-in-general…even though one may be inclined
to do different kinds of things on the basis of a belief in one philosophy’s truth.”
(White p. 183).
The work of the speculative philosophers in Part Three
necessarily takes one a step away from physical reality to meditate on the
abstract. White’s addition of literary criticism draws one further away from
applying ideas to the mundane world. For example, when Nietzsche begins
discussing the threefold divisions of the forms of historical consciousness
(antiquarian, critical and monumental), the reader is placed in an abstract
realm where one is no longer looking at the work of individual historians as
applied to a subject in the physical world. Once White adds his analysis of
Nietzsche’s analysis, examining how the three forms relate to metonymy, synecdoche
and irony respectively, we have achieved lift-off and cannot even see the ground
due to the philosophical clouds between our skyward analytical vehicle and
earth. (White p. 351). The same phenomenon occurs when White explains Croce’s
view that “the utterance of any sentence is such that it always changes the
entire linguistic endowment of the speech community” and “each successive word
transforms retroactively the function of all the words coming before it.”
(White p. 390). One must be thinking too abstractly about the importance words,
and not concretely enough about their location in real books, to make such a
statement. But speculative philosophy always runs the risk of losing its
connection to the concrete world.
White’s blueprint for examining the literary aspects of
historical writing is a useful instrument. It permits the reader to see what
cultural devices influence a historian’s prose and ideas. If a narrator has
grown-up within an educational system that offers certain limits on written
expression, those limits will be evident in that person’s writing style. In
addition, the choice of emplotment reveals a historian’s prejudices: If
Michelet writes about the French Revolution as a romance, and Burke writes
about it as a tragedy, much is revealed about their political perspective and
how they are attempting to influence the reader. There are, of course, numerous
metahistorical strategies to decipher the influences upon historians of any
period; just look at the dominant movements, political systems and critical
modes of their times. But White’s focus is of equal value. By the end of his
book, the reader is not only presented with a picture of 19th
Century historiography, but also has acquired a set of useful and innovative
tools with which to microscopically evaluate some methods and intentions of any
historian she chooses to read.
White, Hayden. Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in
Nineteenth Century Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1973.
No comments:
Post a Comment