1. History as Dialogue
On Online Narrativity
Sheffield 6 Sept. 2012
Chiel van den Akker
VU University Amsterdam
2. history writing
“despite the fact that an historian may “summarize”
conclusions in his final chapter, it seems clear that these are
seldom or never detachable conclusions; not merely their
validity but their meaning refers backwards to the ordering
of evidence in the total argument.”
“the distinctive characteristic of historical understanding
consists of comprehending a complex event by “seeing
things together” in a total and synoptic judgment which
cannot be replaced by any analytic technique.”
L.O. Mink, “The Autonomy of Historical Understanding”, History and Theory,
5 (1966), 24-47, respectively 39 and 42.
3. overview talk
• three not fully satisfactory responses to the question of
online narrativity
• why the online dialogue is an alternative to academic
history writing
4. response 1
“the “book” should no longer provide the exclusive model
for theoretical reflection on narrativity and the production
of historical knowledge.”
“film and other audio-visual media, (..) the visual arts,
museums, and video games as alternative platforms for
shaping and disseminating historical knowledge”.
“Where “emplotment,” “explanation,” and
“representation” were key terms in earlier discussions of
narrativity, these have been replaced by terms like
“interactivity,” “accessibility,” “distributed authorship,” and
“dynamics.””
Ann Rigney, “When the Monograph is no Longer the Medium: Historical
Narrative in the Online Age”, History and Theory, 100-117, respectively 108,
106 and 117.
5. response 2
[1] “a concise account of the subject, available perhaps in
paperback. (..)
[2] expanded versions of different aspects of the
argument (..)
[3] documentation, possibly of different kinds, each set
off by interpretive essays. (..)
[4] selections of previous scholarship and discussions of
them (..)
[5] suggestions for classroom discussion, a model
syllabus, and course packets. (..)
[6] readers’ reports, exchanges between the author and
the editor, and letters from readers.”
Robert Darnton, The Case for Books. Past, Present, and Future, (Public
Affairs: New York 2009), 76.
6. response 3
old narrative new (online) narrative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
book blog, wiki, film, game,
exhibition
linear interactive, hypertext
monographic participatory, collaborative
authoritative personal
panoramic viewpoint collage
continuous discontinuous series
texts hypertext, different and mixed
media
writing and reading communication
7. written and spoken word
“That’s the strange thing about writing, which makes it
truly analogous to painting. The painter’s products stand
before us as though they were alive: but if you question
them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the same
with written words: they seem to talk to you as though
they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about
what they say, they go on telling you just the same thing
for ever.”
Plato, Phaedrus, 275D.
8. elenctic dialogue
“there are two vital aspects of the Socratic dialectic which
transcend the mere attempt to convict a pretender to
knowledge of inconsistency. One is that both participants
can hope to profit; the other is that unlike written
treatise, it represents a process which engenders change.
If it attains its purpose, an elenctic* discussion is an event
in which the meanings of words, the concepts
entertained by the speakers, evolve and are clarified. In
this respect it is a model of every successful attempt at
communication.”
Donald Davidson, Truth, Language, and History, (Clarendon Press: Oxford
2005) 254.
* “elenchus” means “refutation”
9. the argument
The elenctic dialogue provides an online alternative to
academic history writing; it is neither a supplement to nor
a substitute for it.
10. conclusion
“The goal [of digital history] is not to displace argument,
synthesis, interpretation, and understanding in favor of a
celebration of infinite possibility, but to broaden the
participation in a dialogic process of engagement,
questioning, and reflection on answers.”
Michael Frisch in Cohen, Frisch, Gallagher, Mintz, Sword, Taylor, Thomas
III, and Turkel, “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History”, Journal of
American History Vol. 95 no. 2 (2008), 452-491.
12. Type of dialogue Initial Situation Participant’s goal Goal of dialogue
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persuasion Conflict of opinions Persuade other party Resolve or clarify issue
Inquiry Need to have proof Find and verify evidence Prove (disprove)
hypothesis
Negotiation Conflict of interests Get what you most want Reasonable settlement
that both can live with
Information-seeking Need information Acquire or give information Exchange information
Deliberation Dilemma or Co-ordinate goals and actions Decide best available
practical choice course of actions
Eristic [strife] Personal conflict Verbally hit out at opponent Reveal deeper basis of
conflict
Douglas Walton, “The Place of Dialogue Theory in Logic, Computer Science and Communication Studies”, Synthese
123 (2000), 327-346, there 336.
Elenctic Issue Clarify concept and Agreement and shared
understanding understanding
