reading 9 - historiography and archives Flashcards
chapter 3 - the critical analysis of historical texts
the lay of the land
you need to identify the main works dealing with a particular topic bc their arguments provide the framework within which you can at least begin to work out your answers to historical problems
two methods:
- article-based method: look for review articles, articles related to the subject you’re interested in and reviews of books that deal with that general topic
- use computerized search engines - book-based method: standard computerized library catalogues (outside of your home uni catalogue) -> start with subject words or important figure -> go to “long display”/full view -> click on links for subject headings -> repeat + save progress including call numbers -> look where they cluster and research there -> look at bibliographies of books
- general surveys r good: written y senior scholars on request bc they are experts -> are familiar with relevant scholarly literature
other techniques:
- dissertations: have excellent bibliographies + sections discussing the literature
- syllabi for courses related to your subject, especially when taught by well-known figures
also useful: when searching in catalogue, at “bibliography”
- most important published bibliography C20 international politics = Bibliographie zur Zeitgeschichte (German)
!!all you want to do is develop a sense for what a particular area of scholarship is like: what important works are and (if possible) what arguments they make
chapter 3 - the critical analysis of historical texts
textual analysis: the method explained
method to react to arguments and to weigh them against each other
-> better able to understand evidence when you know what it means
in short:
- identify the heart of the argument
- try to understand the structure of the argument
- see what is to be made about the argument in terms of its internal logic and adequacy of evidence supporting specific claims
______
- develop sense of the overall argument of a particular historical text (look in titles, introduction, conclusion, first and last paragraphs)
- get sense for the structure/architecture of the argument: core arguments and specific claims and evidence they rely on
(look at road map passage at end of the intro) - read actively: with specific questions in mind + think of how passages relate to larger argument = assess central argument, don’t spend to much time on marginal relevant passages
- questions about the logic of the argument (do various pieces of the argumentation fit neatly in one broader argument?) + nature/adequacy of the evidence (does it prove what the author say it proves? is there enough evidence? -> pay attention to the footnotes)
chapter 3 - the critical analysis of historical texts
AJP Taylor and the origins of WW2
goal book = explain the origins of WW2 (sept 1939)
answer to this q = in concluding passage: war was over Versailles
-> investigate what he means by this
Taylor highlights that German unity was central to the treaty of Versailles
core argument = essential problem was political, not moral: Germany was so strong that nothing would prevent it from overshadowing Europe, even if they did not plan to do so
assumptions: regime type not fundamentally important (in foreign policy Hitler changed nothing
Hitler, in Taylor’s view, was simply a medium through which basic structural changes—fundamental shifts in the structure of power—produced their effects.
Hitler did not make precise demands, he waited for the weakening of the European system
validity:
- claim that not even Hitler’s orders could stop the Austrian Nazis not backed by reference or footnote
- Czech crisis: Taylor contradicts himself, at one point he says that tension built up without Hitler’s guidance, in another chapter Hitler played an active role in guiding the nazi’s by appointing their leader Henlein
- he contradicts himslef on more areas: sometimes talks as German policy is merely to make it the greatest power of Europe, othertimes it took goal of creating it in the east quite seriously
- in course of one paragraph Taylor goes from saying Hitler was committed to war to saying that he was probably not intending war at all
still: you can learn a lot from the book = take seriously the fundamental idea that the problem was political not moral (bc this is against conventional view before the book, Taylor just pushed it too far)
it is a powerful theory, but has its limits
main lesson to draw from the exercise is that indoing historical work in this area, you always need to strike a balance. Powerrealities are of fundamental importance, but statecraft also has a major im-pact on the course of events, and in doing history both invariably have to betaken into account
chapter 3 - the critical analysis of historical texts
Fritz Fischer and the origins of the first world war
debate: relation between war and aggression (one being started by the other)
many scholars belief WW1 was a war of (German) aggression + cite Fritz Fischer
two books, key chapters = about the immediate origins of the war (July 1914 crisis)
-> read with questions in mind as: did he actually claim that German gov deliberately engineered a major European war, how did he support this?
- “war which the German politicians started in July 1914” + war attempt to defeat enemy powers before they became to strong
- assasination Franz Ferdinand as opportunity for war against France and Russia
Fischer’s argument = testable: claims that German gov had decided in early July (shortly after assassination) to start a continental war -> focus on the section of the book focusing on this period
- report of a conversation high Austrian foreign ministry official + well-connected German publicist Naumann: met in Austria couple days after assassination, Naumann picturing German gov as ready/eager for war + warned that if Austria-Hungary failed to use the opportunity Germany would drop Austria as ally
- !!!gap between Fischer’s paraphrase and the original doc (e.g. no threat to drop Austria as ally)
-> does not prove German leadership had decided to use the opportunity to start a war
question: is there compelling evidence to the effect that germany wanted to engineer a general war in the chapters on the july crisis?
-> once again the docs Fischer paraphrases are diff from what Fischer argues they say
-> little direct evidence to support vie what German gov consciously decided to start a war: gap between evidence and conclusion
- assumption: Germans realized there was no way Austria could crush Serbia without Russia intervening -> evidence that Germans wanted a showdown in the Balkans becomes evidence that they wanted a European war
- BUT: evidence shows that Germans thought European complications were possible, not inevitable
how the method of critical analysis works in a nutshel
You first identify theauthor’s general thesis. You then try to understand the structure of theargument that supports that thesis. In particular, you try to see how generalconclusions rest on more specific claims. You then evaluate those specificclaims in terms of the evidence that the author gives to support them. It is allvery straightforward. Along the way, you are taking your measure of the intel-lectual quality of the work as a whole, and when you find someone twistingthe evidence, your opinion of the work plummets.But note that you’re not just evaluating a particular historical work. You’realso learning something about the subject itself.
chapter 3 - the critical analysis of historical texts
Richard Nestadt and the Skybolt Affair
Skybolt (Affair 1992) = air-to-surface nuclear-tipped missile of the Americans, British had been told they could buy it (played crucial role in defense planning), 1962 Americans canceled the program -> Nassau December 1962: British demanded substitute, eventually they were offered the Polaris (but America resisted at first)
Nestadt: showdown at Nassau not rooted in political conflict but bc functioning of bureaucracies
- both states could have reached out to work out a deal, but neither did, why?
- both sides were “immobilized” by internal bureaucratic pressures: American bureaucrats could not offer Polaris bc that would be seen as treason + British could not ask for Polaris until the Americans proposed it, otherwise he would seem to favor Polaris in principle -> no one did anything + British mad when Polaris was not offered
evidence: neither side was held back in any fundamental way by bureaucratic factors (British willing to bring Polaris up + America willing to ask if British wanted to buy it)
chapter 3 - the critical analysis of historical texts
critical analysis only destructive?
no: it can play a positive role
- separate the wheat from the chaff: come to see what makes for a good argument + get sense for what approach you want to take
- you see what makes an argument fail (what you want to avoid)
- see how historical rgument can have conceptual dimension -> gives insight in important conceptual issue
- efficient way to absorb important factual information: things stick in your mind when you see the role they play in the elaboration and analysis of arguments
enables you to dev your own understanding of what was going on in a particular historical period and to do so in a very efficient way
chapter 5 - working with documents (primary sources)
primary source research: general principles
study a problem in the light of the sources generated at the time
start at the top and proceed from there
process of developing an interpretation:
- raise questions
- try to answer them by examining evidence
- new questions take place + need to be answered
- go where the proces takes you
approach sources with set of questions in mind -> gives better sense of what collections you want to focus on
- study what scholars have had to say: examine the evidence mentioned by historical literature
- think through core historical problems on your own: focus on fundamentals, basic story of causal structure (how we got from A to B)
piece things together: see what major dev were + what they had to do with each other -> read diplomatic docs, newspapers, speeches
+ try to get at what the basic thinking: look for docs about the thinking of political leadership
need to do archival research
to find out who is important (who has power): becomes clear as you read who defers to who etc.
research takes on life on its own: it creates questions, that lead you to new questions, you have to allow the project to take its own course
!not just gathering data as an end in itself, you’re actively looking for answers
chapter 5 - working with documents (primary sources)
assessing the evidence: some techniques
key = cast as wide a net as possible. In assessing the evidence, context is everything. You want to develop a sense for the larger picture, but you also want to pay special attention to documents that are closely related to the specific documents you are interested in, including different versions of the same document that you find in different places.
historians not really concerned with reliability (if a doc accurately records something that really happened)
-> only when something about the evidence is odd -> use commonsense tests to reach conclusion about reliability (e.g. check logs to see if meeting actually took place)
- docs ar for gov internal purposes -> what owuld be the pointo f keeping records if those records are not even meant to be accurate?
- often multiple sources about same thing -> can compare
e.g. Potsdam Conference 1945: published American, British and Soviet notes/minutes
- comparing accounts -> get sense of the gist of the discussion: German assets being divided between east and west
- accounts diff, but still can dev opinion about what was said: e.g. if all accounts but one mention someone saying A, it was probably said
e.g. Cuban missile crisis Kennedy+ advisers meeting was recorded without many knowing -> can compare minutes with transcripts
-> minutes more focus on getting the gist of the discussion, not all the details seen in transcripts
document is written on basis of notes taken at the time = not concerned with how people will react (e.g. diff from memoirs, which are expected to be read publicly -> author takes this into account)
documentary record more reliable in principle than open resources -> treat them with some care
- open sources of particular interest when they record a line of argument at odds with what you think people at the time probs wanted to hear
be careful with interviews: memories are fallible + level of honesty varies + interviewees often have interest in getting you to see something in a certain light
use all the evidence you have to get a view on if what people say is actually what they think/believe
- look at the whole picture: large a context as possible
chapter 5 - working with documents (primary sources)
documentary record vs open sources
= the body of material generated at the time and kept under wrap for many years
- for most historians best source
- general rule = you can’t take what people tell you at face value + what you learn this way is not as solid as what you learn from docs
*there are exceptions to this view, e.g. Neustadt prefers open sources
diff from open sources (material that entered public record a the time): what someone says in public is not necessarily what they really think, they concern with how people will react
chapter 5 - working with documents (primary sources)
problem: incomplete documentary record
many conversations and thoughts are never recorded, or not complete, or inaccessible or only accesable in “sanitized” form
+ sometimes it is destroyed (e.g. bc war)
if material is politically sensitive, gov can decide what to make available with this in mind
historian can still reach conclusions with what material he does have: every piece of evidence is a window into the same historical reality
make sense of what you have
when some evidence is systematically excluded for political reasons -> figure out what the bias is -> control for it
figuring out what the bias is = often multiple diff versions of the same document (bc copies are sometimes classified differently to diff people)
you should by all means try to examine the full version of the doc
chapter 5 - working with documents (primary sources)
the nuts and bolts of historical research
look at three kinds of sources: published (printed), microform and electronic sources, archival sources
- in order of accesibility, makes sense to start with published
published = diplomatic documents (e.g. main American collection: State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States series = FRUS)
*often have microfiche supplements
- also diaries and collections of paper, look for them e.g. by searching name individual in author, title and subject field or look for “letters”“writings”“diaries”“works”
microfilm and microfiche sources or sources available via CD-ROM or the internet: browse through guide listing available sources or online catalogues of private publishers
archival research: just like other historical research, no arcane set of skills necessary: identify collections you want to see, decide which boxes or volumes or folders you want to see, fil outa nd submit an order -> mateiral is pulled from the stacks -> pick it up, scan, take notes
- which collections to look at? national archives often have printed or online guides describing collections + also look at private archives
- talk to archivists: not everything is listed in the guides
- check out finding aids in advance to save time
chapter 3 and 5 written by
Trachtenberg, Marc. 2009. The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. Princeton University Pres
History, Historiography, and Political Science:
Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias
IAN S. LUSTICK
history vs historiography
historiography multiples history: each patter i history produces the potential for many patterns in historiography
