Conclusion

With these four categories as a mantra I now feel confident that I can start to write my Honours thesis drawing on the discussions from throughout the semester.  Reflecting on my thoughts through this essay, I feel that the teachings have given me a better understanding of my own mode of thinking and I have certainly gained a clearer perspective on how to move forward as an Historian.  I now have reference points for understanding motivation, a definite understanding that, for me, History should be written with a narrative about people and that I must always be mindful of my own filters and their place in my work.

As for the Vauxhall Gardens; I will use a synchronistic stage narrative, using iterative scenes and placing them within a Long Dureé context whilst considering class, economic, gender and cultural issues appropriate to time and place.  I think I got them all.

Thinking tools – Post Modernism and Post Structuralism

These were the more challenging of the concepts to absorb and then relate to my practice as an Historian.  Before our tutorial discussion I felt that I was probably suffering from “Pomophobia”.  After our tutorial discussion I felt like I had indulged in what Geoffrey Elton calls the “intellectual equivalent of crack”, and although I was much clearer about Post Structuralism, Post Modernism was ‘doing my head in’.[i]  The first problem I see in Post Modernism is the underpinning that Truth, Fact and Objectivity can have so many meanings they become meaningless.  If this is true – then Post Modernism doesn’t exist because accordingly truth is meaningless so the belief in the theory can’t be true as truth has no meaning.  If it’s false then is it false?  As the other side of true (and accordingly there is no truth) then can there be a false? 

Secondly, that an author or creators’ intent is secondary to that of the viewer or receiver.  I reject that out of hand.  The viewer can take whatever meaning they chose from anything, but the creator’s meaning should never be secondary or made redundant, it is a product of that creator and to demote it so is demeaning, but perhaps that is the Post-Modernist intent.  This, to me, is what Carlyle talks about when ideologies ossify, they dehumanise History.[ii]  If there is no intended meaning in anything, then why is it that from ancient times, law and lore have been passed through generations in story form?  Why is story telling a “primary cognitive instrument”?[iii] 

I can see why Elton thought it was like “intellectual crack”.  What I did see as useful in Historical method from Post Modernism is that many meanings can be gained from each interpretation and each one is valid as long as good scholarship prevails.  This concept can provide a multitude of perspectives, as Keith Jenkins states, “One past, many Histories.”[iv]

Post Structuralism provided me with a similar awareness; that texts can convey different meanings to different audiences based in the semiotics of their cultural and social mores.  This has bearing on the way in which we interpret texts and highlights the importance of knowing the provenance of the text so it can be placed in time.  It should also make Historians mindful of their audience when writing Histories; that our interpretations may be construed in a manner that we are not always in agreement with or had contemplated.  With respect to Vauxhall, I have been made acutely aware of this as all of my primary sources, and many of my secondary sources, are written in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Century vernacular.

Ultimately, the understanding of Post Modernism and Post Structuralism promoted consideration of my own thinking and understanding.  Dismissing a theory is quite easy when the theory is so esoteric, but having to construct an argument around them has given me mechanisms to keep my biases, filters and agendas (hopefully) in check.



[i] Southgate Southgate, B. Hsitory: Whay and Why? Ancient, Modern and Postmodern Perspectives.(2001) London. Chapt(s): Postscript. P.148

[ii]Stern, F., History as Biography. The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present.(1970) London, Macmillan. Chapt(s): 90-107.

[iii]Carrard, P., Narrative and Historiography: Writing the France of the Occupation. Style 34.(2000). Chapt(s): 243-259.

[iv] Jenkins Jenkins, K. Refiguring History: New thoughts on an old discipline.(2003) London. Chapt(s) 1. p.10

Methods – Oral History, Biography and Narrative Histories

Each of these topics struck me as a method.  They provide a focus or way of telling the story; Oral History through community voices, Biography through interesting individuals and Narrative via what Carrard calls our “primary cognitive instrument”.[i]

In a previous unit, Approaches to History, I conducted an Oral History interview with a group of elderly men to illuminate the birth of a shack settlement north of Perth.  The period they spoke of was the late 1950s through to the early 1970s in an environment and situation that left few written documents to be used as primary sources.  It is an important History to be told as it is part of the greater History of the development of Western Australia in the twentieth century; a History that is yet to be written.  What better way for this to be told than through the stories remembered by the contemporaries involved.  If not recorded through this method it will surely be lost.  Oral Histories give the Historian the unique experience of recording primary sources and being able to clarify understandings and concepts that are usually gleaned from lifeless pieces of paper.

This particular style of History is inappropriate for my current thesis as Oral History must be recorded whilst still in living memory and, as the period I am studying is more than 250 years ago, that is not possible.

The idea of Biography as history had an immediate impact upon the way I thought about my thesis; until that point it I was still unclear how to focus all of the research I have done.  Choosing an individual or several individuals to base my interpretation around seemed a logical way and validates my thoughts on why I chose history – the stories, which are all about people.  The Vauxhall Gardens existed for nearly two hundred years so there is no shortage of people for me to write about.

In most aspects I agree with Carlyle’s view on biography and history.  He states that it is Great Men as heroes and leaders that have the charisma and talent to harness the energies and ideas of the people, as they intersect with the “Chaos of Being”, to implement action and affect change.  He also accused Historians of that time that they were too concerned with the “Chaos of Being” and should describe History through the Great Men.  I think this is true, but I object to the “Great Men” label.  Interesting people, whether they are great or male, are the logical way to illustrate History, as without people there is no History.  Everyone’s lives are the product of their time so who better to understand those circumstances through than someone who lived it.[ii]

Having said that, I am cognisant of the doubts concerning Biography as an Historical method.  For example, is it capable of an analytical interpretation of the past? Is a Biography about the person or is it about the interaction of the person and society?   To both questions I would say “Yes”, with the proviso of using Runyan’s Evaluation Criteria as a guide to good Biography, which in essence is a guide to good Historical scholarship.[iii]  In reality, Runyan’s Criteria should be applied to all forms of Historical interpretation.

It was in the Narrative History session that I was asked why I chose History as a subject for the second time.  My answer was the same as the first – I like the stories – but this time I understood why.  Prost says that Histories are not necessarily bound by narrative for example, overview and commentary; I would argue that they are not Histories but overviews and commentaries.  After researching the Gardens I found it extremely difficult trying to write up my essay; I had just completed several months of research on primary sources yet could not set out an orderly essay despite all of the knowledge, understanding and thoughts I had.  Of course I eventually wrote it, but it is now (with hindsight of this unit) that I can see what the problem was and how I broke the impasse.  The problem was there was no story to my research; I had found threads for future study but no particular story.  I realise now that I overlayed it with the narrative of my experiences in doing the research in London.  It made more sense once I placed it within a story.

As Carlyle states; “History is the essence of innumerable Biographies” meaning it’s about people and their stories. History is bound to narrative.  The disassociation of History to narrative is what Carlyle feared when he talked about ideology dehumanising History; to say that History is not bound by narrative sounds like a Post-Modernist idea.[iv]  As for my thesis, a good narrative will be the criteria for the people I choose to use as subjects that define or express the issues at hand.



[i]Carrard, P., Narrative and Historiography: Writing the France of the Occupation. Style 34.(2000). Chapt(s): 243-259. P. 243

[ii] Stern Stern, F., History as Biography. The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present.(1970) London, Macmillan. Chapt(s): 90-107. I have attached my interpretation of Carlyle’s theory as a diagram.

[iii]Runyan, W. M. Life Histories and Psychobiography: Explanations in Theory and Method.(1984) New York, OUP. Chapt(s) 2 & 3. I have attached the criteria as a diagram.

[iv] Stern Stern, F., History as Biography. The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present.(1970) London, Macmillan. Chapt(s): 90-107.

Motivations – Marxist and Feminist Theories

I came to view both of these theories as motivations of the people involved in the histories, rather than theories of History, as to me I think they fail as such.  Marxist theory fails as a definitive view of History and not just because we have seen the fall of communism in modern times.  It fails because at its core is the belief that communism, in its perfection, will lead to the end of the class struggle for the means of production.  And, that History is the class struggle for the means of production.[i]  Therefore, History should have ended with the establishment of communist regimes like that of the Soviet Union or China.  Obviously that hasn’t happened. 

Marxism also fails because it doesn’t account for what Carlyle called the “Chaos of Being”, the confluence of people and events out of an individual’s control.[ii]  It does not allow for the individual at all, it assumes that every member of a class thinks and acts in the same way.   In simplistic terms it appears to assume that all of the Proletariat are good and all of the Bourgeois are bad.  Nor does Marx explain why the Proletariat does not become the Bourgeois once given control over the means of production.   Marxist theory as an historical perspective is like looking at History through a rolled up five dollar note, it gives us narrow histories with a single cause.  Pieter Geyl illustrates this in his essay about the Tenth International Congress in History 1955 held in Rome.  He describes the Soviet Historians’ inability to engage in any other avenue of discourse other than the views of Marx and Engels, thereby limiting their input and contribution to any debate of the time.[iii]  They could only see one narrow view.

I think Feminist theory fails for similar reasons.  Looking at History from the perspective of the oppression of women alone also produces a narrow History.  I grew up as the little sister to the feminist writers of the early 1970s.  I wasn’t old enough to have participated in the Women’s Movement but I was one of the first to benefit.  I could particularly relate to Ann Summers in Ducks on the Pond as it was set in Adelaide in a place and time that I experienced.[iv]  As a theory of study, Feminism has under gone change from a strictly female viewpoint to its eventual morphing into Identity and/or Gender studies; recognising that all sexes have been shaped and moulded by cultural factors and not just misogyny.[v] 

I think I see things from a Gender perspective, rather than a ‘battle of the sexes’ stereotype, as we are the result of our cultural and social conditioning, and this conditioning itself is subject to fads and trends.[vi]  This is not to deny that the oppression and subjugation of women has occurred throughout history, but it happened to men and children as well.

What I can see from both Marxist and Feminist theory is their influence on the motivations that determine people’s choices in life and contribute to Carlyle’s “Chaos of Being”.[vii]  From Marxism is an awareness of the role that money and class play in influencing people’s actions and choices.  This will be particularly relevant in the writing about Vauxhall, although for an anachronistic reason, as Vauxhall appears to have been one of the few places of the time that all classes mixed freely together.  Of course they had to pay to enter, but all were welcomed, even encouraged.  Indeed, the most successful owner of the Gardens, Jonathon Tyres, had attained a better social standing through business acumen and the resultant wealth – a Proletariat that became Bourgeois.[viii]

As for Feminism, I think Gender roles, social expectations, and women’s legal and social rights are at the forefront of my interpretation of the Gardens.  But I believe I will approach it from the Gender or Identity aspect rather than a strictly Feminist angle.



[i]Marx, K., Manifesto for the Communist Party. Collected Works Volume 6: Marx & Engels 1845-1848. F. Engels.(1848). Chapt(s) Parts I II IV: 477-506, 518-519.

[ii] Carlyle coins the term “Chaos of Being” for the confluence of people and place to cause events.  Stern, F., History as Biography. The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present.(1970) London, Macmillan. Chapt(s): 90-107.

[iii] Pieter Geyl Geyl, P., Soviet Historians make their bow. Encounters in History.(1963) London, Collins. Chapt(s): 263-275.

[iv] Ann Summers Summers, A., Off our Backs. Ducks on the Pond, An Autobiography 1945-1976.(1999) Ringwood. Chapt(s) 11.

[v] Laura Lee Downs Downs, L. L. Writing Gender History.(2004) London. Chapt(s) 7 & 10.

[vi] Laura Lee Downs ibid.

[vii] Stern Stern, F., History as Biography. The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present.(1970) London, Macmillan. Chapt(s): 90-107.

[viii] Jonathon Tyres was an Enlightenment Gentleman who believed in the idea of the upper class being an example for the betterment of the lower classes and as such encouraged all classes to attend the Gardens in the hope that they would all become more genteel and cultured.  There are many primary sources to support this; from newspaper clippings through to pamphlets.

Building Block – What is History?

Until posed that first time, I hadn’t really given the question any thought.  History is something that is always present; as a big nebulous cloud of people, events, and places of the past.  Something I read about.  But, of course, someone has to write the books to be read; therefore History isn’t History until someone writes about it.  E. H. Carr, Historian and a prominent figure on this debate during the 1960’s, takes this idea a step further and posits that the so called Historical “fact” does not exist until an Historian takes note of it.  Carr also doubts that historical objectivity exists (held dear by ‘Old Historians’) as we are all influenced by our own biases and agendas – consciously or not.  But he did not endorse an ‘anything goes’ attitude that has led to denial Histories, he insisted “accuracy is not a virtue of Historians – it is a duty”.[i]

Like all good historiographical arguments, Carr has his detractors and was accused of not “walking the talk” by Richard Evans, who poses that Carr conveniently left out “facts” that didn’t suit his history of the Russian Bolsheviks.[ii]  This may well be true, but to me it reinforces Carr’s view that Historians are yet another layer of filtering on stories told.

I would add the second question of “Why I chose History” to this building block category.  Although not discussed until much later in the semester, this also is a foundation understanding key to being a professional Historian.  Gaining this insight has determined the way in which will I frame and present the Vauxhall Gardens and I suspect every History that I write in the future.  I chose History because I like the stories about people in a different time and place.



[i] E H CArr Carr, E. H. What is History. (1964), Penguin. P. 10

[ii]Evans, R. J. In Defence of History. (1997)  London.

What kind of Historian am I?

In first tutorial of my first History unit my tutor asked two questions of the group. Firstly – ”What is History?” and secondly – “Why did we choose it?”.  At the time, I found the first question extremely difficult to answer but the second, for me, was never in doubt.  Both of the questions were asked again in the first unit of my Honours degree with similar results, but with much more qualification.  I now have a far better understanding of the theories and vagaries of the debate about what defines History, and importantly, why I chose History to study.  I elevate understanding my choice to equal footing as theory, as it has determined what kind of historian I am or will become. 

My thesis is about the Georgian period of the Vauxhall Gardens and its role in facilitating social or cultural change and, as yet, I have not written a single word.[i]  This is mainly because the task seemed too big, too esoteric, too daunting, I had nowhere to begin.  I had no framework within which to view my research, let alone write a story.  Each week during the semester the series of discussions on historical theory gave me a new paradigm to assess my conceptual frame work and motivations.  This lead me to the conclusion that I am a Narrative Historian with a Biographical bent which, in turn, has provided structure and design for my thesis.  I now know: how to present the History- structure and viewpoint, have a consideration for cause through individuals’ motivations and have mechanisms for checking my thinking and understanding, in particular, when contextualising primary and early secondary sources.[ii]  This essay is about my understandings of these theories and how I will apply them to the Vauxhall Gardens thesis.

As we discussed each of the seven topics I felt that although they were referred to as theories of History, there were other groupings within this general term that helped my conceptualisation of each.  I came to see four categories: the building block, motivations, methods and thinking check or tools.  From each I took elements that suited my situation in terms of Thesis topic and my personal filters.



[i] Georgian period 1714- 1830

[ii] Many of my sources are what I would call “early” secondary – not contemporary to the Gardens but still a century or more in age.

First Semester down!

Its been a while since my last post – sorry too many things on the go including the Feltwest site but I am remedying this right now!  I will post my essay and what kind of Hsitorian I think am I.  Plus will keep you posted about my felt book making exploits over the next few weeks.

Hope you enjoy.

What is history?

Finally! I am now an Historian – I finished my last unit and have officially passed – the graduation ceremony is in a couple of weeks should be interesting. But more importantly I have started my Honours Degree (master equivalent in most other faculties). We had our first session last week a nice small group of 5 all of whom I ahve done units with before, which makes it nice and convivial immediately – instead going through the whole group dynamic thing – we already know each other which makes for easier conversation and discussion.

Our first topic is “What is History?” with a reading from EH Carr and another by a Richard Evans (the name of one of my infamous embezelling ancestors!).  I have the book by Carr it is a series of lectures, the George Macaulay Trevelyan Lectures at Cambridge University during January to March in 1961.  Now there is much on the web about Carr; his life, work and foibles andI think there is a story of one upmanship behind these lectures.  It appears that Carr was the subject of much criticism on his views of history and the objectivity of historians.  Carr has been accused of not “walking the talk” by Evans, who poses that Carr conveniently left out “facts” that didn’t suit his history of the Russian Bolshevics.  One of Carr’s best comments is “accuarcy is not a virtue of Historians – its a duty” but he also strongly advocates that all of history is filtered.  Firstly by those who record it and secondly by those who interpret it.  We all have biases and agendas and anyone who says they are completely objective is kidding themselves!

So What is History – the current theory that history only becomes history once an Historian has written about it.  Carr extends this to “historical facts” as well.  There are “facts” about everything but they don’t become historical until referred to or so used by an Historian.

What do you think?