Hayden White |
The prime value of objectivity that
had been the backbone of history giving it its authenticity was exposed as an
unreasonable assumption. The boundary
between fact and fiction became blurred as historians began to reconsider how
much they had in common with writers of fiction. Rather than trying to master the precise
language of science, some postmodernist historians looked to the metaphorical
language of poetry and myth to find new authenticity in the tone and diction of
their writing style. For postmodernists
objectivity was unattainable because the selection and interpretation of facts
depended on who was writing the story.
Objectivity was still important, but truth was relative.
Hayden White pointed out that this
approach was not new. The distinction
between history and fiction that became popular in the modern era had not
always been a given. “Prior to the French Revolution, historiography was
conventionally regarded as a literary art. More specifically, it was regarded
as a branch of rhetoric and its ‘fictive’ nature generally recognized.”1 His emerging position about the use of
language in history was influenced by earlier French theorists as Tosh claimed.
“His views on the artificiality of constructed narrative build heavily on the
work of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) and the deconstructionist school, which
held that text and language itself is replete with the hidden assumptions and
prejudices of the author and of his or her cultural background.”2
[1] Hayden
White, “The Fictions of Factual Representation,” in The Tropics of
Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1978), 123.
[2] John Tosh, The Pursuit
of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of History, 6th
edition. (New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2015), 132-3.