In reading Mike Wallace's last essay "Ronald Reagan and the Politics of History," I could not help but be reminded of what I learned in Ch. 1: I heartily disagree with Wallace's fundamental view of what history is. It was only after reading his railing against Reagan that I finally found the words to express my discontent. In his words, Wallace's believes, "There is, after all, no such thing as a single historical 'truth.' All history is a human production--a deliberate selection, ordering and evaluation of past events, experiences, and processes" (252). This belief, grounded in the postmodernist view that history is relativist human construct, is itself historicidal. Perhaps I'm misreading or perhaps Wallace just hasn't explained his full definition of history, but examining the full implications of his definition is self-defeating and flawed in ways I will attempt to explain below.
First, the view that "the past" only exists as far as humans acknowledge and interpret it is incredibly anthropocentric and excludes the idea that time occurs regardless of our knowledge of it (24). A tree doesn't wait for a human witness to fall in the woods, and animal species don't suddenly pop into existence the moment we discover them. Rather, they've existed unobserved, nevertheless influencing the world around them for the entire duration of their existence. If Reagan is guilty of trying to ignore pieces of history, he is no less guilty than Wallace, who insists that unrecorded history doesn't matter.
Second, in saying that there is no single truth, Wallace is undermining the importance of facts. Of course, by "single truth," he's talking not about names and dates so much as broad interpretive narratives. However, what he appears to be saying is that history is more about ideology and politics than truth. Even he states that these facts can be used to support a wide variety of interpretations. But in claiming that the interpretation is what matters about history, he's weakening his (according to him) evidence-based liberal, social history and giving Reagan power to reinterpret with lies. That is, if history is what people believe happened (human construct) and not what actually happened, then facts are not history; interpretation is. Therefore, if Reagan could convince people that Vietnam was a great, defensive, patriotic movement then his history (which Wallace derides as false) would become truth. The core danger of postmodernist theory is that it creates the very "history of the victors" it sought to overturn.
Last, while this may not be a legitimate point so much as nitpicking, it seems to me that Wallace contradicts his own stated beliefs. While he says that other interpretations can exist, he presents the interpretation of his "generation of professional historians" as the only truly correct interpretation. While he admits that intelligent right wing scholars can still interpret history, he adds the backhanded slap that they're having "tougher sledding" because, unlike Reagan, they have to find supporting facts. He never once actually considers that "his generation" might not have gotten everything correct. It seems like he is only adopting the postmodernist view as far as it can benefit his interpretation without exploring the full implications of how they hinder his efforts in promoting the one "correct" interpretation he actually (clearly) believes in.
Again, perhaps I have misinterpreted his views, and I am not a strong enough philosopher to have fully explored the connections and implications present. If you see something I have missed or gotten wrong, please let me know. Until then, I will continue believing that Wallace himself is the one who is truly killing history.
First, the view that "the past" only exists as far as humans acknowledge and interpret it is incredibly anthropocentric and excludes the idea that time occurs regardless of our knowledge of it (24). A tree doesn't wait for a human witness to fall in the woods, and animal species don't suddenly pop into existence the moment we discover them. Rather, they've existed unobserved, nevertheless influencing the world around them for the entire duration of their existence. If Reagan is guilty of trying to ignore pieces of history, he is no less guilty than Wallace, who insists that unrecorded history doesn't matter.
Second, in saying that there is no single truth, Wallace is undermining the importance of facts. Of course, by "single truth," he's talking not about names and dates so much as broad interpretive narratives. However, what he appears to be saying is that history is more about ideology and politics than truth. Even he states that these facts can be used to support a wide variety of interpretations. But in claiming that the interpretation is what matters about history, he's weakening his (according to him) evidence-based liberal, social history and giving Reagan power to reinterpret with lies. That is, if history is what people believe happened (human construct) and not what actually happened, then facts are not history; interpretation is. Therefore, if Reagan could convince people that Vietnam was a great, defensive, patriotic movement then his history (which Wallace derides as false) would become truth. The core danger of postmodernist theory is that it creates the very "history of the victors" it sought to overturn.
Last, while this may not be a legitimate point so much as nitpicking, it seems to me that Wallace contradicts his own stated beliefs. While he says that other interpretations can exist, he presents the interpretation of his "generation of professional historians" as the only truly correct interpretation. While he admits that intelligent right wing scholars can still interpret history, he adds the backhanded slap that they're having "tougher sledding" because, unlike Reagan, they have to find supporting facts. He never once actually considers that "his generation" might not have gotten everything correct. It seems like he is only adopting the postmodernist view as far as it can benefit his interpretation without exploring the full implications of how they hinder his efforts in promoting the one "correct" interpretation he actually (clearly) believes in.
Again, perhaps I have misinterpreted his views, and I am not a strong enough philosopher to have fully explored the connections and implications present. If you see something I have missed or gotten wrong, please let me know. Until then, I will continue believing that Wallace himself is the one who is truly killing history.
No comments:
Post a Comment