Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.
PJ Wehry:
Hello and welcome to Chasing Leviathan. I'm your host, PJ Weary, and I'm here today with Dr. Cheng, professor of history at Sarah Lawrence College. And we're talking about her book, Historiography, An Introductory Guide. Dr. Cheng, wonderful to have you on today.
eileen:
Well, thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.
PJ Wehry:
So, obviously an introductory text, but what led you into this field? Why this book?
eileen:
Well, I guess those are two separate questions. I think the easier one answers why the book.
PJ Wehry:
That's fair.
eileen:
And actually it grew out of I had a course on historiography that covered a lot of the same ground that the book covers. And I had been teaching it for a few years. And I wanted something to give to my students that could give them background and context for the text that we were studying. And I think a lot of the historiography books out there, I just found... I thought were too difficult for undergraduates. They seemed to presume a lot of background and knowledge of the context that my students didn't have. Say a lot of them didn't necessarily know what the Enlightenment was or have a lot of knowledge about romanticism. And a lot of them also just, I felt like, tried to pack in too much information. They would talk about all the major historians of a particular school of thought. And by doing that, I felt that it made it really hard to take in that information or to really understand the ideas of these thinkers. So I want to write a book that my students could understand and that would help give them background. And that's why I spend a lot of time just giving background. Oh, here, this is what, you know, were the main ideas of romanticism. And that's why I also didn't try to be comprehensive. And I just picked a few thinkers for each chapter that I thought illustrated some of the broader themes and tendencies I was trying to talk about. But I guess your other question about why this field, I think that's the harder one. And I think that for me, I come to historiography as a historian. And so I think to me, historiography is just a branch of history. And so I think I've been interested in historiography as long as I've been interested in history. But I think for a lot of people, including They often see historiography as something that's kind of separate from regular history. But for me, I think, you know, what makes history interesting to me is that it's an interpretive discipline. It's about, you know, different ways of interpreting the same facts, the same events. And historiography is really the study of that. So I think to be interested in historiography is really an extension of my interest in history.
PJ Wehry:
You know, and we before we started this episode, I mentioned that I was going to talk to you today about historiography to my dad. And he said, what's storyography? And you know, so for our listeners, those who aren't aware, do you mind just giving a concise maybe that beginner level freshman level definition of what historiography is?
eileen:
Okay, yeah, and I think it's actually, it's a bit confusing to define because I think even amongst historians themselves, they differ over how they use that term. But I think the kind of the most basic level that I would just define historiography as is, if history is about studying the past itself, historiography deals with studying in how the past has been interpreted and analyzed. And so, that can take different forms. So sometimes when historians use the term historiography, they will use it to mean all the different interpretive schools surrounding a particular event. So they might talk about the historiography of the American Revolution. And by that they mean looking at all the different ways that the causes of the American Revolution have been interpreted. Or another way of using historiography is to refer to the history of historical writing. And that's really kind of the kind of historiography that I talk about in my book.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, absolutely. And I think one of the common, in the little reading that I've done in this area, one of the common problems, and I'd love to hear your take on it, is how do you balance, or do you think there is a balance between the subjective choices and the objective study of the past?
eileen:
Hmm, okay, yeah, I mean, I think that's one of the, that's a huge question.
PJ Wehry:
I know it's a very simple question, yeah.
eileen:
Yeah, well, and I think that's one reason why historiography is valuable and why it's interesting, because I think that's the dilemma all of the historians that I look at in the book and that I study are facing. And so I'm not sure that there is any one definite formula I would advocate. I think One good way of looking at that issue is there's a famous historian who's written on kind of the nature of history. And he talks about how you can view history as a dialogue between fact and interpretation. So it's a kind of back and forth with both being equal. So I think whenever I think I or any historian goes into studying an event, interpretation or idea of how a theory of why it happened, but then they'll study the facts and they'll find usually that they have to modify their interpretation in response to the facts they find, and then they take that interpretation and go back to studying the facts, and then there's another process of change and modification. I think it's a constant back and forth between the subjective and the objective, and I'm not sure that you can give more weight to one or the other.
PJ Wehry:
It's almost more of a movement than a balancing act. Would that be a way to kind of, am I tracking with you there?
eileen:
Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it, yes. So it's always, it's not a static thing.
PJ Wehry:
And when you're talking about this, you know, people are like, okay, so this is important for historians, that sort of thing. But, uh, in order to give some weight to this discussion, what are some of the ethical issues at stake in how you approach historiography or how you approach writing history?
eileen:
Um, well, okay, that's another big question. Um, I mean, I think, uh. I would say, I guess the central ethical issue that I think historians face is dealing with that issue of truth. So, I think it ties in with your previous question.
PJ Wehry:
Mm.
eileen:
And I think especially when it comes to talking about historiography, because there's so much emphasis, at least the way I do historiography, on looking at just... uh... all the different interpretations of history looking at all the different ways in which um... historians have approached the study of the past and showing how much all of that is a product of its context and showing how even the current ways in which we study history is a product of our context and how historians ideas about the nature of history are very much that that they serve different political and social purposes even if the historian themselves does not have is not conscious of that But the danger of that is that it could undermine a belief that there's any truth at all, and as a result of that undermine any faith in the historical record we have and kind of turn history into just a form of propaganda. And so I think that's the concern that I have about historiography and how do you present historiography and show how interpretive history is without undermining the faith. that there is some kind of truth out there without undermining people's faith in the value of the historical scholarship that we have already.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, and I appreciate that. I mean, and for us, I think that excuse me, I think the value of truth is obvious, right? Like we want accurate information. We want to make you know, we're studying the past to better understand ourselves. Do we have the responsibility to for truth for ourselves seems pretty clear. Do you think that we have any obligation or responsibility to the people who are dead who are in the past and history to tell the truth about them?
eileen:
Yes, I think so. Yeah, I mean, I think that, I think a lot of what the way that I approach history is and what is important to me is really understand, understanding the past on its own terms, understanding these historical actors from their point of view. So understanding kind of the truth of the past from their perspective. So I do think that is important.
PJ Wehry:
Hmm. So even as we're walking through this, I love that you kind of take a historical approach. You start with, I'm gonna butcher this name. I grew up mostly in the Midwest, so I have a Midwest accent, but I sometimes think if I had a Central Florida accent, I could get away with mispronouncing more when I'm just reading stuff. It's like, if I say Jean Baudin, it doesn't matter how bad I say it, but if I say it in the Midwest accent, how do you say, is it Jean Baudin? How do you say that?
eileen:
uh... bow down I think.
PJ Wehry:
Bodin, okay. Can you talk us through even a little bit of these major kind of, I won't say watershed moments, but what are the major threads that you see through history on how people thought about history? I think that's a great question.
eileen:
Well, I think in a lot of ways the changes and how people thought about history correlate with kind of the big watershed moments that we see kind of in. the larger development of our history. And just to add the caveat, most of what I'm talking about, because the book is focused on the US and Western Europe, I'm talking about major developments in those areas. And so that's how I structured the book. So I think the first chapter deals with the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, which is seen as a major watershed moment in Western history. And likewise, I think a lot of important changes in the historical discipline happen in that. in that era and then I kind of move on to the Enlightenment, the rise of romanticism, the rise of the importance of science, and then in the 20th century changes like the rise of events like World War II or the rise of globalization and all these I think larger kind of historical currents also shape the way in which our history is told by these historians.
PJ Wehry:
And I love that you gave that caveat because, of course, like, one, your book would be so much larger and probably useless for a freshman course if you also included, and it would be a very different book if you included Chinese historiography, if you included African historiography. If you look at any country, it's going to have its own tradition, much less, I mean, the idea of tackling whole continents. So this idea of... keeping it in this general cultural, I think it's important to kind of frame what we're talking about. What are some common misconceptions that people have about the study of history, especially in this Western context?
eileen:
Well, I think the biggest misconception that people have about the study of history, and I don't, I think it's, well, yeah, I guess I should keep my comments confined to what I know, which is the US context, is what I see, you know, with students coming in, that
PJ Wehry:
Ha ha!
eileen:
they just think that history is kind of this dry record of facts that still, I think, in a lot of our high schools and elementary schools. History is just kind of taught from a textbook, and it's just about kind of memorizing a sequence of events and dates. And as a result of that, I think a lot of students think history is not very interesting. And so that's part of what I try to kind of break down, and why I think historiography is so important, is to kind of show them, no, history is not just about facts and dates. It's really a matter of interpretation, and that you can take the same set of facts and dates and have, you know, two historians have completely different views of what those facts and dates mean. And that history's also really not so much about learning just about what happened, but why it happened, and the meaning of those events to the people at the time. So it's really about getting into people's heads and developing a sense of historical empathy for the way in which people in the past thought.
PJ Wehry:
When you talk about breaking down this kind of idea that history is a dry record of facts, can you give maybe your favorite example of that with one of your students where you were able to take something concrete and show them that?
eileen:
I'm trying to think. Let me think a little bit about that in terms of a concrete example. Well, OK, I'm not sure this exactly fits what you're asking for. But I think a good example of at least how I try to complicate my students' understanding of history is with the American Revolution. I mean, I think often, especially in US culture, the American Revolution is taught simplistic linear way. You know, it's kind of taken as a given that it's a good thing. You know, it's just presented as a sequence of events. Oh, you know, the Stamp Act happened. No taxation without representation. Then we have independence and everything's great. And so what I do in my courses and one of the things that gets left out of that story is it's just assumed everybody supported the revolution. and nobody talks about the loyalists who opposed it. So one of the things I've seen, I just did this in my course last semester, is I really spent a lot of time on the point of view of the opponents of the revolution. I spent a lot of time on the loyalists. And I think, I actually had one student say, she converted, she said, you know, if she'd been alive at the time, she would have been a loyalist. And I think by doing that, I showed how the same sequence of events that we take for granted as a good thing. was from the perspective of the Loyalists, something that was harmful and not good for the colonies.
PJ Wehry:
Even as you talk about historical empathy, I find that I get the most out of history when I take the time to appreciate the complexity of people's situations. That's when I get the most out of history. Not just when I'm just like, well, this happened, then this happened, and this happened. To see people struggle through difficult decisions, to see families split over difficult things like, okay, I have this divine monarch, right? that I'm supposed to be following, or I have these divine rights, like these to see the philosophy and theology of the day as it was best, as it was believed, would have created these crises of conscience. And yeah, that's absolutely fascinating. And I could see why like your students would be like, Oh, that makes it a lot more interesting than just like, okay, you know, tea in the harbor sort of thing.
eileen:
Yes, well yes, and I think they see when, you know, I think when you, again, when you try to understand, you know, that, you know, back at the time of the revolution, they didn't know how things would turn out. And so I think today we take, oh yeah, well of course we won. And so it seems like an easy decision to support the revolution. But when you don't know how things are going to turn out and when you think about it from the view of a colonist and they are breaking free of, you know, Britain, who is the major superpower at the time, and everybody thinks Britain... you know, is the one who is more likely to win, then you see it. It is, like you said, it's a struggle, you know, that this was a hard choice for a lot of people. And to understand, you know, kind of why some people went one way, why some people went others, and how difficult it was for many people to make that choice, I think that, you know, I think that's a lot of the interest in history, and that gets lost, I think, in the way that it often is taught, kind of the, you know, the high school level.
PJ Wehry:
Excuse me. How has, when you try and get your students to maybe follow the story of historiography itself, where do you start? It looks like in here you kind of start, some of the books I've seen, it's gone as far back as Herodotus, right? Thucydides, those sorts of things. You start with the Renaissance and early modern historical writing, which that's because you have a Western focus. Do you have a specific kind of narrative that you try to weave for your students to kind of give an understanding of how historiography has developed in the Western world?
eileen:
Well, OK, yeah, I guess there's sort of, again, sort of two questions you got there, both the issue of where to start and this idea of a kind of narrative. And you're right, I mean, it's always difficult with history, kind of where do you start. And even where you start, you're already kind of creating a certain narrative or creating a certain interpretation. And so, yeah, I think part of why I start with kind of the Renaissance period is, I mean, I think that is an important watershed moment. And it's. But at the same time, it goes back to what you were saying. I can't cover everything globally because it would be too much. Likewise, if I started with ancient Greece, I think it would be too much to encompass in the course of just one class. So I think the Renaissance is a good balance up to the present, where it does give students a sense of a large span, but a manageable enough time frame that I can cover it in a course and be historian I discuss in enough depth.
PJ Wehry:
Though I am looking forward to your 20 volume complete comprehensive historiography series.
eileen:
But. Ah!
PJ Wehry:
But anyways, sorry, go ahead.
eileen:
Well, no, and I think this issue of selection, what do you focus on? You focus just on the West. Where do you begin? I think ties into your earlier question about ethical dilemmas. I mean, I think that's another dilemma of kind of what do you select to look at? And if you leave certain areas or groups out... you know, what are the implications of that? You know, I'm very aware. I'm focusing on the West because, well, that's, I mean, that is an important area, and I think that's where there's the most sources, and that's what I've been trained in. But by doing that, you know, I am excluding these other areas of the world, and, you know, there is a danger in that. You know, I think it could perpetuate, you know, I think ideas of kind of, oh, well, the West is more important when I don't really want to send that message, is the message somebody could take from my focus on that. But I think also then going back to your point about, do I try to give my students a certain narrative? I don't. I guess. The way that I teach it, I actually want them to kind of come up with their own narrative. Because as I said, history is so much about interpretation. I don't want to impose my interpretation on them. So in fact, a lot of the way I teach it, and I'm able to do that because I'm out of school where we have small classes and where the emphasis is on seminar discussion, is I don't lecture to them, actually. And I take some of the texts that I talk about in the book, and I give them background. is them talking about the text and trying to interpret for themselves, you know, kind of what the historian is saying, what kind of messages are these texts sending. But if there is a narrative, I think the narrative is kind of similar to what I present in the book, which is just to emphasize that the one through line I see throughout kind of the history of historical writing in Western Europe and the United States is that the study of history has always been contested. But I think often people talk today, oh, there's so much debate about how you interpret history, so much debate about historical truth. And they talk about it like it's this new thing and that we've fallen away from an earlier golden age when everybody was unified about history. But I think when you study historiography, you see these people are arguing like mad from whenever they started thinking about history. And that's very clear even looking at the Renaissance. different views. And so that is really the kind of narrative I want to give them, just how contested historiography, that study of history has always been.
PJ Wehry:
Now you mentioned the Renaissance, and if you want to dwell more on that, I'd love to hear that. Or is there, when you talk about these debates, the fact that the study of history has always been contested, can you give some concrete examples of that?
eileen:
Okay, yeah, I mean, I'm trying to think of, I mean, I don't necessarily, yeah, I mean, I start with the Renaissance, but actually I think, I'm trying to think of when would be a time maybe that, where there's a debate that would be of larger interest to people today. Well, OK, yeah, I think a good example. And I think, again, this ties into current debates. is kind of early in the 20th century, there was an American historian. His name was Charles Beard. And I think I talk about him a bit in the book. And kind of he was part of kind of this school of historians who were kind of challenging both the idea that there was objective truth in history, that they embraced a more relativistic understanding of truth, but were also kind of challenging your kind of the 19th century view of the history of the United States of a kind of traditional glorified view of the US. And so what he does, he publishes this book called An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. And basically argues, I think again, even today, I think there's this view of the Constitution as being kind of the creation of these glorified founding figures and something that was the expression of high-minded ideals. And Beard, argued the opposite. He said, this was something that grew out of economic interest. And the people who supported it had particular interests that they weren't wanted to further and that they believed the Constitution would promote. And this book stores huge controversy in the time. There's a lot of criticisms of Beard for promoting an unpatriotic view of American history. And even since then, I think there's been criticism, even amongst other scholars, of him. fronts and I think even today his views are still important but I think most historians would agree that the specifics of how he supported his interpretation don't necessarily hold water.
PJ Wehry:
And what... yes.
eileen:
So yeah, so that's one example.
PJ Wehry:
And that's really interesting, you know, how people automatically... and I can see the obvious parallels with today. their the first response is, oh, that's unpatriotic. How dare you attack our sacred documents, right? What role do you see rhetoric and the just the political situations in general? Again, I'm giving you two questions slightly connected in historiography, right? Because I mean, I'm sure that there was real evidence that people walk through. You said that he is now generally while people may agree with him in his conclusions, they don't follow the same evidence. But the first thing that I knew someone was going to say, that's unpatriotic, right? Because that's always what people say. Can you talk a little bit about that dynamic, about the political and rhetoric that just gets infused into historiography?
eileen:
Um, yeah, I mean, I guess... I think that's another part of the book that I want to show, is that both in terms of the historians themselves, that the views of history they promote, both the specific interpretations and their ideas about even how you approach history, are very much shaped by the political circumstances of the time, and that they are sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously, kind of furthering certain political agendas. And so Beard, for example, I mean, of what is known as the progressive move in the United States. So he was involved in social reform. And I think part of why he wanted to desanctify the Constitution was that he felt like too much reverence for the Constitution was an impediment to change. And he wanted to break that down to get people to be more open to the kind of social reforms he promoted. So I think politics comes into play on the side of the historians. And then I think also politics comes into play, as you mentioned, in the responses to the historians criticisms they inspire. So I don't know, does that address your question, or is that kind of what you're?
PJ Wehry:
Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, that's a great answer. Excuse me. I'm particularly interested in, and some of this is my own philosophical work, but what were some of the key moments in the romantic and critical history in like you talk about in chapter three?
eileen:
Um.
PJ Wehry:
What were some of the main movements that you see at that time?
eileen:
Well, I guess the main moments that kind of gave rise to it or the main kind of how it was important, is that kind of what you're getting at or?
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, how it was important.
eileen:
Okay, yeah, I think... Romantic history, well, yeah, I mean, I kind of lumped together these two ideas of romantic and critical history that I think sometimes are often seen as opposed. And I think romantic history was kind of seen as often portrayed as this movement where historians put a lot more emphasis on kind of telling history as a story, you know, presenting history in an artistic and a literary way, making it dramatic, getting people emotionally involved in the story. but I think as a result of the emphasis on emotion, I think sometimes romantic history has often been seen as kind of lacking in kind of a scholarly basis and lacking that kind of critical perspective, which I think has become an important attribute of the historical discipline. And so I think one of the things that I want to show and I guess one reason why I think that romantic history is important is that critical impulse, the effort to be, to kind of ground history primary sources and evidence to analyze them critically, that that critical impulse and the romantic impulse were not mutually exclusive and that actually you see that a number of the historians that I talk about bring them together. So for example, there's a German historian Leopold von Ranke who is seen as kind of almost like a founding father of kind of modern historical scholarship and he's seen as the founder of of objective truth and someone who really pioneered in this kind of critical analysis of primary sources as the basis for history. But I think he was someone who was also very much influenced by a lot of the romantic currents going on at the time. And even the way he talks about the primary sources, and I think I quote some of this in the book, he uses very emotional, romantic language to talk about the documents. So I think. So I think this romantic history is important, even though I think historians today mostly write in a very different way from those romantic historians, that a lot of the kind of critical approaches, the belief in documents, and also I think the importance of understanding history from the point of view of historical actors themselves. This idea of historical empathy that I talked about, a lot of that comes from that romantic period.
PJ Wehry:
Even as we talk about historiography today, and maybe this is my own misunderstanding of the subject, but it seems like it has fragmented quite a bit in today's kind of higher education, the world of academia. What value do you see in the fact that there are now so many lenses to look at through history, and what are some of the... What are some of the pros and cons, if you will, of this idea that there are different lenses for history or so many different schools of thought?
eileen:
Well, yeah, I think you're right about this fragmentation. I think this was something, I think especially toward the late 20th century, that a lot of historians were really worried about, and that there was almost a sense of crisis created by that feeling of fragmentation. And Yeah, I think in terms of the pros and cons of that, I think the pros are that I think having more diverse lenses, I think it gives us more tools at our disposal. And I think it also gives us more
PJ Wehry:
Mm.
eileen:
of a sense of the complexity of the past, if you can have all these different perspectives and different approaches to study it. So I think that's an important benefit of that. Now I think that the downside of the fragmentation is, and I think one of the things these historians who are worried about this, or were concerned about it, is that because there are so many viewpoints on history, that there's no kind of. uniform narrative of history anymore, and that if you lose that kind of unified narrative,
PJ Wehry:
Mm.
eileen:
and if history is a kind of basis for some sense of national identity and belonging, does that also undermine that larger sense of national connection? And so I think it's interesting that today we're at a moment where, yeah, there's a lot of fragmentation in the study of history, and there's also a lot of fragmentation. and polarization in our politics. And I think a question could be raised, is there a connection between those two trends?
PJ Wehry:
I mean, I would love to hear your answer to that, because I mean, they answered to me, like, this is part of the reason I'm interested in this topic. Can you speak to that?
eileen:
Well, yeah, I mean, I think... I think they are connected, although I'm not sure that I would necessarily say in kind of, you know, the simplistic obvious answer would be say, oh well, so if we had a more kind of unified understanding of history, would all the fragmentation go away or all
PJ Wehry:
Right, right, right, right.
eileen:
the polarization go away? I don't think that would happen. And again, as I said, I'm not sure there's ever been a time when we've been completely unified in our understanding of the past. But I think the fractures have multiplied maybe and become more evident. So I think that the fragmentation in history and the fragmentation in our politics are connected but at the same time I would not advocate for trying to get rid of the fragmentation in our history, both because I think, as I said, there are a lot of benefits to that and also I don't think it would solve the polarization in our politics.
PJ Wehry:
You don't think that we just need one really good history book and then all our troubles will go away. I think that's a fair conclusion. No. Even as you're talking about this,
eileen:
Ha!
PJ Wehry:
one of the things that strikes me, and especially yourself as a teacher, this loss of this grand narrative, what are the pedagogical implications? What are the the loss of the grand narrative when you're teaching to your students.
eileen:
I think pedagogically... I mean, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I think in a way it's freeing, because I think it, it, it, not having a grand narrative lends itself to the approach that I, I talked about earlier, which is, I don't really want to impose a narrative on them. You know, I want them to come up with their own narrative, and hopefully that they will each come up with a different narrative. So I think there's, there's a benefit that way. narrative is that it does make things simpler and it can also give a kind of drama to the way that you present the past. So I think the downside of losing some kind of grand narrative is, and I think one of the important problems facing the historical discipline today is the fact that people are students are losing interest in history and people don't feel like it's relevant.
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
eileen:
You see that fewer students are majoring in history, you see fewer undergraduate enrollments in history courses. Whereas if you look in the 19th century when there was more of a grand narrative and when historians could use that narrative to kind of tell history in this really exciting dramatic way, you know history was a popular subject back then. You know you could write a history book and have it be a bestseller and I mean there are to do that now. And so I think. That's the downside of the loss of the grand narrative. How do we make history interesting and appealing to general readers without that narrative? Because I find all the complexity of history interesting. And from your comments, it sounds like you do too. But I think not necessarily everyone finds that complexity automatically interesting. And so I think the challenge for historians, how do we make that complexity interesting without trying to reimpose some new grand narrative on it?
PJ Wehry:
So my undergrad was in history, so I am one of the few the proud to borrow a phrase but Even as you're talking about this When you're talking to students and you're trying to convince them of the importance of history That's something you feel is kind of slipping away How do you convince them of the importance of history?
eileen:
I mean, I think... I guess there's two levels to the question. I mean, I think in terms to convince them of the importance of history, you know, yeah, I can tell them certain reasons why I think history is important.
PJ Wehry:
Hehehe
eileen:
You know, for example, I think, you know, this the historical empathy I talk about,
PJ Wehry:
Cough
eileen:
I think that that is actually something valuable, not just for studying the past. But, you know, if you can understand how somebody, you know, in the 19th century could have such a totally different mindset from our own that, you know, could think it was okay to have slaves, then you can apply that ability to understanding somebody today who might have a political viewpoint that's different from your own. So I think that that empathy can actually be important for our kind of everyday social relations and maybe useful for the political polarization we have for today. But I think the problem too is, you know, I can say this to the students, but I'm not sure just saying it, you know, has, is going to have the impact that I want. And so I think part of it is getting them into the class. And once they're in the class, and just kind of letting them work through the complexities for themselves, and I think that process helps them see the value of history. And that I think, again, just being able to deal with complexity is, I think, an important ability to have for our own lives. And so if you can deal with historical complexity, complexities of just kind of everyday living.
PJ Wehry:
That's a really fascinating idea and I might be too far out in left field So feel free if this question is just not a good one But when you talk about that the one of the convincing factors is just the process itself Can you speak a little bit more to that? That's really fascinating to me
eileen:
Well, I think in terms of another kind of reason that I would give as to why history is important is that. And this goes back to kind of the critical methods of history. A lot of studying history is kind of looking at kind of original primary sources, seeing how often the sources don't agree with one another, and then having to kind of make critical assessments, weighing them against one another, weighing them against other information at your disposal, and trying to come up with your own best conclusions as to what the real truth was. So I think the study of history involves of the sifting of evidence involves critical analysis and then involves you know to write a paper being able to communicate all of that clearly. And I think again all those abilities are things that I think are really necessary for any job that anyone has or anything that you do in everyday life even you know trying to buy something on Amazon you know you can't trust the reviews you know I analyze those reviews the way I analyze primary sources and I'm usually pretty
PJ Wehry:
Ha!
eileen:
But I think that, again, that's not something you can just tell students.
PJ Wehry:
That's a great example.
eileen:
I think the process of doing that critical analysis, I think, is how they learn how to do it. And then I think they just kind of see for themselves, oh, this is something that they can extend into other areas of their life.
PJ Wehry:
And you've mentioned this with the historical empathy, you've mentioned it with the process and the critical methods, that the past provides great practice for what we really need for life in the present. Is there something to the study of the past itself that is valuable, perhaps in terms of identity or in terms of purpose for people who study it?
eileen:
I think, yes, I mean, yes, I do think there is something valuable about it. And I think, and I, you know, I can't, I don't want to speak for other people. I mean, I think there's a value to it that, you know, what its value is differs for each individual. But I think to speak for myself, I think one of the most important benefits to me of studying the past is that... It takes me into a different world. It broadens my perspective and enables me to see that the way that we are now. It was not always the way that it was. I think it's so easy to take what we have, everything, as a given. You look at the 19th century and you see things like women's rights that we take for granted today, or maybe not everyone does take that for granted today. Something so basic as a married woman, being able to own her own property up until well into the 19th century. that most women in the United States had. So it makes everything that we have today feel much more contingent. And I think that's an important realization to have.
PJ Wehry:
It's interesting, even as you said that, one of the things that shocked me, I had Paul Craddock in one of my historical episodes to talk about the history of transplants. And what shocked me and also mildly disgusted me was how recently we really developed the idea of bodily autonomy. people forcibly or very easily being manipulated into giving away body parts to other people. It's very recent. We're talking like, this is an idea that's only like 50 to 80 years old, and that we don't do this. And that, all of a sudden, it creates a real fragility. to a lot of the things that you're like, oh, we actually have to fight to protect this, right? Like this is not, this is something recent, this is something, and hopefully we find valuable. Most people, hopefully we don't think it would be a good idea to pay a guinea to orphans to give us their teeth or whatever was done in the past. And so, yeah, I think that's a great point is that it. really gives us a sense of our progress, but also what we, the fragility of that progress and how much work we have to do to maintain what we have.
eileen:
Yes, and I think, yeah, what you're saying about the fragility, I think, is a very good way of putting it. And also, I think it promotes a sense of humility, because I think also a lot of what I think understanding history involves and a lot of this kind of historical empathy, what it shows is what I'm really interested in, and I think this is where historiography is valuable, is not just looking at all these different ways that historians have interpreted the past, but in showing how much they are shaped by their context.
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
eileen:
and how it's not just coming, these ideas are not just coming from out of their heads, out of nowhere, but these ideas are very much shaped by the climate in which they are living. And I think that's true of all historical subjects. And so I think that realization of how much we are the product of our context is also very important because I think it shows the limits to each individual's power, and I think that's important in kind of creating a sense of humility amongst people. think that any one individual is going to change the world. That even somebody like Abraham Lincoln, he did not single-handedly win the Civil War. What he was able to do was very much shaped by all kinds of forces that were both influencing him and kind of acting to shape the events that he was involved in.
PJ Wehry:
I don't know. I watched Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter and I think he might have, you know, actually I haven't seen it. It's probably vampire slayer or something.
eileen:
Oh god.
PJ Wehry:
But actually, so and this is a little bit more into maybe my field of study. I come from like a background in hermeneutics. But this is too far out in the field. Feel free to disregard it. When we talk about, you know, entering into a different world and why that's valuable for history. How do you see the difference there between entering into a different historical world versus a different fictional world? What are the differences and the different values of fiction versus history?
eileen:
Now that's an interesting question. Yeah. I mean, I think there are certain similarities. You know, I think there is a kind of empathy involved in both. And I mean, I guess ultimately to me, you know, entering the historical world, you know, that is a world that is grounded in reality. And part of the quest there is to find kind of what people really were thinking versus entering a fictional world. There is more room and latitude for the imagination. And what I can't answer right now, and it's a good question, I need to think about more is what are the implications of that difference? And what benefits are there to entering a world that is grounded in reality and that you can substantiate with your evidence and fact versus entering a world that is the product of an author's imagination? So yeah, I'd have to think more about it. But yeah, that's a very, very interesting question.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, even as you're talking about it, let me be clear. I asked that question because I want to know the answer. I mean, I don't have like, but even this is part of the reason I love the format of this podcast is even as I was talking to you and we were talking about our responsibility to dead people, right? To telling the truth about them, having empathy for them. I, one of the clearest and I don't know what the ramifications of this are, but one of the clearest differences is that. the responsibility a historian has to the characters in his story is considerably different than an author has to his fictional characters, right? Like, and so, I mean, and that just speaks to like, when you're talking about reality based, right?
eileen:
Mm-hmm.
PJ Wehry:
Like that, like they are fundamentally separated, but it's fascinating as you were talking about the different worlds. I was like, that's those are some of the same defenses people have for why we read fiction. And I did not come in today expecting you to emphasize empathy so much, but in a very divisive world that we live in right now, I appreciate that emphasis. And it is something I haven't heard emphasized a lot in history, and I think it's important. And so I appreciate that. Thank you.
eileen:
Well, yeah, I think that, I mean, I always feel like if people, more people studied history and the way that it should be taught and developed this empathy that, you know, the world would be a better place. You know, there wouldn't be quite, you know, people would still argue, I'm sure, but hopefully
PJ Wehry:
Hehehehe
eileen:
not with quite the same level of acrimony that you see, I think, increasingly today. But yeah, I think the challenge is, I think, to get people to see that.
PJ Wehry:
Dr. Chang, let me say first of all that it has been a real pleasure to have you on the show. Kind of as we wrap up here, what is something that you would, if you could leave one takeaway to our audience, what would it be? Something for them to chew on throughout the week.
eileen:
Okay. I guess one takeaway, and I think just to tie it back to the historiography and kind of one of the themes of my book, and it's sort of a pet peeve of mine, and it's not
PJ Wehry:
Those are the best.
eileen:
a view that's unique to me. I think other historians have brought this up, and it ties back into my emphasis on this idea that history is an interpretive discipline, and that's one of the things, one of the reasons why historiography is valuable. is that's What I think ultimately historiography shows is that nowadays people often use the term revisionist history in a negative way as though revisionist history is false history. And that always bothers me and I think it bothers other historians because I think most historians, this is the one thing I think we would agree on, is that all history is revisionist history. kind of revising old interpretations, coming up with new ones. And so I think that I would want your listeners to kind of take away from this, that understanding that history is about revision and that that is not a bad thing, that revisionism does not mean falsification, but rather an enlargement of complexity.
PJ Wehry:
What a great way to end today's podcast. Dr. Chang, thank you so much for coming on. It's been a real joy.
eileen:
Well, thank you very much. I really enjoyed it, too.