Reaction on Zagorin, History, the Referent, and Narrative: Reflections on Postmodernism - Term Paper Example

? Personal Reaction Paper and Book Review College: Presented Reaction paper on Zagorin, ‘History, the Referent, and Narrative: Reflections on Postmodernism’, History & Theory, 38/1 (1999) Zagorin in his article History the Referent and Narrative Reflections in Postmodernism Now offers a detailed analysis of the current status of postmodernism and its stand on historiography. Zagorin explores various writings by historiography scholars with reactionary content on postmodernism. Zagorin argues that unlike many scholars in the literary studies, the American historical scholars are more resistant to postmodernist ideologies, and that the effects of postmodernist doctrines on the practice and thinking of historians is continuously tending to oblivion. In addition Zagorin further argues that postmodernism skepticism and political ideology in evaluating history does not provide any reliability regarding how some historians think regarding their work, and does not sufficiently provide reliable understanding of historiography as related to formation of knowledge and deeper understanding of the past by humans.1 I feel Zagorin is right in that Postmodernism has been a formidable force in attacking and criticizing historians, but does not offer the required answers on how the past can be adequately conceptualized. Therefore, Zagorin utilizes historical facts in presenting a critique to the postmodernism doctrine. My argument is largely informed by the biasness of historiography. Historicism in European historiography was defined by several aspects characteristic of postmodernism. These included the requirement of objectivity in historiography, positivism which viewed history as an objective science, and explaining human existence through laws based on factual evidence and critical reasoning. Since many narratives and thus history do not achieve the above qualities, many postmodernist historians tend to neglect them to oblivion, and claim such narratives can have no basis in informing reality or factual events in the past. For example, Zagorin observes that many nineteenth century thinkers and historians rejected the doctrine of narratives;2 specifically regarding the narrative of emancipation directed towards Marxism and communism, and the metanarrative that the two led to a redemptive process, leading through class struggles to a classless society and world order under socialism. It is important to note that most of the scholars rejecting such narratives were from the western dissent, where communism and socialism did not find any favor politically. Moreover, more Enlightenment historiographers who could be linked to postmodernism were mainly French, English, or Scottish; they had continued interests in political history in evolution of states and other political formations. The same historians advocated for emphasis on documentary sources or chronology of events; the main focus was causation, where history turned from descriptive history to explanatory history. Therefore, I believe that since Marxism as a narrative leading to social order could not satisfy the above conditions, and due to acute differences in political ideologies that shaped the historiography during the enlightenment period, the narrative of Marxism leading to social order could not thus satisfy and was thus rejected by postmodernist scholars. Therefore, I Conquer with Zagorin’s assertion that postmodernism historiography was marked by growing overt political and ideological biasness, which greatly influenced and directed work in various fields of history. In the case of Marxism, postmodernists could thus be said to construe such political biasness to a political ideology that did not share their values. Postmodernism as Zagorin explains denies realism, and dismisses any possibility of objective knowledge and truth as the goals of an inquiry. In other words, postmodernism denies any possibility of language or discourse leading to an independent world of facts, and the ability of textual meaning to define facts.3 In this argument, I deduce that Zagorin fails to recognize that narratives through language might not be objective as these are constructed by individuals according to how they perceive events. However, I Conquer with Zagorin assertion that, it would not be accurate to deny that words or language can indeed lead to an independent world of facts. For example, realist historians accept the fact that history’s object is the accumulation of knowledge redefining the past as a fading reality that can be constructed.4 Therefore, I feel Zagorin’s argument is varied in that history is knowledge that can be confirmed or verified to form the past reality through critical realism. Moreover, discourse or language is the only tool that can be used to create such reconstruction of the past in the present. As Zagorin argues, any historian with a strong urge for the truth can resist perverting their studies and reconstructing the myths of the past as required by communities, either real or imaginary, real or not, which would orientate such narratives to suit their needs and expectations.5 I view that Zagorin’s argument is limited to unbiased cases; discourse of language can be used objectively by historians, through carefully rejecting biasness to construct historical facts and use textual meanings to indicate such facts. My observation is that though the use of language in unbiased construction of historical facts negates the postmodernists’ objection to discourse being used to create any formation of a factual world, the same language maybe used by historians for personal ends in biased construction of facts. His argument is thus limited to those seeking for truth and not necessary constructing historical facts. Currently, the world is dominated by an era of postmodernity and there is nothing can be done about this. However, Jenkings similar to many postmodernists describes history as just but theories regarding the past, and how it has to be understood. It’s only a theory that can incorporate a fact.6 Zagorin finds fault in Jenking’s hypothesis that a fact cannot exist devoid of any description such as a fact is deduced from a theory. Zagorin’s position is well defended in that a description is not a theory and yet it offers facts. I find Zagorin’s argument much varied in critiquing Jenkin’s arguments. For, example, making a statement that the Second World War was fought between 1939 and 1945 is not a theory, but yet provides enough historical facts. Also stating that the Holocaust occurred as a mass genocide targeting the Jews would be making a true historical fact with no need of any theory. I also find Jenkin’s argument to be sloppy in that it would amount to denying the occurrence of any historical event despite how obvious such an event was, so far as there is no theory to support it. This argument by itself does not provide any realism. It is invalid for postmodernists to argue that the past is gone and there is no way such past can be reconstructed through any historical efforts, in constructing its distinct ways of life and modes of thought, as many historians try to do in their historical narratives. It is possible to join together historical elements systematically through discourse, which would create factual knowledge regarding the past at present today. Zagorin defense against postmodernists as he articulates the difference between a historical account and fiction, from the postmodernist perspective of refuting any credibility in historians’ reconstruction of the past in the present is very credible, and I find it the best way to conclude what would differentiate realism in a historical account and fiction. One, Zagorin explains historical work does not pretend to know everything or tell everything; it strategically contains selective reconstruction of the past from many facts as dictated by problems, subjects, and the questions that the author wishes to deal with.7 Zagorin further in his defense correctly asserts that history is susceptible to disapprove, as it is composed from a certain point of view; it does not intend to portray in any way as being a mechanical writing of reality. I find these definitions to be the summary of the entire defense against postmodernists. For example, it is very varied for Zagorin to imply that a historical narrative is just an attempt to answer specific questions in leading to certain aspects of understanding related to a specific phenomenon. In other words historical narrative does not entail figurative decorations, does not pretend to have everything in itself, but has to be limited to only that which is known, unlike fiction that has to be attractive and thus has to include all nature of figurative language and be interesting to the reader. Zagorin particularly delineates the constituents of a historical text by asserting that it has to be a realist genre, has to have proper arguments but not only specimens of narratives, and has to have footnotes and justifications of that which is not known.8 I find Zagorin’s descriptions regarding historiography to be valid and satisfying. While Postmodernist assertion that any historical text is written with a view of orientating the mind of the reader in a specific direction, applies incase of fictional work or any other historical work that is not aimed at establishing the truth, a historical text involves factual historical descriptions of an element using various elements that could reject any subjective orientation. Such a text through quoting references gives room for future writers to critique the text, unlike fiction that only contains the thoughts of the writer. However, Zagorin is limited in that he defends any historical writing, while there are some historical writings that can include all the above aspects, but still be slanted to fit one’s perception through discourse. Therefore, realism can only be obtained by those willing to achieve the truth. I conquer with Zagorin in denying realism as portrayed buy postmodernists. Most postmodernists argue that the past has to stand before a historian in present as objects of perception, which is not only impossible but absurd. It’s absurd that the past has to be viewed at present. However, similar to Zagorin’s argument my take is that past events become the objects of knowledge based on evidence of their existence as observed in the present. Therefore, my view is that the past is knowable by objects that stand in the present, and which reflect the past. Through observing these objects as Zagorin argues, it would be possible to offer definitions as related to a place, individual, institutions, ideas, and other elements.9 Thus I side with Zagorin’s argument that for the past to be real or actualized, it has to be independent of any theory, or any philosophical argument as many postmodernists would try to put it. Thus my view is that any historical narrative has to be based on the grounded historical reasoning and necessity, as created by memory and expressed in human language through past tense statements, and has to be linked to the idea of history with human past as its object. Therefore, I observe that erasing the demarcation of fiction and narrative would lead doing away with historical realism; both are constructs of both language and discourse. However history has to be bounded by documentation, and has to be limited to evidence surviving at the time as well as being in line with what had been established previously.10 I view that this argument by Zagorin is viable and conclusive I that for history to achieve realism, there have to be some documents to offer more proof, the narrative does not have to be ambitious in answering every question, but has to be limited to the few collections of evidence that can be accessed in structuring such history. Such narrative has also to be in line with similar historical narratives on the same concept, meaning that there has to be objective and truthful reporting. Zagorin in his article History the Referent and Narrative Reflections in Postmodernism offers a candid defense of historiography against the postmodernists, who argue that history cannot exist, but it’s only used to orientate the minds of readers in any directions desired by the author. Zagorin provides enough evidence to disapprove such an assertion, and even deduces various theses from postmodernists’ arguments, which he systematically uses to disapprove postmodernists stand on historiography. Therefore, this article is a strong proponent of historiography and its construction of historical facts now. Chang Iris., The rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. NY: Basic Books, 1997, Book Review China and Japan have shared a long period of both close relations and fierce rivalry in history. Since the early Chinese dynasties, Japan has featured prominently in Chinese affairs. In fact, the Chinese culture including writing and words selection has heavily affected Japanese culture. The two countries are both close friends and the worst of enemies in various war conflicts. For example, all historical Chinese works have numerous records on Japan. All books written before the Chinese Tang Dynasty (618A.D -907) have the Japanese people named “Wa.”11 Earlier records show that Japan and China had contacts more than three years ago, making the countries to have more in common, but yet much differences. Japan under the revered emperor rule has had many instances in history where they stretch their military muscles to test their might and prove their dominance over the region. The Pacific war was no different from this. Chang in her book The Rape of Nanking provides the horrific accounts of the 1937-1938 conquering and occupation of the city of Nanking by Japanese forces. The Pacific war according to Chang paint a horrible picture that may be compared to the Nazi holocaust, though it took a shorter time compared to the holocaust massacres.12 Chang utilizes powerful and succinct language in describing the events that led to the Nanking massacre and the entire brutality by Japanese forces. Through the succinct description, Chang takes the readers slowly through the destruction and brutality involved in the Pacific war, makes the readers feel what a massacre really looks like, and even introduces readers to stories involving terror by individuals as well as the heroics involved in this conflict. Chang’s account of the massacre draws much legitimacy from the collection of materials he uses to construct the whole massacre episode. The author uses materials from the Tokyo war trials, Japanese diaries, and Western correspondence as well as narration of Chinese witnesses. The extensive use of these powerful sources adds a tone of legitimacy to the novel; the reader has a feeling that the narrative by Chang reports what actually happened in Nanking province during the Pacific war. For example, Chang traces the diaries of John Rabe , a German who did much to protect the Chinese people from Japanese attack alongside other westerners as well as accounts of other witnesses,13 making the extensive use of these forces to add much credibility to her narrative on the massacre. Through some of the photographic works provided by some Japanese soldiers, Nanking massacre resembles the Holocaust in some aspects. For example, there are accounts of selection of women and children for torture and sexual violations, much similar to what happened in Nazi concentration camps, though Chang does not compare the two. Presence of reporters and even the pictures taken by Japanese soldiers, which have been used to portray the grisly effects of the war, and how the Japanese newspapers carried these stories presents a notion that the Japanese viewed all these happenings rather favorably, until the international opinion became concerned. This probably paints a deeper picture of deep lying hatred between the two countries. Chang creates the perception that the Pacific war was as a result of campaigns by Japanese emperors involved in anti Chinese racisms; later fuelled by the Japanese emperor worship, and a growing hunger to elevate Japan above others, particularly in the region.14 Through detailed description of events, Chang shows that atrocities committed in Nanking province were indeed planned though military command, and not as a result of unavoidable circumstances in the war. Chang presents enough facts that could prove the atrocities were in fact planned through commands. In most cases, military commands in war do inhibit such extreme excesses, but can also incite and encourage the armies to go ahead to commit such atrocities at will. For example, to show that the massacre was in fact ordered by the Japanese emperor, Chang explains that in 1937, the first wave of killing Chinese prisoners15 was actually ordered by an uncle of an emperor or a close staff. To prove this assertion, Chang explains how these massacres happened despite vehement opposition by the then ailing Japanese commander, Matsui, and that they were still committed in violation of the Japanese imperial forces codes of conduct, under the Samurai philosophy.16 Interestingly, even American presence was felt in this war. The Americans at this time not in war with the Japanese offered humanitarian care and protection to the Chinese. They even made public details regarding the war and massacre to the outer world.17 The fact that Japan’s justification for the war was taking over Asia to protect it against the Europeans was ironical as Japanese were and still are more inclined towards Europe, the same people with negative attitudes towards most of Asian ideologies and especially communism. Much of the ideological differences and political differences between China and Europe resulted from the Marxist communist ideology that was deeply rooted in the Sino Asian region. This could be the reason why Americans never intercepted in the war though Japan was not their favorite because of its close ties with the Germans.18 The conflict between the communist ideology under Marxism gaining root in Asia and the capitalism ideology in Europe and American could have been the reason why these countries never bothered to with the massacre, unlike the Nazi massacre that attracted much attention globally. In fact, Chang points that the Cold War played as an excuse to forget the postwar crimes with an aim of integrating Japan into the anticommunist world.19 This is a case of historical continuity; today Japan is viewed as a more neutral country surrounded by communist regimes. Therefore, though the Nanking massacres happened before the global war and perhaps on a smaller scale compared to the Nazi massacre, and that it happened further away geographically, it is still reasonable to believe that global prejudices have made people to care less about Asians as humans compared to Europeans judging from Chang’s arguments. In fact, the prejudice of Japanese is still alive as no official apology has been made to the Chinese people over Nanking massacre; perhaps due to the delusion that the war was a worthy and just course. The arrangement of Chang’s books is more confusing and interesting. The structural organization of the book takes the readers behind the Japanese forces and the slaughter fields, and then Chang introduces painful testimonies of some witnesses after the war, and how they enjoyed their operations during this period. Afterwards, Chang takes the reader to the Chinese side, to the westerners, and finally introduces the international safer zones. Though the design is interesting, it would lead to more confusion in the narrative, cause more repetitions in the novel. The cover is particularly interesting and annoying. The word rape has been used more prominently than “Nanking” and other illustrations on the cover. The book from a distance may reflect a different meaning and perception; one has to read inside to know exactly what the book is all about. Despite the eccentric description provided by Chang in the book,. The book characteristic of other Chinese historiography has many accounts of myths and exaggerations, where information is provided without proper factual accounts, which portrays the fiction in the book. Chang in her book over relies on a few Chinese scholars, which results in serious errors, or myths that cannot be factually substantiated. This is more so as the enter book leads readers to believe it is based on evidence and facts as she collects facts from different sources. For example, Chang claims that before the massacre, Nanking had a population of 700,000 civilians and soldiers.20 This would be a wild guess and not factual. There are no documents supporting this, nor would it be possible to estimate the number of people entering and leaving the city prior to the invasion. Such data in a book that contains collection of evidences from different sources may be misleading to readers. Moreover, Chang over relied on second hand account of events, similar to myths that are passed from one generation to the other in Chinese historiography. For example, Chang explains of Mufu Hill massacre, where she claims over 57,000 Chinese were murdered by the Japanese army, and gives credit to Tokyo Trial documents as evidence to support this claim.21 However, this claim was actually made by a Chinese witness at the trials. Chang did not make any attempt to validate this claim, but presents it as the actual truth. This would be misleading to readers and may discredit her book particularly to those with enough information regarding the Nanking massacre. To avoid such misjudgment, Chang could have indicated the source of the information or carry out further research to validate this with supporting evidence. Witnesses’ claims may not represent the actual facts on the ground as they are based on subjective perception of events. Chang gives the estimated death of people in Nanking to be about 260,000, and cites the source to be the Tokyo trials. Chang goes ahead to claim that this figure is a conservative estimate. However, this does not represent factual evidence. First, the figure above was given as an estimate by the prosecutor at Nanking trials, while the Tokyo trials admitted this report as evidence. Despite admitting this report, the Tokyo trials made a verdict that more than 200,000 people were killed, but it was difficult to state the exact number of those killed with any precision as evidence to indicate the actual number were scattered and difficult to consolidate. Therefore, Chang in this assertion makes a wild assumption which may mislead the readers, or discredit her book for those with good understanding of the Nanking massacre. The numbers of those killed may never actually be known as some Japanese scholars come up with a much lower figure regarding the deaths, while the Chinese scholars come up with much higher figures regarding the same massacre. However, throughout the book Chang consolidates her argument on a figure greater than 260,000. This may not portray a conservative number as she chooses to concentrate on creating an image that too many Chinese were indeed massacred and ignores the fact that some lower estimates exist, as well as explaining why these lower figures do exist. The Japanese or those with enough knowledge regarding lower figure estimates may find the book biased, thereby undermining her work. In addition to misrepresenting facts, Chang creates a very negative image of the Japanese, and may be construed to harbor some hatred towards them. For example, she claims that there was an insatiable demand for military products,22 and later claims that “rape remained deeply embedded in Japanese military culture and superstition.”23 These claims portray Japan as a country with extremists and deeply blinded by revenge and conquering in the world history. She even portrays Japanese as schizophrenic people who live in superstitions. Such descriptions are sensational; they portray anger and frustrations towards the Japanese. Making the book sensational may water down the greater good it has in educating generations regarding the Nanking massacre. Surprisingly, Chang admits that credible data and documentation regarding the Nanking massacre are lacking; available evidence consists of individuals’ collections and estimates.24 She goes further to admit that some of her sources were indeed questionable and unreliable,25 however, Chang uses such sources on several occasions in her book, leaving questions as to why she would settle on unreliable and questionable sources. Bibliography Chang Iris., The rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. NY: Basic Books, 1997. Oriental Style. The Early Relations Between China and Japan. http://www.ourorient.com/the-early-relations-between-china-and-japan.htm Accessed 1st Oct. 2012. Zagorin, ‘History, the Referent, and Narrative: Reflections on Postmodernism’, History & Theory, 38/1 (1999) Read More