Science or Story?

For many years I have thought about the study of history and I have even thought about the way certain individuals study history. As a reenactor I have often felt caught between the amateur and the historian in a limbo where I am both but also neither. As I have watched my peers struggle to learn the lives that we portray it struck me that there was a lack of balance between a scientific, data based approach and a more narrative based approach. In History’s Babel, it was interesting to see that History in academia has suffered from the same question.

From the beginning of the book, the author seems to advocate for a pure form of history, devoid of influence from other subject matter. Mr. Townsend very clearly points out that the majority of historians in the early days of the profession (1880s-1920s) were also aligned with political science, economics, and sociology. He states that this reality resulted in “ambiguity at the departmental level [and] was often reflected at the individual level as well.” (p. 14) Throughout the book I felt as though there was an undercurrent of the need to keep history almost clinical.

I believe in the critical importance of the truths provided by primary sources. But historical facts without context and interpretation are… what? How do you learn, teach, and understand history without bias or influence? Is that even possible and is that a bad thing? History shapes and is shaped by everything that we do and who we are as a people. We cannot look at even the driest data without overlaying our perception based on our education and experiences. 

His rushed conclusion feels like Townsend is backtracking by stating that despite what has been said the entire book, history is critically important to other subjects. How can history be important to other subjects and professional fields but those subjects are not critical to understanding history? By thinking this way I feel that Townsend actually sells short history’s value, complexity, and appeal.