One of the most fascinating things about Trouillot is how he conceptualizes the category of the 'past'. He talks about how 'past' or 'pastness' is inherently a relational category, even in the memory of a single individual - that there is nothing within the 'storage' to 'recover' - that everything is determined by the present. Or as he puts it; 'the past is only past because because there is a present'. In many ways, this further posits the question about the epidemiological limits of the discipline of History. Is it possible, even for an individual, to separate 'event' from the 'revelation' of the event? If it is not, as Trouillot seems to be implying, how much can we, as Historians, actually recover? He also raises questions about Nature of memory itself; how memory itself is contingent on context and thus affects history in the sense of 'what is said to have happened'. While this is not a new idea, it allows us think about how we read archives; even the 'friendly' ones. Even if the producer of the archive doesn't have an agenda, so to speak, how much can we trust his/her memory? Or is this question even relevant
But I think Trouillot's points allows us to think about alternative modes of History writing. If 'power' is exercised in the very first act of History writing, that is, in the production of facts, then 'empirical' history writing would almost always have traces of that power. Or at the very least, we would be limited by what 'power' allows us to see of the 'past'. As Trouillot himself points out, without any remains whatsoever, which would be true for somebody who doesn't have the resources to build a building or write a diary, we really have no way of hearing their voices except through what 'power' allows. Perhaps then, as part of the guild of History, our job beyond trying to recover these voices in the past is to make sure that future Historians have access to archives (of our day) that at least make an attempt to ensure that such voices are , in some way shape or form, preserved.
Trouillot's arguments about the production of ideas is also very instructive. He reiterates what Marx and Durkheim said about dependence of ideas on the material conditions. But I think Trouillot is pointing to something more fundamental than that. He asks the question of whether Western Historiography on the Haitian Revolution has "broken the iron bonds of the philosophical milieu in which it was born"? In other words, what is the afterlife of ideas which governed historiography in a certain time. Related to this question is the question of the 'impossible'. I absolutely love how Trouillot says that it is not that they 'should have' written about or even accepted the Haitian revolution, it is that 'they couldn't'. These two thoughts taken together, allow us to better understand why Historiography of certain events is so limited. It is so refreshing to move away from the notion that the people in the 18-19th century were simply racist, which of course they were, but their intellectual paralysis ran deeper than that; they simply could not make sense of the Haitian revolution. I think it raises the broader question of what we cannot make sense of; of what is impossible for us to make sense of. One immediate thing is any event that is related to 'enchanted' view of the World; we immediately try and make sense of it in a way that is 'possible' for us.
Lastly, at the end of the Third Chapter, Trouillot moves towards identifying 'how power operates'. He identifies two ways; formulas for erasure and formulas for banalization. He goes on to say that there are structural similarities in how power operates. I think this supremely important. We can even see these structures operating in how 1971 is silenced in Pakistani Nationalist Historiography. It is also useful because it relates back to the point about the rules of the game of History writing. In a lot of ways, formulas for banalization are inherent to the rules of the game of History writing. Given this, as Historians, our added responsibility becomes to be wary of these formulas. Because if Trouillot's book reveals anything, it is that silences are not ALWAYS ideologically driven; sometimes, or most times, they are a result of structural constraints.
But I think Trouillot's points allows us to think about alternative modes of History writing. If 'power' is exercised in the very first act of History writing, that is, in the production of facts, then 'empirical' history writing would almost always have traces of that power. Or at the very least, we would be limited by what 'power' allows us to see of the 'past'. As Trouillot himself points out, without any remains whatsoever, which would be true for somebody who doesn't have the resources to build a building or write a diary, we really have no way of hearing their voices except through what 'power' allows. Perhaps then, as part of the guild of History, our job beyond trying to recover these voices in the past is to make sure that future Historians have access to archives (of our day) that at least make an attempt to ensure that such voices are , in some way shape or form, preserved.
Trouillot's arguments about the production of ideas is also very instructive. He reiterates what Marx and Durkheim said about dependence of ideas on the material conditions. But I think Trouillot is pointing to something more fundamental than that. He asks the question of whether Western Historiography on the Haitian Revolution has "broken the iron bonds of the philosophical milieu in which it was born"? In other words, what is the afterlife of ideas which governed historiography in a certain time. Related to this question is the question of the 'impossible'. I absolutely love how Trouillot says that it is not that they 'should have' written about or even accepted the Haitian revolution, it is that 'they couldn't'. These two thoughts taken together, allow us to better understand why Historiography of certain events is so limited. It is so refreshing to move away from the notion that the people in the 18-19th century were simply racist, which of course they were, but their intellectual paralysis ran deeper than that; they simply could not make sense of the Haitian revolution. I think it raises the broader question of what we cannot make sense of; of what is impossible for us to make sense of. One immediate thing is any event that is related to 'enchanted' view of the World; we immediately try and make sense of it in a way that is 'possible' for us.
Lastly, at the end of the Third Chapter, Trouillot moves towards identifying 'how power operates'. He identifies two ways; formulas for erasure and formulas for banalization. He goes on to say that there are structural similarities in how power operates. I think this supremely important. We can even see these structures operating in how 1971 is silenced in Pakistani Nationalist Historiography. It is also useful because it relates back to the point about the rules of the game of History writing. In a lot of ways, formulas for banalization are inherent to the rules of the game of History writing. Given this, as Historians, our added responsibility becomes to be wary of these formulas. Because if Trouillot's book reveals anything, it is that silences are not ALWAYS ideologically driven; sometimes, or most times, they are a result of structural constraints.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.