HISTORY: A HANDMAID'S TALE

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Aparna Vaidik
{"title":"HISTORY: A HANDMAID'S TALE","authors":"Aparna Vaidik","doi":"10.1111/hith.12318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Historians are generally coy and diffident when it comes to engaging with the moral question despite it being a critical aspect of doing history. However, historians of empire cannot evade the moral question given the ethical dilemmas that imperialism posed for the men at its helm. To portray the colonists as hypocrites is too facile and cynical an explanation. So, what allowed the British colonists to manage the conscience that they indeed possessed? As Priya Satia boldly argues in <i>Time's Monster: How History Makes History</i>, the answer to this question resides in historicism, which became the new ethical idiom from the nineteenth century onward. It enabled the British colonists to assuage their conscience and made the empire an ethically thinkable reality. It helped whitewash colonial violence and generate public acceptance for colonization. The historians’ power lay in anointing history as providence and in using it to paper over the cracks in the British conscience. Being able to narrate was itself a manifestation of power. It was only after the Second World War that history renounced its pact with power and a reimagination of the historical idiom emerged. Various shades of South Asian and Caribbean anti-colonial leaders and postcolonial writers began to think beyond the historicist category of the empire. These efforts to dismantle the empire's historical narratives were paralleled by the writings of British historian E. P. Thompson, although he remained tied to the idea of history as progress. The moral question, however, remains unsettled. It endures for present-day historians because the teleserials, nostalgic period dramas, and “great men” histories continue to hold sway over the public mind, generate debates about the “benefits” of the empire, and feed Britain's anti-immigrant sentiments. Satia's book lies at the intersection of three sets of historiographies—histories of British political thought, postcolonial writings that highlight alternate conceptions of the past and the significance of orality, memory, and community history, and, lastly, histories of violence—all of which engage the moral question in some form or another.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47473,"journal":{"name":"History and Theory","volume":"62 4","pages":"132-141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12318","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historians are generally coy and diffident when it comes to engaging with the moral question despite it being a critical aspect of doing history. However, historians of empire cannot evade the moral question given the ethical dilemmas that imperialism posed for the men at its helm. To portray the colonists as hypocrites is too facile and cynical an explanation. So, what allowed the British colonists to manage the conscience that they indeed possessed? As Priya Satia boldly argues in Time's Monster: How History Makes History, the answer to this question resides in historicism, which became the new ethical idiom from the nineteenth century onward. It enabled the British colonists to assuage their conscience and made the empire an ethically thinkable reality. It helped whitewash colonial violence and generate public acceptance for colonization. The historians’ power lay in anointing history as providence and in using it to paper over the cracks in the British conscience. Being able to narrate was itself a manifestation of power. It was only after the Second World War that history renounced its pact with power and a reimagination of the historical idiom emerged. Various shades of South Asian and Caribbean anti-colonial leaders and postcolonial writers began to think beyond the historicist category of the empire. These efforts to dismantle the empire's historical narratives were paralleled by the writings of British historian E. P. Thompson, although he remained tied to the idea of history as progress. The moral question, however, remains unsettled. It endures for present-day historians because the teleserials, nostalgic period dramas, and “great men” histories continue to hold sway over the public mind, generate debates about the “benefits” of the empire, and feed Britain's anti-immigrant sentiments. Satia's book lies at the intersection of three sets of historiographies—histories of British political thought, postcolonial writings that highlight alternate conceptions of the past and the significance of orality, memory, and community history, and, lastly, histories of violence—all of which engage the moral question in some form or another.

历史:一个女仆的故事
尽管道德问题是研究历史的一个重要方面,但当涉及到道德问题时,历史学家通常都很腼腆和羞怯。然而,考虑到帝国主义给掌舵者带来的伦理困境,研究帝国的历史学家无法回避这个道德问题。把殖民者描绘成伪君子是一种过于轻率和愤世嫉俗的解释。那么,是什么让英国殖民者能够管理他们确实拥有的良心呢?正如Priya Satia在《时间的怪物:历史如何创造历史》一书中大胆指出的那样,这个问题的答案存在于历史决定论中,从19世纪开始,历史决定论就成了新的伦理习语。它使英国殖民者的良心得到安慰,使帝国成为一个道德上可以想象的现实。它帮助粉饰殖民暴力,并使公众接受殖民。历史学家的力量在于将历史粉饰为天意,并用它来掩盖英国人良心上的裂痕。能够叙事本身就是一种力量的表现。只有在第二次世界大战之后,历史才放弃了与权力的契约,对历史习语的重新想象才出现。南亚和加勒比地区形形色色的反殖民领袖和后殖民作家开始超越帝国的历史主义范畴进行思考。这些拆除帝国历史叙事的努力与英国历史学家e·p·汤普森(E. P. Thompson)的著作并行,尽管他仍然坚持历史是一种进步的观点。然而,道德问题仍然悬而未决。对于当今的历史学家来说,它之所以能持续下去,是因为电视节目、怀旧的历史剧和“伟人”历史继续影响着公众的思想,引发了关于帝国“好处”的辩论,并助长了英国的反移民情绪。莎蒂亚的书处于三种史学的交叉点——英国政治思想史,后殖民写作,强调对过去的不同概念,以及口述、记忆和社区历史的重要性,最后是暴力史——所有这些都以某种形式涉及道德问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
History and Theory
History and Theory Multiple-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: History and Theory leads the way in exploring the nature of history. Prominent international thinkers contribute their reflections in the following areas: critical philosophy of history, speculative philosophy of history, historiography, history of historiography, historical methodology, critical theory, and time and culture. Related disciplines are also covered within the journal, including interactions between history and the natural and social sciences, the humanities, and psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信