Summary
Highlights
The lecturer begins by welcoming attendees and expressing his enthusiasm for discussing theory and methodology in history teaching. He clarifies that the majority of the lecture will focus on historical theory, with methodology being addressed later, as it is highly dependent on context and individual construction. He emphasizes that understanding the theoretical underpinnings of history is crucial for effective teaching, as practice will then adapt to specific pedagogical and classroom realities. The main question posed is: 'What is history?'
The speaker asserts that everyone believes they know what history is, yet there are numerous conceptions. He provocatively states that any answer to 'what is history?' is valid, as no single entity holds a monopoly on its definition. He recounts a debated proposal to create a professional category for historians, which he opposed, arguing that 'history' shouldn't be exclusive to academics. He praises local historians who document their cities without formal academic training, emphasizing that diverse voices contribute to understanding the past.
History is presented as a uniquely human form of knowledge, defined by our capacity for reflection on information. Different types of knowledge—religion, philosophy, myths—all provide explanations and give meaning to the world. The major turning point, however, was the emergence of modern science in the 15th century. This new form of knowledge, with its emphasis on rationality, causality, objectivity, and universality, challenged history's place, initially relegating it to 'literature' due to its perceived lack of scientific rigor.
Delving into the origins, the lecturer explains that 'history' is much older than modern science, tracing its roots to ancient Greece. Herodotus, the 'father of history,' used the term 'historie' to mean 'what I saw, what I witnessed.' This simple act of recounting personal observation evolved, with writing allowing for broader dissemination. However, the ambition to 'tell everything' (Herodotus's goal) is impossible. Thucydides, in contrast, focused on specific events, like the Peloponnesian War, introducing the idea that 'there is only history of something,' necessitating a specific focus and recorte (cutout or selection).
A core tenet of the lecture is that all history is inherently biased. The speaker stresses that readers must understand the ideological and contextual biases of any historical account. He provides a personal example of his education in São Paulo, where the 1932 Constitutionalist Revolution was taught from a Paulista-centric viewpoint, glorifying local heroes. This demonstrates how historical narratives, particularly those found in textbooks and national symbols, are often constructed by the 'victors' or dominant groups to solidify a particular memory and identity, like Tiradentes becoming a national hero for reasons tied to regional power dynamics.
The lecturer further elaborates on how historical narratives are shaped by power struggles, serving to establish a 'legitimate representation of the past.' This 'history of the victors' is cemented in textbooks and national symbols. He argues that for teachers, the goal isn't to declare 'truth' or 'falsehood' but to expose students to varied perspectives. Teachers should explain the origins of different interpretations, showing that history is a human construction, not divine revelation. This approach helps students develop critical thinking and avoid being confined to a single viewpoint.
Modern science, emerging in the 15th century, established a paradigm based on rationality, causality, objectivity, and universality. This framework challenged many existing fields. History, unable to fit neatly into these criteria (e.g., how can it be universally applicable or entirely objective?), was initially marginalized and often treated as literature. This created a problem for those who sought to establish history as a legitimate science within the burgeoning academic landscape dominated by the natural sciences.
As modern science gained prominence, some historians sought to legitimize their discipline. Langlois and Seignobos, two French historians in the late 19th century, published 'Introduction to Historical Studies,' arguing that history is a science. Their crucial contribution was defining the 'historical fact' as history's unique object—something irrepetible and of national importance (e.g., the French Revolution, the 9/11 attacks). Their view emphasized official documents and factual recounting, aiming for an objective, albeit limited, scientific history, often criticized as 'official history' or 'factual history.'
Challenging Langlois and Seignobos, the Annales School, founded by Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre in 1929, revolutionized historical thought. They argued that history should study not only unique, grand events but also repetitive phenomena and all aspects of human existence. Bloch famously stated, 'History is the science of men in time,' expanding history's scope to include everything human. This paradigm shift was groundbreaking, bringing history closer to social sciences by acknowledging the importance of social, economic, and cultural structures, challenging the notion of an 'esgotável' (exhaustible) history.
The lecturer argues that history doesn't precisely fit the modern scientific definition but employs scientific methods. It's more than literature, yet requires narrative skill. Benedetto Croce's phrase, 'All history is contemporary history,' is introduced. It means historians, driven by present-day questions, delve into the past to find answers, effectively constructing the past through a present-day lens. Heiden White's view that history is primarily literature is discussed, but countered by Carlo Ginzburg, who emphasizes history's reliance on empirical evidence, differentiating it from pure fiction despite its narrative form.
Michel de Certeau's concept of 'opération historique' is introduced, defining the historian's work as the act of transforming past events into text. This process creates an 'effect of reality,' solidifying a particular narrative. Finally, Paul Veyne, whose work the lecturer deeply admires, is presented. Veyne's central idea is that 'history is the inventory of differences' and 'all history is comparative history.' He asserts that 'everything is history' and therefore 'history does not exist' in a singular, definitive sense. This perspective liberates the historian, allowing anything to be a historical document—personal diaries, recipes, paintings—as long as it's analyzed with critical rigor. Veyne concludes that historical explanation is fundamentally sociological, requiring concepts from social sciences to interpret and make sense of historical narratives.