Wanted: a New Kind of Narrative
It used to be taken for granted that historians wrote narratives, but this is now a matter of debate.
More exactly, a matter for at least two debates, which have been proceeding independently, despite the relevance of each to the other.
In the first place, there is the wellknown and long-standing campaign opposing those who still think that the historian's business is to narrate events, to those who believe, like Braudel, that it is to analyse structures. In this campaign, each side has made some important points at the expense of the other. The structuralists have shown that traditional narrative is incapable of dealing with much of the past, from the economic and social framework to the experiences and modes of thought of ordinary people. The supporters of narrative, on the other hand, have pointed out that the analysis of structures is necessarily static and so in a sense unhistorical. Both sides are now entrenched in their positions.
In the first place, there is the wellknown and long-standing campaign opposing those who still think that the historian's business is to narrate events, to those who believe, like Braudel, that it is to analyse structures. In this campaign, each side has made some important points at the expense of the other. The structuralists have shown that traditional narrative is incapable of dealing with much of the past, from the economic and social framework to the experiences and modes of thought of ordinary people. The supporters of narrative, on the other hand, have pointed out that the analysis of structures is necessarily static and so in a sense unhistorical. Both sides are now entrenched in their positions.
To continue reading this article you need to purchase a subscription, available from only £5.
Start my trial subscription now
If you have already purchased access, or are a print & archive subscriber, please ensure you are logged in.
Please email digital@historytoday.com if you have any problems.
