Abstract
“History” is a term with two distinct, though intersecting, meanings. On the one hand, it is used to refer to events that happened in the past. And on the other, it designates the practice of history: the accounts we give of what we think happened in the past. The relation between these two different senses of history—the past event and the historical representation—is a vital area of debate within historiography and the philosophy of history. There are very few proponents of “naïve” historical realism within contemporary historiography: an epistemology premised upon the belief that historians can offer neutral, disinterested, objective accounts that reconstruct the past “as it really was.”1 Due to various intellectual movements including feminist theory, it has become generally accepted that linguistic conventions, institutional contexts, and social positions inevitably inform the kinds of histories we search for and the kinds of histories we write.2 The challenge to “naïve” or “objectivist” historical realism, therefore, is no longer a controversial issue. The point of debate concerns the implications of this challenge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Copyright information
© 2014 Victoria Browne
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Browne, V. (2014). The Time of the Trace. In: Feminism, Time, and Nonlinear History. Breaking Feminist Waves. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137413161_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137413161_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-48983-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-41316-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)