I suppose the issue for both Heimert and the his critics here was a concern of proper reading. While Heimert was suggesting a more contextual reading of primary sources to create a more accurate vicarious historical experience, his critics suggested that Heimert was dabbling more in "fantasy" than history. However, Stout suggests his critics were improperly reading the context of Heimert's writing. I find it interesting that there seems to be correlation between the populist/elitist ("vulgar or Calvinist"/Liberal) dynamics of the Awakening/Revolutionary (and post-revolutionary) and the historiography efforts at work in these readings.
The interest of representation in both revolutionary America and in the academic study of the period is one of great importance. The issue at hand is one of giving the proper voice, proper representation in the proper context. How is the populist/elitist dynamic at work in historiographical efforts? What do we think about the concern of proper representation as ethical work in historiography? As they seem to demand more attention than empirical evidence, should language and context of a chosen language be of equal importance?
No comments:
Post a Comment