Book Review: Historical Theory by Mary Fulbrook

Mary Fulbrook's book "Historical Theory" is, by her own account, an attempt to synthesize postmodernist theory and empirical traditions of history. She does a very convincing job of fusing the two, though by her own admission, a complete melding of the two diametrically opposed philosophies may be impossible. It is in this critical look at the two ideologies that Fulbrook's book truly shines, and that will be the focus of this paper. What value, if any, can historians today gain from postmodernist viewpoints, interpretations, and theory? On the other hand, can today's historians truly lay their faith completely in primary sources and official documents as they had a hundred, or even fifty or less, years ago? Is there some middle ground at which we as historians, both professional and lay, can get closer to the 'truth' of the past?

Though she acknowledges the assertions of postmodernist's arguments, Fulbrook does not bend knee completely to them, especially the more radical and (one could logically conclude) absurd assertions. For example, in response to Keith Jenkins' assertion that postmodernist historical theory was inescapable, Fulbrook responds parenthetically "(Jenkins does not consider the possibility that his own views, which he appears to hold with more passionate conviction than clarity of argument, might legitimately be challenged)"[1]. Indeed some theories, or at least rhetoric, professed by people like F.R. Ankersmit do border on the absurd, especially when the belief is held that the criteria for judging history is one of "whether one likes it or not". But we should not be distracted by such radical and ludicrous arguments as Ankersmit's and Jenkins', Fulbrook asserts. There are some imaginative leaps that should, and indeed must be made by the historian - leaps that the traditionalist empiricist would deny making.

The idea of the Rankean tradition of history recreating the past "as it really was" is based upon the notion that one must need only rely upon official records and primary sources in order to get the full picture of the past. The naïve notion that many empiricists often have is in referring to history as a window through which the historian can gaze and perceive everything clearly. Fulbrook's borrows the term of "through a mirror darkly" in order to exemplify the problem that historians truly face when dealing with the past; though we can only imperfectly glimpse the past, it is still a glimpse - just one that needs to be subjected to rigorous, scientific analysis and buttressed by creative (but one suspects, not overly creative) leaps of the imagination. Though many partisan empiricist historians would probably balk at the idea of "imagination" being used in the construction of history, the truth of the matter is that no account of an historical event is ever truly a full accounting with the minute actions of every individual recounted in perfect detail. With such revelations as this, is there any point to 'doing' history at all? Is there no middle ground, no set of criteria through which all history, and indeed all humanities' works, be judged for degree of 'truth'?

The answer lies in, as Fulbrook so eloquently states, the ability of the historian to become "a good detective". Additionally, like a prosecuting attorney, the historian must know what evidence to use to make his or her case, and like an author of fiction, know how to weave the story into a cohesive and compelling whole. But the historian does not have carte blanche to make up facts and invent events as the story progresses. On page 187 of her book, Fulbrook lays down what could be perceived by both sides (at least those of a rational mindset) to be acceptable, including the caveat to be comprehensive, exhaustive and honest in one's account.

Additionally, one should be as unbiased as possible, have empathy toward all voices of history, participate in the problems of the past without becoming entangled in one's political views and finally, to realize the importance of creativity and realize the importance of cultures and viewpoints that may not be one's own. Fulbrook said it best on page 189, "The old saying that 'the only lesson of history is that we cannot learn from history' is off the point: even if we cannot learn any simple lessons, in that history simply does not 'repeat itself', we nevertheless act, as human beings, in the knowledge or perception of what we think has gone before and in the light of what we think of it.". Therefore, it is important for our culture and for the world at large that historians stay relevant, and the best way for that to happen is not to become polarized and entrenched in ideals, but to engage in a dialectic that will advance and refine our search for the 'true' past.

[1] Fulbrook, Mary Historical Theory (Routledge 2002)