ABSTRACT
Reconstructionist historians choose to keep both structuralism and historical deconstruction at arm's length by regarding the written form of the past as somehow not especially relevant to the reconstruction and explanation of the past as it actually was. The deconstructive historical consciousness suggests that history written by working historians should explicitly acknowledge and, when appropriate, explore its emplotted or prefigured form. Deconstructionist historians are driven to ask what kind of epistemological status can the sorts of stories historians tell have, and what have they the right to claim, by virtue of their narrative form. Questioning history as an empirical project ought not be a problem for historians. Questioning the epistemolögical basis of history cuts deep into the mind of historians. Most historians refuse to view the real as only a truth-effect, given the profession's continuing investment in the independence of the discipline and the traditional Western belief in reason and rationality.
