ABSTRACT

In this book we have argued that many historians currently understand history writing to be a situated, perspectival practice unavoidably infl uenced or affected by the assumptions of the author, their preferred theoretical models and the wider socio-political context in which they conduct their research and write their books. In the last chapter we discussed how, despite historians’ claims to objectivity and neutrality, history teaching and writing is an inextricably political or ideological undertaking. History is never studied for its own sake; consciously or unconsciously it is always written with a particular objective in mind. Many, if not most, historians do not explicitly discuss or acknowledge the ideological dimension of their work. However, in recent years this has begun to change. Some historians, understanding the transformative power inherent in historical narratives, have begun not only explicitly to acknowledge the perspective from which they are writing, but also to write histories that are intended to have practical political effects. In particular, they seek to make the silent voices of dispossessed, marginalised, subaltern peoples heard. This chapter will explore how non-Eurocentric, postcolonial, feminist, queer and black historians have challenged the traditionally

very white, andro-centric character of modern academic historical writing and what this means for the history profession.