The Study of History

The knowledge, varied approaches, concepts, and methods of collecting evidence and interpreting the past are essential to the study of history. These approaches are not static; they evolve as society and culture evolves, and evolution of approaches and methodology is vital to the continued study of history. The tradition of cataloging and referencing is the foundation of traditional history and this is their legacy to the modern practice.The new approaches of history have seen the value of borrowing from the knowledge, approaches, and concepts of other disciplines. The modern historian takes what is useful from each approach and uses it to build the best history; that is in harmony with their personal vision, values, and experience to gain greater understanding of the past.

Empiricism was a reaction to the Romanticism of the early nineteenth century which celebrated feelings and the popular culture of the present to evaluate the past. It associated outstanding attributes with specific cultures and the institutional and traditional practices within that society. This concept evolved into nationalistic sentiment; that enhanced the virtues of individual national heroes and historic actors in history. It also sanitized the past by omitting unfavorable aspects of the society and its culture, while failing to fairly scrutinize the past, to affect a history that promoted racism, national superiority, nationalistic ideologies and interests. Empiricism was a corrective action that promoted objectivity and scientific method to the pursuit of history. (Howell and Prevenier, 9-12)

Empiricism’s basic tenets are that with historical knowledge nothing can be assumed. Historic evidence should be meticulously studied, both in the small and lar...

... middle of paper ...

...obal perspective; It contends that although colonialism no longer exists, its influence is still present, evident in the culture, society, and power constructs in the Post Colonial era. (Green and Troup, 278)

In conclusion, these different approaches to history were all reactions to the deficiencies of prior methodology and approaches. They responded by expanding the way that history was perceived, it methods, and view. The approaches should be viewed as complementary rather than competitive. Each has given insight from the conceptual sphere it occupies. Not all approaches are appropriate for all subjects, and historians should not be held captive by constraints of their preferred approach. The different approaches methodology should be viewed as additional tools in the historian’s tool box, to be used as needed to produce the best possible history possible.