Reception and сriticism of H. White's philosophy of history in the early works of F. Ankersmit

10.54398/1818510X_2022_4_121

Annotation

Since H. White raised the question of the relationship between reality and knowledge in the philosophy of history, disputes about this problem have not ceased. In the middle of the 20th century, this question was formulated in the categories of literary criticism. F. Ankersmit was one of the critics and successors of H. White's ideas. Until recent days, the discussion have not been completed. For this reason, it is matter of great importance to study how various authors criticized and adapted the methodology of H. White after the rejection of structuralism. In addition, the study of the early works of F. Ankersmit allows us to assess the evolution of his views on the nature of historical knowledge. The purpose of the article is to compare approaches to the problems of historical narrative in the works of H. White and F. Ankersmit and to study the problem of representation of reality in historical narrative based on their works. The comparative analysis gives opportunity to study the approaches of philosophers and establish trends in the development of the philosophy of history. The author analyzes the features of the Metahistory’s methodology. The structural approach to narration and H. White's appeal to the theory of tropes are considered in the perspective of the reception and criticism of this model by F. Ankersmit. In his early works, he abandoned four tropes structure of historical narrative and turned to the study of the metaphorical nature of it. The article shows to what extent F. Ankersmit borrows H. White's methodology, and to what extent he criticizes it.

Keywords

• history
• narrative
• tropology
• philosophy of history
• representation
• historical imagination
• linguistic turn
• historical reality
• referentiality
• metaphor
* click on a keyword to go to the search

References

1. Agafonov, V. V. Antireprezentativizm v istoricheskom poznanii [Anti-representationalism in historical knowledge.]. Vestnik Kamchatskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Kamchatka State Technical University]. 2011, no. 16, pp. 95–103.
2. Agafonov, V. V. Epistemologiya istorii Kh. Uayta: tropologicheskiy podkhod [H. White’s epistemology of history: a tropological approach]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo Universiteta druzhby narodov [Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia]. 2008, no. 2, pp. 24–31.
3. Agafonov, V. V. Epistemologiya narrativnoy filosofii istorii [Epistemology of Narrative Philosophy of History]. Vestnik Kamchatskoy regionalnoy assotsiatsii Uchebno-nauchnogo tsentra [Bulletin of the Kamchatka Regional Association of Educational and Scientific Center]. 2010, no. 2 (16), pp. 60–71.
4. Ankersmit, F. R. Narrativnaya logika. Semanticheskiy analiz yazyka istorikov [Narrative Logic. A Semantic Analysis of the Historian's Language]. Moscow: Ideya Publ; 2003, 360 p.
5. Ankersmit, F. R. Istoriya i tropologiya: vzlet i padenie metafory [History and Tropology: The Rise and Fall of Metaphors]. Moscow: Reabilitatsiya; 2009, 496 p.
6. Ankersmit, F. R. Vozvyshennyy istoricheskiy opyt [Sublime historical experience]. Moscow: Evropa; 2007, 612 p.
7. Ashkerov, A. Yu. Metaistoriya metaistorii, ili Dekodirovanie Kheydena Uayta [Metahistory of Metahistory, or Hayden White's Decoding]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Sociological Review]. 2002, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 86–99.
8. Gerasimov, O. V. Istoricheskiy opyt kak opyt proshlogo: soderzhanie i struktura [Historical experience as experience of the past: content and structure]. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk [Tidings of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences]. 2015, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 188–191.
9. Zvereva, G. I. Realnost i istoricheskiy narrativ: problemy samorefleksii novoy intellektualnoy istorii [Reality and historical narrative: problems of self-reflection of the new intellectual history]. Odissej [Odysseus]. 1996, vol. 1996, pp. 11–24.
10. Kobylin, I. I., Nikolai, F. V. “Filosofskaya istoriya” Kheydena Uayta, ili O polze i vrede zhizni dlya istoriografii [‘Philosophical History’ by Hayden White, or On the Benefits and Harms of Life for Historiography]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Review]. 2019, no. 1 (155), pp. 95–105.
11. Kukartseva, M. A. Sovremennaya filosofiya istorii SShA [Modern philosophy of the history of the United States]. Ivanovo: Ivanovo State University; 1998, 215 p.
12. Oleynikov, A. A. Kheyden Uayt kak publichnyy istorik [Hayden White as a Public Historian]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Review]. 2019, no. 1 (155), pp. 95–105.
13. Repina, L. P. Vyzov postmodernizma i perspektivy novoy kulturnoy i intellektualnoy istorii [The Challenge of Postmodernism and the Perspectives of a New Cultural and Intellectual History]. Odissey [Odysseus]. 1996, vol. 1996, pp. 25–38.
14. Trubina, E. G. Vspominaya besedy s Uaytom v Santa-Kruz: “Not Everything Was Thought Through” [Recalling conversations with White in Santa Cruz: “Not Everything Was Thought Through”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Review]. 2019, no. 1 (155), pp. 84–94.
15. White, H. Metaistoriya: Istoricheskoe voobrazhenie v Evrope XIX veka [Metahistory: Historical Imagination in Europe of the XIX century]. Yekaterinburg: Ural State University; 2002, 528 p.
16. Bann, S. The Inventions of History: Essays on the Representation of the Past. Manchester – New York: 1990, 246 p.
17. Gossman, L. Towards a Rational Historiography. New York: 1992, 70 p.
18. White, H. The Content of the Form. Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: 1987, 260 p.
Read more

Popular articles