History and political science - Essay Example

? History and political science Task: A number of historical theorists contributed significantly to understanding history. Such theories led to the establishment of several schools of thought. Each school utilized a different approach in interpreting key historical occurrences. Some of the ancient theorists are the Marxists and empiricists. Marxists focused on the issue of communism and capitalism1. Karl Marx is among the many known historians who led to the development of the Marxist theory. Therefore, it is necessary to address a number of theories developed by these historians. Numerous reasons are accountable for the difference in interpretations of history as depicted by varied historians. First, historians existed at dissimilar times and thus encountered different life occurrences. For instance, the ancient historians majorly tried to put into history the occurrences that people had not given attention2. This is a category of individuals, who ventured majorly in the explanation of the origin of humanity and the social classes. In an appropriate explanation of why historians have such different interpretations of history, it is crucial to examine the works of Karl Marx3. Marx is highly renowned due to his Marxist theory. Karl Marx is among the ancient historians born in Germany in 1818 and his works contributed mightily to history. Marx existed during a period coupled with many revolutions. As a result, together with his collaborator, he developed several ideas from their life experiences. Karl’s closest friend, Friedrich Engels worked together in writing the history. As opposed to ancient historians, modern and postmodern historians depict a different way of interpreting history4. The key reason behind their interpretation is the developments that have occurred recently. In addition to the developments, the availability of the secondary information sources in national archives and libraries facilitates the process of interpreting history5. Such resources normally compare the ancient history with the current, thus coming up with an accurate, as well as informed explanation of the key historical happenings. The question also demands an explanation on how different historians interpret history in a dissimilar manner. In answering the above question, it will be necessary to focus on some of the historians’ interpretations about history. An ancient historian whose name is Karl Marx contributed significantly in history. He interpreted history by giving a lot of attention to materialistic bit of it6. As a result, the phrase historical materialism came into existence. The literature has revealed that he concentrated on both physiological, as well as the material needs. He disputed the idea of a complete satisfaction of an individual’s both physiological, as well as materialistic needs. He thus concluded that the ease at which to access such materials determines the nature of a society hence the birth of the phrase history of humanity. He also established three ways in which human society changes and all of them were dependent on the level of production. In addition to the Karl’s interpretation of history, other historians such empiricists have different interpretations7. Empiricists employ scientific principles in understanding how history has been changing over time. They insist the implication of applying knowledge in order to understand the key historical events. In the information collection process, they stress on the authenticity of the resources used in maintaining the accuracy of information. They aim at visiting the main international archives thus collecting the most accurate information for interpretation purposes. Among all the theories described in the book, I feel comfortable with the empiricist theory. The above is a theory based on knowledge, as well as epistemology8. Scholars define epistemology as the study of knowledge. The empiricists majorly center their work on craft. The issue of craft highly concentrates on knowledge and skill. The empiricism is an influential school of thought as it reveals the significance of using authentic materials in collecting historical information9. As a student, I usually conduct research and it has come to my understanding that choosing authentic resources is necessary for a successful research. I therefore, feel that historians who dedicate their time to searching for information from genuine resources end up accessing correct information. I also feel comfortable with the empiricist theory because it has dawned to me that learning institutions act as information hubs10. Learning institutions such as universities and colleges arose due to the empiricists’ dedication to research. One of the historians by the name Bury identified historians as laborers who are continually constructing buildings without knowing its design. I do not agree with the other theories such as Marxism and narrative history because of the difficulty involved in understanding them. Largely Marxism is hard to relate with since it does not indicate its applicability in current situations. The empiricism noted the complexity of collecting information from all sources available on describing an historical event. Therefore, it is sensible to only master a few documents in an effort to explain an event. Since such a research is devoid of priori beliefs, as well as prejudices, the information collected depicts the utter truth. I did not find oral history impressive because of a number of things11. For example, the fact that such history is unwritten disqualifies it from becoming an authentic source of history. This is due to the change in cultural practices over time. Sources have revealed that recent developments have resulted to changes in culture. Many centuries ago, the elderly narrated stories to young adults, which explained their past occurrences12. Currently, communities never hold such meetings and thus oral history seems inappropriate in interpreting historical events. It is, therefore, clear that different historians have different interpretations of historical events. Sources indicate that different historians existed at different times. Therefore, ancient historians did not have other historical materials to refer to and thus their work was original. This means that their interpretations might have contained some flaws. Conversely, empiricists relied strongly on others works thus coming up with the most appropriate interpretations. According to some studies, empirical theorists are the best interpreters of history because of their extensive research. Oral history is the least impressive due to inaccuracy of such information, as well as cultural dynamics. Works Cited Brewer, Anthony, and Brewer Tony. Marxist theories of imperialism: a critical survey. New York: Routledge, 2002. Cahoone, Lawrence. From modernism to postmodernism: an anthology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. Datta, Satya. Women and men in early modern Venice: reassessing history. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003. Erckel, Sebastian. Marxist and neo-Marxist theories of class. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag, 2009. Green, Anna, and Troup Kathleen. The houses of history: a critical reader in twentieth-century history and theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999.  Hamilton, Paula, and Shopes Linda. Oral history and public memories. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2008. MacKay, Nancy. Curating oral histories: from interview to archive. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 2007. Mandel, Ernest. An introduction to Marxist economic theory. Chippendale: Resistance Books, 2002.  Munslow, Alun. The Routledge companion to historical studies. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006. Sheppard, Richard. Modernism-dada-postmodernism. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2000. Stacey, Robert. Re: reading the postmodern: Canadian literature and criticism after modernism. Canada: University of Ottawa Press, 2010. Wiesenfarth, Joseph. History and representation in Ford Madox Ford's writings. Milton Keynes: Rodopi, 2004. Read More