If they ask about Context in Question 2: Case Study (1 Viewer)

[green_appletini]

Hey guys, I'm totally freaking out here..so i'm just wondering, if they ask us about CONTEXT in Question 2 case study, am i the only person here who is sort of in a position where there really isn't much context i can talk about in my case study??

For anyone in a similar position to me, how would you go about answering a question like this:
"Historians' own contexts as much as the evidence, shapes the planning and writing of their histories"

My case study is: the Origins and Early History of Israel

i really don't know how to go about writing it! my teacher said that for my particular case study, it's best to disagree because it's actually really difficult to find out the historians' context/conditions for people who are still alive and stuff, but then how can i argue that? I'm scared that i won't be answering the question and go on to talk about my case study and just regurgitate what i know... Also, we didn't really look at any of those historians in GREAT detail, so any suggestions on what to do?

thanks guys!
-marilia- xoxo

 

[callisto]

This is a good question

Hey, don't stress too much about this one, if you've done your work all year you should be fine. Basically, its just asking WHY the different historians have their different interpretations, because we are all inevitably influenced by our context (you should have come across this theory in historiography). We did the Elizabeth case study, but I'll give you some examples from it: a female historian writing in, say, the 1970s or later, is likely to be influenced by feminism and take a feminist stance in their writing and will be positive towards Eliz, accentuate her virtues etc Whilst a male writing in the 1940s wil be influenced by the social attitudes of his time and may adopt a condescending attitudes towards Eliz, emphasise her flaws and 'failings as a woman' as women were seen as second class citizens at that time, and so on and so forth...

So, basically, what the historian write about the case study is greatly influenced by their context. Hope this helps...good luck!!!

 

[Sarah168]

I havent quite gotten my head around the context. Thanks heaps for that Callisto

 

[Suspense]

Is question 2 not entirely about context vs evidence shaping historians' perspectives?

You need to look at the different periods in which the historians wrote. I don't know anything about your case study but I'll try and explain it with mine. The key historians we've looked at with Appeasement + 2nd World War are as follows:

1. Orthodox - writing at the outbreak of war
2. Cato - writing at a similar time, but as left-wing journalists
3. Churchill - obvious contextual influence as the wannabe PM at the time of appeasement
4. AJP Taylor - left-wing nutter writing in the 1960s
5. counter-revisionists - writing in 1980s with return to strong right-wing governments.

Each of these key historical paradigms were shaped by their context as much as the evidence available to them to form the perspectives.

Make sense?

 

[Suspense]

You should try and do 3, with minor references to others if possible.