The critic of the fundamental foundations of the traditional historiography
was/is particularly influential from the point of view proposed by widely
understood constructivism. It questioned that reality is something external and
independent from cognition, and that the truth or falsity of its results depends on the
nature of the world. In light of constructivism knowledge cannot be treated as an
effect of the relation between the subject and object, its shape is not defined by
the external world and, finally, that the scientific apparatus does not provide an
adequate image (description) of the world (independent from culture).
In this way from the constructivists’ conceptions of history we cannot say that
“the past is real”, at least, “not the past as it is used by historians”. The images
of the past are therefore a construction and are intelligible, not because of their
own nature, but because of the a priori criteria which establish their intelligibility
and which contribute to the knowledge of historians or the society in which they
operate. Historians can be perceived as a part of the whole system, and their
social credibility depends not only on (historical) sources, but on the fact that their
discourse has its roots in cultural, social and linguistic prejudices that shape our
perception of reality (or the past).
Within the framework of these changes the category of (historical) imagination
and its part in possible images of the past formulated by historians arouses special
interest. From this point of view we can see (historical) imagination as a tool
participating in constructing images of the past. Reflection on historical imagination
in this way can lead to showing in new light not only the cultural prejudices of
historical cognition (historical studies), but above all the reason for the necessity
to reformulate the investigative programs and the forms of representing the past.
The problems and questions raised in the article derive perhaps only from
necessity a fundamental change of our relation to imagination. So in everyday life,
the media, art, literature, and also scientific discourse, imagination – often even in
defiance of arguments that some time appear in social and scientific
circulation – is identified as “fiction and fantasy”, and leads to it being treated
as an alternative for “truth and reality”. Meanwhile, it seems that likewise we do not think about
a given culture that is true or false, so we should not also bring discussion on
imagination into problems of its falsity or fictionality irrespective of whether we
treat imagination as a “child of culture” or inversely, culture as a “child of
imagination”. However, we wish to emphasize at this point, that it is not our intention
to suggest that (historical) imagination is the (essential or crucial) tool of
cognition of past reality, but rather we ask if imagination has such an essential part in
historical knowledge, can we perceive it in the investigative practice of historians.
Therefore, we do not try to force the thesis that the stories composed by historians
are the work of imagination, but rather that representation (re-presence) of the
past is possible with, or even thanks to, (historical) imagination.
Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies
Informacja
SZANOWNI CZYTELNICY!
UPRZEJMIE INFORMUJEMY, ŻE BIBLIOTEKA FUNKCJONUJE W NASTĘPUJĄCYCH GODZINACH:
Wypożyczalnia i Czytelnia Główna: poniedziałek – piątek od 9.00 do 19.00