Q: To what extent does the purpose of history affect its construction?

In your response, make

close and explicit reference to Sources A and B and at least ONE other relevant source to support
your argument.

History’s construction is contingent upon a variety of interconnected elements that ultimately

amalgamate to dictate a historian’s purpose. A historian’s purpose in writing history is influenced by
variety of factors which include their context, their agenda and the nature of evidence and
ideological beliefs at the time. Due to such factors, historians’ purposes have been continuously re-
shaped and transformed throughout time, hence significantly impacting their practice as a whole
and construction of history. Within Source A, JP McKay alludes to the inherent complexity of
historical scholarship, for “the basic activity in historical research“ involves “assessing validity and
perspective”, “criticising sources” and “understanding” which “does not necessarily come easily”.
This depiction indicates that constructing history is innately complex as it is based off one’s
methodology and purpose, as evident within Herodotus and Von Ranke’s works. Additionally, McKay
posits a postmodernist sentiment into his statement, for “the values… of one generation may not be
shared”, and by attempting to bridge this gap one can conjure a “relationship of the past to today“ –
echoing Carr’s beliefs. This reinforces that the gradual development of history’s purpose is to
establish a beneficial connection between past and present, as further corroborated within Source B,
in which MacMillan highlights that “examining the past can be some sort of therapy“ to prompt the
arising of new ideas and to “to argue for redress in the present“. Therefore, the purpose of history
has evolved from merely reconstructions to forging connections between the past and present for
the betterment of society, which can be demonstrated through the collaboration between academic
and popular histories and Women’s history. Hence, constructions of history will be inclined to cater
better to contemporary audiences, which may result in a change in form or methodology, therefore
demonstrating how purpose affects history’s construction to a significant extent.

The general purpose of history has evolved over a long period of time, which leads to a change in
context and personal beliefs. McKay asserts that the ultimate purpose of history is to “examine and
understand the past“ which can enlighten the present. This can be only executed through “assessing
validity and perspective“ through “comparing and contrasting…several different observers“. This is
demonstrated within Herodotus’ methodology, in which he states within ‘The Histories’ that “my
business is to record what people say, but I am by no means bound to believe it“. This form of
historical scholarship is dictated by his ethnographical and social agenda, in which he sought to
present the “achievements of great men so they may not be forgotten” for a widely illiterate
audience. By considering these circumstances, it can be deduced that despite desiring to portray a
didactic and extensive representation of Greek history and of the Persian war, the intellectually
deprived nature of a proportion of the population would have also shaped his construction. Rather
than just linguistically constructing history, to fulfil his ethnographic and didactic agenda he had to
render his constructions performative and include supernatural elements such as “giant ants… Arion
riding a dolphin“. This corroborates how historians adapting to their contexts will result in a change
in purpose, methodology, and subsequently construction, for “history…can have real significance in
the present” as recognised by MacMillan. This denotes that the purpose of history is constantly
being changed as a result of transforming contextual zeitgeists, as the purpose of history is altered
to cater to and enlighten contemporary audiences through reshaping its medium and portrayal. The
construction of history therefore is shaped to a significant extent by both purpose and audience, as
explicated through how changes in form and representations are required in order for history to be
consumed and understood.

Despite this, one’s personal beliefs on the purpose of history can override the impact of conflicting
contexts and thus hinder their ability to adapt, therefore further reinforcing that the construction of
history is highly impacted by personal inclinations and purpose. This is explicated through Von
Ranke’s staunch empiricism, as he had a rigid religious and political agenda, therefore leading to his
extreme conservatism and nationalistic bias, demonstrating the potency of personal beliefs in
constructing history. This elucidates that one’s refusal to incur new perceptions can also impact
history’s construction rather than conflicting contexts alone. Von Ranke states within ‘History of the
Latin and Teutonic Nations’ (1824) that “every epoch is immediate to God“ and also that “the strict
presentation of facts is undoubtedly the Supreme Law“. This highly historicist stance, which can be
accounted for due to his to detestment of atheistic ideals emanating from the French, had impacted
the way in which he had approached his sources, for the “unscrupulous analysis of primary facts“
was essential. Hence, Von Ranke’s rigid and inflexible perception of the purpose of history in being
merely a reconstruction and aiming for ‘scientific objectivity’ via these methods accentuates the
development of a more scientific and empirical construction of history that is entrenched with
aristocrical bias, therefore characterizing his construction of history as fairly rigid through said
purpose. Although this perception of history’s purpose has been perpetuated into the present age,
this notion is still debatable, for “unlike the exact physical science, history cannot reproduce
experiments” (McKay), thus further reinforcing how historical values and purposes have further
changed two centuries later. This provides insight into how the construction of history is a
continuous and constantly changing process, which can be accounted for as a result of the changing
paradigms and purposes required of history – a heavily influential factor.

Historical scholarship is of “real significance in the present“, and as a result of ever-changing present
contexts the purposes of history are also reshaped, hence further affecting its construction.
However, it must be noted that it is not only context and purpose that impacts the construction of
history, but also the availability of evidence and the dynamic relationship between different
historical schools and spheres. Macmillan addresses how history can be used in “in a variety of
ways“ which may include “protesting against their marginalisation, or against trends and ideas“. This
illustrates how heavily entrenched history is within the social sphere and how it can be used as a tool
by inferior groups to project their voice – Women’s history. This notion arises due to the lack of
evidence surrounding said oppressed groups, for as stated by feminist historian Rebecca Soinit “the
history of silence is central to women’s history“. The lack of such evidence hence will greatly impact
a historian’s methodology and hence how history is constructed, for feminist historians now
subjectively analyse any remaining documents, recordings and remnants of the past through
proposing ideas and introspection.

The desire to bridge such a gap and disseminate rich and understandable history is further
articulated by the conflicting but also collaborative dynamics between academic and popular
historians. Despite their opposing purposes in constructing history, their divergent methodologies
and use of evidence “nevertheless inform those…with a broader interest“ as stated by Paula
Michaels – a reshaping of the construction of a large historical topic. Additionally, the influx of
evidence from the digital age had led to the “flourishing of a community of public intellectuals“, as
stated by scholar-turned-BuzzFeed contributor Anne Helen. This results in a “cultural abundance of
evidence“ which will either result in the emergence of more perspectives or “the human computer
relationship underpinning all scholarly inquiry“ as stipulated by historian Jerome de Groot. Hence,
the nature of how history is constructed and how it is disseminated is further impacted by the
presence, or lack thereof, of evidence to “define and validate us“.

A factor that must be addressed when examining influential factors in constructing history is by also
considering the impact of ideological or philosophical beliefs and generational differences, for “the
values and attitudes of one generation may not be shared by another”. The lack of solidarity of
contextual understanding in a sense had rendered the efficacy of empiricism ineffectual, resulting in
the advent of postmodernism and poststructuralism which defines history as being discursively
constructed and truth being relative. Hence, the purpose of attaining objective truth is erased within
history, therefore resulting in a more intellectually diverse and dangerously trivialised construction
of history, thus demonstrating the potency of philosophical factors in shaping history’s construction.
Keith Jenkins within ‘What is History’ (1995) refers to the fact that history’s construction
“corresponds to a range of power bases…along a dominant-marginal spectrum“, in which Foucault
further corroborates that ““facts“ are “linguistic entities“ subject to inevitable change“. This
highlights how philosophy and prevailing modes of thought can render history’s construction into a
perpetual debate and transform how it is disseminated, as furthered by Carr versus Elton, in which
the latter asserts that history is to be a ‘reconstruction’ and the former and “unending dialogue
between the present and the past“. These discrepancies and disputes in philosophical thought can
also be further attributed to the changes in “people‘s points of view“, as demonstrated within the
controversy of the Yasukuni shrine. Although constructed in 1889 to commemorate sacrifices made
by the Japanese people, ever-changing contextual and generational views have not grounded a
concrete context in which this history can be consumed which is due to changing cultural and racial
sentiments. Hence, generational gaps have arisen due to changing cultural and philosophical
thought, which had ultimately led to changes in the perception and the reconstruction of the past,
hence heightening McKay’s claims.

Ultimately, the construction of the past is moulded by multifarious factors which involve not only
purpose, but also personal context, agenda, the availability of evidence and changing ideological
positions, therefore resonating with both sources in further understanding