The word Postmodernism should not be understood in thecontext of any time period, meaning one will understand it as a time periodwhich came after modern. But postmodernism emerged as a philosophical movementin late 60’s of twentieth century hence sometimes also called “SwingingSixties”. This movement marked its impact initially on style and concept in thearts, architecture, and criticism, which represents a departure from modernismand is characterized by the self-conscious use of earlier styles and conventions.In other words it can be said that it is mixing of different artistic stylesand media, and a general distrust of theories. In its endeavor this movement isactually an assault on modernism and modernistic etiquettes like reason, logicand observation. In very simple words one can say Postmodernism is a way ofthinking which says reason is not all responsible for progress.
Postmodernism was initially confined to few aspect of humanlife, but gradually it expanded its influence over other areas of human societyas well, consequently the discipline of history not remained uninfluenced fromthe postmodernism. Postmodernism offers a fundamental critique of theconventional mode of history-writing. Sometimes the critique becomes so radicalthat it almost becomes anti-history. The main ingredient of history-writing,such as facts, sources, documents,archival records, etc., all come under severe scrutiny scanner ofpostmodernism. (1)Postmodernism rejects the objectivity in history writing,trend started by Leopard Von Ranke (leading figure of positivist school) whichstrove to recover the past ‘as it actually was’ by simple method of collectionand representation of facts. (2) Postmodernism challenges the proclaimedobjectivity and neutrality of the historians by referring historian as biasedtowards ideology, social-cultural upbringing, and writing through a particulartrope which suits interests of power. (3) Postmodernism questions the verybasis of conventional historiography by locating its origins in the modernEurope’s encounter with the other. It began with the European Renaissance whichprompted the Europeans to ‘discover’ other lands and people. In this quest the’history’ served as a tool for posing the modern western self in opposition tothe other whose history was supposed to be just beginning as a result of itsencounter with Europe. Thus the practice of history was employed not just tostudy the past but to fashion it in terms of the criteria set by modern Europe.History, therefore, evolved a western quest for power over the colonizedterritories and its desire to appropriate their pasts. (4) Postmodernism refershistory nothing but a Grandnarratives or metanarratives which means a historydominated by power and written with a purpose to justify end. While expressingdissent towards these metanarratives Loytard ( most illustrious exponent ofFrench postmodernism) defines postmodernism as incredulity towardsmetanarratives.(5) In postmodernist view, the history can be accepted asgenuine knowledge only if it sheds its claims to truth and hence to power, andaccepts its fragmentary character. The only history possible is microhistory.(6) As mentioned already that postmodernism was an assault on reason,rationality, and logic. In history writing they related rationality withgeneralisation. Postmodernists see all breadth of generalisation as arationalistic imposition and an oppressive search for totality. Thus theytotally negated the very primacy of interpretation. (7) The biggest bolt to historygiven by postmodermism is the bolt of fiction. Hayden White a leadingpostmodernistic thinker says one is past and another is story of past.According to him past is dead and cannot be brought back and the past is storyless but it is historian who gives story to dead past and injects plot andcharacters in it. (8) Postmodernism doesn’t believe in an individual andsays man in not universal category (sameeverywhere).They say man in not undivided rather there are many individualswithin one man, which means man often shifts from one perspective to anotherjust because human nature is unstable .So when man is not undivided so one cannot think “of and have” undividedaccount of past.
The biggest critique to the postmodernism on behalf ofpeople, who have history as their craft (Historians), is that postmodernism puteverything into the fire. Once I was in Jawaharlal Nehru University and wasenough lucky to listen Professor Romila Thapar. She started her lecture bysaying I quote “I have severe disagreement with the postmodernism”. This isbecause of the fact that postmodernistic thinkers provided us a good materialfor the deconstruction of history but failed to provide us an alternative modelfor its reconstruction. Even Irfan Habib a leading historian from the Aligharschool writes in one of his article about postmodernism “i am not negating theinsights which can be taken from the postmodernism but I myself cannot be partof it because the terminology and theology of postmodernism doesn’t attracts me”.In defence of history the historians didn’t took the sword againstpostmodernistic thinkers for challenging the very credibility of history ratherthey responded their challenges with scholarly approach as they had alreadydone it at the time of “Cartesian challenge” to the history posed by FrancisBacon and Rene Descartes. Million Dollar thanks to our beloved Vico, forputting water of logical arguments to the Cartesian fire which badly caught ourhistory at that time. The challenges posed by postmodernists to history wereresponded by historians this way. (1) While talking of objectivity of historyE. H. Carr says history cannot be completely objective because its man writinghistory of man so biases are there. But it is wrong to say that history is completelysubjective. Because history is written on the basis of facts and facts are notcreated through imagination rather they have independent existence. (2) Whiletalking of neutrality of historian, historians do agree on the point thathistorian writes through a particular ideological spectrum as Carr says”Whenever you will study a history work always listen out for buzzing if youdetect none; that means either your history is dead or your historian is delldog” these words of Carr makes it clear that one should come to know theideology, purpose of writer who authored a work, that’s why he also suggests usthat read the historian before reading his history. But the way for coming outfrom the partiality of writers is also suggested by our peers of history andthat way is to consult multiple sources for a particular event. While readingor writing about any event one should consult multiple sources written bydifferent people. After consulting, reading one should cross check multiplesources by which one can get a good narrative of an event. (3) No doubt in thecenturies like 18th, 19th and 20th histories were written for the purpose ofgaining political and material benefits. The fine example is the historieswritten by colonialist scholars in 18th century. Whatever they wrote, theywrote with a purpose to justify their colonialism in colonies. But this is verywrong to say that the history doesn’t exist before the renaissance. But howwould postmodernists respond the question about the histories written by peoplelike Herodotus, Thucydides, Ibn- Khaldoon. Al Balazuri. Which were surely notwritten atleast in modern times. (4) No doubt many historical works werewritten under the influence of power but it is not cannot be applied widely toevery historical work. Kalhana’s Rajatarangni, Shams Siraj Afif’s Tarikh-iFerozshahi and many other were written outside the shadow of power. All of themwere written outside the patronage of kings, and rulers. (5) While givingcredibility to microhistory the postmodernists forgets the issue that for doingmicrohistory historians will follow the same methodology as followed for otherhistory writings, so how it will be authentic then. (6) While talking about thedenial of aspect of interpretation by postmodernists, ConstructionistHistorians like E.H Carr, R.G. Collingwood, and Benedetto Croce highlights theimportance of interpretation of facts for writing a good history. E.H Carrwhile highlighting the importance of interpretation writes i quote “Facts arelike an empty sacks unless you will not put something in them they cannot standby their own”. This quote of Carr make us clear that without interpreting thefact one cannot think of good history.(7) History and Story are not and cannotbe same ever. Both are poles apart in their endeavour and nature. Though inboth narratives are important but the former (History) has a different approachin perceiving, and writing and giving place to a narrative in historical work.In history the narrative is not directly incorporated into historical workrather it has to go through the scanner of historical methodology. In historyNarrative is not being taken from its face-value rather historian fullyinvestigates the authenticity of an event in which preference is to be given toeyewitness, primary source, and their subsequent cross checking with othersources as well. (8) The diversity of perspectives in history is the beauty ofthe subject. History is not dependent on perspectives rather it is dependent onfacts. There is no bondage for a historian to follow a particular perspectiverather he/she can change perspective with the advent of new facts or sourcesand that act is considered act of scholarly honesty in history. For exampleRomila Thapar a leading historian of ancient history changed her stance manytimes with the advent of new facts and source, For example while expressing herview on the nature of Mauryan Empire. Initially she supported the centralisedcharacter of Mauryan state but after the research of Gurrad fussmen, she changedher view from centralised to what is called “not much centralised”. One moreinteresting thing regarding the same historian (Romila Thapar) is that sherecently made shift from Marxist ideological spectrum to Annal School ofHistory Writing. This is reflected in her new work entitled “Historian and HerCraft”.
Our historians are not negating the whole existence ofpostmodernism. Even one cannot deny the insights taken from it in doing goodhistory. But the whole philosophy of postmodernism in still incomplete thereason is already mentioned that they provided us a good material for thedeconstruction of history but failed to provide us an alternative model for thereconstruction of new one. While analysing the nature, purpose and endeavour ofpostmodernism, many scholars referred it as an intellectual barbarism.
Haroon Rasheed is Junior Research Fellow at Department ofhistory, university of Kashmir