Postmodernist readings of ‘linguistic artefact’ refers to the platitudes and metaphors employed by an author, which supersedes their narrative voice over scientific empirical evidence.[1] Postmodernism is an ambiguous philosophy which began in the 1940s within art theory, but reached its ascendency in the 1960s across other disciplines; Christopher Butler alludes to postmodernism as ‘a loosely constituted and quarrelsome political party’.[2] Postmodernists are sceptical of ‘Grand’ narratives (or metanarratives) in Western culture, epitomised by modernist thought, and specifically challenge the Enlightenment (1715-1789).[3] This essay separates linguistics from ‘linguistic artefacts’ and ‘creative imagination’, concluding that historical scholarship is entirely the product and creative imagination of its author. ‘Linguistic artefact’ is an unfocused term but this essay considers it scholarship which is distinguished within its field. Theories and debates raised by Michel Foucault, Hayden White and Frederick Jameson will be evaluated to assert this claim. Ultimately, historical scholarship is based upon the subjectivity of language and Foucault’s power-knowledge theory. Therefore, historians cannot be objective in their historical accounts as a ‘story telling’ narratives inevitably permeate their scholarship.
Postmodernists elevate language as the ‘fundamental phenomena of existence’; this began with Nietzsche’s arguments on truth, language and society in the nineteenth-century.[4] Nietzsche’s theory is corroborated by Max Weber, Sigmund Freud, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. His premise devalues historicity as a scientific method, but infers that historical scholarship, and other written narratives, are linguistic artefacts, product of the creative imagination of its author. This is only convincing to a limited extent because the postmodernist assumption - that truth is constructed by metaphors, metonyms and anthropomorphisms - is evidence of linguistics but not linguistic artefacts.[5] Postmodernist critiques of science are based on subjectivity, explored through epistemological and ideological arguments. Their theory determines that historical scholarship must be a linguistic artefact as it cannot be a science. Contrarily, although historical scholarship requires the creative imagination of its author (in terms of language, subject and methodological choice), not all works can be elevated to the status of ‘linguistic artefact’. This reasoning requires a separation of linguistics and linguistic artefact as scholarship is entirely based upon linguistics; this essay argues that only seminal or pivotal works can be considered linguistic artefacts. This argument devalues postmodernist theory as it contends certain theories or works are more valuable than others; it subverts postmodernist assertions on ‘truth’. They contend that illusionary understanding of ‘truth’ becomes canonical, as authority assigned to certain narratives creates false perceptions of ‘truth’. Foucault’s power-knowledge theory asserts that authority grants power to people, making their words appear true, and in turn, they receive more power.[6] These contentions are convincing but still cannot provide a basis for the application of ‘linguistic artefacts’ to all historical scholarship.
Conjoining linguistics and history is inescapable; historians write to convince of an argument, which requires linguistic prowess and rhetorical techniques. This is not an example of philology, but of a practice of history which uses persuasive devices to establish debates. Epistemic virtues are unavoidable, which determine how historical analysis cannot escape the historians ‘context’.[7] Anthropologist, Clifford Geertz (1926-2006), disseminates postmodernist linguistic authority (1980s); authorship, style, narratives, metaphors and fiction.[8] By nature, historical scholarship is written to persuade. To Geertz, this makes it entirely a linguistic artefact as it relies on creative imagination as opposed to objective truth. This includes bold proclamations, metaphors, over sexed language; it is designed to draw in readers. Therefore, for postmodernists to read historical scholarship as a linguistic artefact does make sense, but it is an oversimplification of the historian’s work, which negates consideration of history as a practice of ‘reading, thinking, discussing and writing’.[9] Postmodernist thought is centred upon morals regarding objective truth, however, historicity does not aim to fictionalise empirical evidence with narratives. Therefore, redefining ‘linguistic artefacts’ according to the same definition as cultural artefacts is more appropriate in determining what historical scholarship is and subverts postmodernist narratives on ‘morals’.
Postmodernist criticism of ethnography and its subjectivity is applied to historical scholarship, which poses moral problems in written knowledge.[10] Postmodernists consider the need for historical interpretation and self-distanciation, to ensure the author remains virtuous in an attempt to achieve objective truth.[11] Lyotard (1979) postulates that the ‘advent of postmodernism’ is determined in its shifts from truth to fictitious narratives.[12] These assertions are convincing as written history does inform more on its author than the period in question, as scholarship is created through linguistics and creative imagination; this gives rise to debates on historical authenticity.
Roy D’Andrande’s ‘Moral Models in Anthropology’ critiques postmodernists interpretations of objectivity and subjectivity as he believes the moral codes they base their arguments upon are themselves subjective. He insists that the goal of a scholar is to remain as objective as possible, which creates a distinction between moral and objective models.[13] D’Andrande’s critique of postmodernism is conclusive as historicity aims to be impartial and authentic in its production. The creativity of authors is in their application of methodology, theories and narratives; not an aim to spread false narratives. Chirstopher Norris furthers this contention, claiming that Lyotard, Foucault and Baudrillard are ‘too preoccupied [by] moral judgements’.[14]
Postmodern theory disseminates that historical writing ‘is always autobiographical’.[15] Investigation and exploration of the author means their historical scholarship is entirely the product of semiotics and linguistics through a postmodernist reading. Their creative imagination is subjective as when dealing with historical facts, they construct narratives to ‘fill the gap’ in knowledge; their investigation is shaped by their language, narratives and arguments. Reed defines the ‘context of investigation’ as the authors social and intellectual context; their investigation is shaped by their experiences, social identity, opinions and memories.[16] Therefore, despite the historians aim to remain objective, it is impossible for them to discount their social and intellectual context. However, it does not automatically grant all scholarship the nebulous title of a ‘linguistic artefact’. When defining linguistic artefacts according to cultural artefacts, it is understood that only works of importance or common knowledge can be linguistic artefacts.
Considering ‘linguistic artefacts’ as significant, seminal and pivotal works disrupts postmodernist thought. Sociologist Jean Baudrillard asserts that ‘we have now moved into an epoch […] where truth is entirely a product of consensus values’.[17] This relates to historical scholarship as pivotal works are examples of sign value. Status of linguistic artefacts can only be rewarded to authors who have created a disciplinary identity. Within written history, key examples are: Livy’s entire account of Roman history; Marx’s communist manifesto; E. P. Thompson’s coinage of ‘history from below’ and Leopold von Ranke’s founding of source-based history. It is irrefutable that eloquent prose presents clearer, more persuasive arguments and Machiavelli denotes the importance of rhetoric, yet few historians contribute to linguistic artefacts, as ‘artefacts’ by nature objects of cultural significance. This is not to demerit or devalue the work of historians, as seminal and progressive works, such as Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class, have not reached this status. However, all contributions to history have awarded new linguistic ways to present quantifiable information. It is pioneering authors who have created linguistic artefacts, as they stand separate to a saturated field of countless scholarship. Creative imagination of authors can be translated in a similar way. Innovative expressions in historical scholarship demonstrate creative imagination, but the term can also be awarded to other contributors, who work within the varieties of history. This consists of oral history and public history. Although written history can be evidence of both linguistic artefact and creative imagination of an author, authors can have creative imagination isolated from linguistic artefacts.
Frederic Jameson discusses historicity as a concept which considers history ‘a perception of the present’. [18] This valuable contribution to postmodernity reinforces notions of a pluralistic society with multiple truths which are difficult to distinguish from reality. Jameson explored historicity in relation to consumption and production of literary texts. This synergism parallels with the use of narrative and linguistics in historical scholarship. When applying postmodernity to historical scholarship, it is confronted with the issue of language and creative imagination. Postmodernism discerns that there is no real truth. This in turn depends upon the creative imagination of authors to impose structure and coherence upon the past. As a result, postmodernists are accepting of the fact that history and culture can only be understood through the certain access points language allows. This infers that historical scholarship is entirely the product of the creative imagination of its author. The significance assigned to linguistics is a form of sign value and as postmodernists insist that grand narratives have no meaning, maintains language as a form of historical sign value. However, contrary to postmodernist thought, this does not devalue historical scholarship, as it is designed to be persuasive, which makes rhetorical methods a valuable tool to historians.
To the postmodernist, historical scholarship cannot be empirical as attempts to create new knowledge is informed by ‘story telling’ narratives and investigator’s context. Rosenau’s Deconstruction Analysis insists that authors should write to minimise interpretations.[19] They should also employ new and unusual terminology to avoid familiar and interpretative language.[20] Using this postmodernist argument, it is decisively apparent that coinage of terms creates linguistic artefacts, according to this essays definition. Rosenau’s argument evidences contradictions within postmodernism. Even more so in her assessment of postmodernism as a theory, when it stands to reject all theory; and again in postmodernism rejecting the idea of truth, whilst themselves claiming their ‘non-theory’ is true. The ‘postmodern turn’ (coined by Reed) questioned whether authors could integrate the context of investigation into the context of explanation to create ‘true social knowledge’.[21] This thought was prevalent in cultural and linguistic anthropology and is the primary contention of this essay. Applying this thought emboldens the assertion that not all historical scholarship can be considered a ‘linguistic artefact’. Corroborated by the power-knowledge theory, linguistic artefacts can only be works which are authoritative in their field or form part of popular knowledge.
Ultimately, postmodernists do not convincingly dismiss the scientific method as there are many contradictions in their beliefs. They critique language as a form of communication, however, they determine this a moral problem. Historical scholarship is removed from this moral dilemma as the aim of the author is to remain as objective as their language choices and context allows. Knowledge being objective depends on empirical support and historical scholarship achieves this.[22] Postmodernists advocate polyvocality, which maintains that there are multiple accepted truths, from different perspectives. This contention would consider all historical scholarship to be a linguistic artefact but it is unconvincing as not all scholarship is pivotal. Postmodernist reject impositions of hegemonic values constructed during the Enlightenment. However, these theories are needed for advancements in representation, such as gender and women’s history, and the history from below. Postmodernists believe that they are defending marginalised voices and cultures; ironically, it is pivotal works and the construction of grand narratives which achieves their aim.[23] Overall, all historical scholarship is entirely the product of the creative imagination of its author through semiotics, but only crucial works can be linguistic artefacts.
Abigail Blackwell is currently undertaking an MA in Public History at Newcastle University.
Full title when assigned: To what extent is a work of historical scholarship a linguistic artefact and product of the creative imagination of its author?
Notes: [1] Barbara Czarniawska, ‘Linguistic Artefacts at Service of Organizational Control: Views of the Corporate Landscape’, Symbols and Artefacts, p. 347. [2] Christopher Butler, Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2003), p. 2. [3] Roy Boyne, ‘The Theory and Politics in Postmodernism: Introduction’, Postmodernism and Society, p. 39. [4] Lawrence Kuznar, Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology (Lanham, 2008), p. 78. [5] Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense (New York, 1954), pp. 46-47. [6] Barbara Townley, ‘Foucault, Power/Knowledge, and Its Relevance for Human Resource Management’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, no. 3 (1993), p. 529. [7] Ibid. [8] Clifford Geertz, ‘The Anthropological Life in Interesting Times’, Annual Review of Anthropology, p. 11. [9] Herman Paul, ‘Performing History: How Historical Scholarship is Shaped by Epistemic Virtues’, History and Theory, Vol. 50, No. 1 (2011), p. 1. [10] Ibid. [11] Herman Paul, ‘Distance and Self-distanciation: Intellectual Virtue and Historical Method around 1900’, History and Theory, Vol. 50, No. 4 (2011), p. 104. [12] Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition : A Report on Knowledge (Manchester, 1984), p. 89. [13] Roy D. Andrade, ‘Moral Models in Anthropology', Current Anthropology, Vol. 36, No. 3 (1995), p. 402. [14] Chris Norris, What’s Wrong with Postmodernism? (London, 1990), p. 50. [15] Dick Geary, ‘Labour History, the “Linguistic Turn” and Postmodernism’, Contemporary European History 9, No. 3 (2000), p. 445. [16] Isaac Reed, ‘Epistemology Contextualized: Social-Scientific Knowledge in a Postpositivist Era’, Sociological Theory 28, No. 1 (2010), p. 28. [17] Norris, Postmodernism? , p. 169. [18] Frederick Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The cultural logic of late capitalism - Chapter 9: Nostalgia and Film, (Duke, 1991), p. 284. [19] Gérard Lenclud, ‘P. M. Rosenau, Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences. Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions’, Homme, Vol. 33, No. 125 (1993), p. 161. [20] Ibid, p. 142. [21] Reed, ‘Epistemology’, p. 25. [22] Ibid. [23] Pamela Jane Smith, ‘The Archaeology of Bruce Trigger: Theoretical Empiricism, McGill-Queen’s UP’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2 (2008), p. 446.
Comments