On Historiography

On Historiography
By Kimberly Reyes

It is neither static nor finite. Contrary to popular belief, it is far more cyclical than linear. Much more a series of stories retold, each version reflecting far more about the speaker than the subject itself. It is because of this inherently dynamic nature that we must stop referring to history as settled past, but rather embrace the constant process of reunderstanding where we’ve come from in order to navigate the present and shape a future that reflects the values we collectively embrace. 

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines historiography as:

 …the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details from the authentic materials in those sources, and the synthesis of those details into a narrative that stands the test of critical examination.

What seems like a very straightforward definition is actually riddled with subjectivity. When accepting any historical narrative one must not only question the final product, but also how that very product itself was created. Critical examination is always done through the lens of the examiner. And as with any lens or filter there is a predetermined baseline. The written word has formed the baseline of “accurate” storytelling for milenia. It is considered far less subjective than oral tradition in most formal academic circles. This point of view sidelines ancient cultures the world over whose practice of oral tradition predates that of written record. We marginalize stories that fall out of the mainstream narrative when we only allow certain sources to become canon. 

As we enter into another month of “othered” history let’s take the time to examine our own lenses. What stories will we tell and how will we honor those that have been left untold for so long?