History

EJRHistory

#essay, #history, #interpretation, #meaning

Proper order of things —> History. At least that is what we expect history to be. An accurate plot and story of what happened in the past. The strange thing is, I believe we can never be sure, at least when it’s not a personal lived experience. And even then, certainty is a fickle thing…

I wonder what history (happened reality) might be, if signs, readings, and interpretations are always personal, different, and forever wayward and changing (Johnson). Can history therefore be a fixed thing, a law that we can, as it were, depend upon? I think not. If interpretations are ambiguous, and actions are too, then how can a fixed moment in time be called history? Because, surely, we are so keen to look into the past, in order to comprehend the present, or predict the near future. But, if signs are in their essence ambiguous, then I believe history must be built up of multiple, interchangeable, interlacing histories (more importantly herstories and theirstories). Because, if a book is built on three characters that can all be read differently according to what you want to see and read, and to your own historical knowledge and understanding, then the story of Billy Budd (Melville) can not be interpreted in just 4 ways, but in thousands or even millions of different ways; as numerous as people on this planet. My knowledge is not your knowledge, so our interpretations and the ways we read a sign are entirely personal and entirely different from one another.

Fiction can almost feel more real than reality.

To know the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that which historians probably strive for, will inevitably kill some of the truth; the remaining mystery. Crossing the border into the deadly space. The deadly space as a completely fitting sign. When I say the word chair, we all think of the same chair. Sadly, and maybe luckily, no less is true. When I think of a signifier the outcome will always be different. I do not see the same chair as you do, we all see a different chair. But, a chair nonetheless. Perhaps the meaning of the word chair means something entirely different for you than it does for me. After all, we all come from different milieus and backgrounds. The signifier itself will also change over time. Years ago she might have meant something entirely different. The circumstances will change over time. This is a sign of history. History will change, with its taking of the time, the signifier and signified. The meaning of history itself will change. She is a sign herself. Constantly evolving.

Now, if we look at the story of Billy Budd, history might be the underlying narrative here. She might be the glue that binds this story together, but only in the way she plays a role in the interpretation of that story. Over time the historical context will change. Mine is probably different from yours, or from someone who was born in 1800. Their reading of such characters and signs will be, all together, entirely different. I believe this is a product of one’s own cultural, social, political knowledge and state of mind. My history is different from your history. I think that, therefore, history should not be seen as a fixed martial law; something that is like an underlying current, but that opposes an arbitrariness that meddles with the plot. I wonder therefore, can a sign ever be called a sign if she will change layer upon layer (See Hito Steyerl, In Defense of The Poor Image, 2009), jumping through hoops of different languages, understanding, meanings, and histories. There is not one reality, but as it seems, multiple coexisting temporalities, and therefore histories.