Assess the role of historical empathy in challenging Leopold von Ranke’s empiricism in the construction of history

BY PRIYA MEHRA, YEAR 12, 2021

Historical empathy is a potential solution to the limitations of German historian Leopold von Ranke’s empiricist history, particularly von Ranke’s large-scale omission of the lower-class from the historical record. With connections to English historian R.G. Collingwood’s theory of historical imagination, historical empathy can be exercised to address this limitation, with historians such as Natalie Zemon Davis reflecting how it can be utilised to amplify often silenced voices in history. The value of historical empathy is also reflected in pieces of public history, such as Paul Keating’s 1992 Redfern Speech. However, historical empathy itself is limited, evident in the works of ancient Athenian historian Thucydides, and Australian selfproclaimed ‘storian’, Peter FitzSimons. Ultimately, in order to constitute a holistic construction of history, the notion of historical empathy must coexist with elements of von Ranke’s empiricist ideas.

Intended to facilitate a deeper understanding of history, historical empathy exists as a possible bridge between historians and the world of the past. The term ‘empathy’ is defined as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another”, but becomes more complex in the context of history, thus leading to the term ‘historical empathy’. This concept can be traced to the late 18th century, when German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) formally applied the notion of einfühlen, or empathy, to historiography. While there is continued debate, historical empathy is generally the ability to view past events and people as a product of their respective context, using available evidence to understand societal and individual perspectives, values and beliefs. Especially when used alongside R.G. Collingwood’s theory of historical imagination, historical empathy undermines von Ranke’s empiricist history, in offering a method to gain insight into the social, emotional and cultural aspects of history, rather than the rational. Despite this benefit, historical empathy is inherently limited, as it is impossible for historians to empathise with an ultimately irrecoverable past. As English historian John Cairns argues, “we cannot re-enact the actual thought of individuals in the past. We can try … to construct what we think that event was like … but the full re-enactment is beyond us”. Historical empathy is consequently limited in this sense, although it is still considered valuable in challenging elements of von Ranke’s empiricist history.

The origins of this debate lie in the flaws of traditional empiricist history, which was formally established by German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886). Born in Wiehe, in now Germany, von Ranke was encouraged to pursue historical study in the hope that, driven by his Lutheran beliefs, he would find the presence of God in past versions of humanity. Studying at the University of Leipzig in 1814, von Ranke experienced a 19th century Europe characterised by a divide between upper class élites and a largely illiterate lower-class. This context significantly influenced von Ranke’s writings as a historian, especially the formation of his theory of empiricist history.

The primary concern of Rankean history is a continual progression towards ‘truth’, with the historian being as objective as possible when utilising primary sources to construct history. However, although this definition is ascribed to von Ranke, it emerged largely posthumously, with many of his ideas continuing to remain ambiguous today, including the phrase “wie es eigentlich gewesen”. Taken from von Ranke’s History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations (1824), the meaning of the phrase, as discussed by 20th century American historian Felix Gilbert, varies through nuanced translations, such as ‘what actually happened’, compared to ‘what essentially happened’. Despite this definition-based debate, the essence of von Ranke, as advocating for ‘truth’ and objectivity, is largely agreed upon. Regarding methodology, von Ranke was heavily reliant on predominantly written primary sources, although he did use Serbian linguist Vuk Karadžić as a source of oral history when writing The History of Servia and the Servian Revolution (1829). A crucial element of Rankean history, von Ranke’s insistence on primary sources as the basis of historical method was highly

HSC Extension History

significant, with the majority of historians today, including postmodernists, continuing to begin historical study by referring to primary sources.

Although idealistic in its notions of ‘truth’ and objectivity, and valuable in its use of primary sources, Rankean history is limited in its ability to facilitate a holistic construction of history. Writing in the 19th century, von Ranke was reliant on the upper class for his income and reputation. Coupled with a methodology based on mainly written primary sources, and a largely illiterate lower-class, von Ranke’s history consequently focused on the upper class, specifically diplomatic and governmental history. This omission of the lower-class ultimately weakened von Ranke’s methodology. Historical empathy has the potential to address this flaw of Rankean history, in allowing for the inclusion of the lower-class in the historical record, despite limited written primary sources being available.

Responding to von Ranke, English historian R.G. Collingwood (1889-1943) was a significant voice in beginning to formalise the notion of historical empathy, through his theory of historical imagination. Born in the English Lake District, Collingwood was well-educated, attending Oxford University in 1908, where he studied philosophy, literature and history. As a historian, Collingwood was influenced by German historian Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), whose theory of re-experience centred on the historian’s theoretical ability to recognise and ‘transfer’ themselves into the experiences and emotions of a past individual. This theory was largely based on the assumption that a historian would be able to emotionally re-experience the past, while remaining rational enough to offer a critical explanation of historical events. Collingwood challenged Dilthey’s assumption, instead arguing that “elements in experience whose being is just their immediacy (sensations, feelings …) cannot be re-enacted”. Collingwood’s theory of historical imagination eventually formed a bridge between Dilthey’s psychological approach and von Ranke’s empiricist ideas, thus establishing a solid foundation for the development of historical empathy as a component of methodology.

Historical imagination and historical empathy have inherent similarities, with both ideas intended to undermine Rankean methodology by facilitating a holistic construction of history in the absence of primary sources. However, Collingwood deliberately avoided using the term ‘empathy’, to prevent associating the rational discipline of history with aesthetic pursuits like literature, where ‘empathy’ was increasingly being applied during the period. In the Idea of History, Collingwood describes the historical imagination as “bridging the gaps between what our authorities tell us, [giving] the historical narrative … its continuity”. Collingwood thus proposes using primary sources as “authorities” in the construction of history, with imagination, based on sources, filling gaps within the historical record, until new evidence surfaces. Through introducing the subjective notion of imagination, Collingwood, ahead of the postmodern movement of the late 20th century, undermines von Ranke’s view of history as a purely scientific pursuit. Historical imagination is typically used alongside historical empathy, with the historian needing to understand the contextual attitudes and beliefs behind available sources, before attempting to fill gaps in the historical record. As a result, the two terms are often conflated within a contemporary context. In this way, Collingwood played a significant role in formalising the notion of historical empathy.

The interplay between historical empathy and historical imagination is evident in the work of Canadian-American historian Natalie Zemon Davis, who uses this methodology to amplify the voices of the lower-class in the historical record, thus undermining Rankean history. Born in 1928 to a Jewish immigrant family in Detroit, Davis’ society was dominated by white, upper-class Protestants, typically men. Influenced by this context, Davis’ construction of history is centred on the diminished voices of history: the menu peuple, or ordinary people, typically belonging to the lower-class. This is reflected in her book The Return of Martin Guerre (1984), where Davis explores the lives of 16th century French peasant Martin Guerre and his wife Bertrande in detail, utilising historical empathy and historical imagination to construct her representation of the period. Davis discloses this aspect of her methodology in the preface, with “what I offer you here is in part my invention, but held tightly in check by the voices of the past”, emphasising how Davis makes inferences based on available evidence. Davis’ methodology also constitutes elements of the French Annales school, established by Lucien Febre and March Bloch in the early 1900s. By invoking the Annalist idea of consulting interdisciplinary sources, Davis challenges Rankean methodology, overcoming the problem of limited written primary sources relating to the lower-class.

As she reflects in an interview, “historians are trained to work mostly with written evidence … we need to be careful not to become imprisoned by documentation”. In her book Women on the Margins (1995), Davis utilises these different aspects of methodology to construct the histories of three 17th century lower-class women, drawing on historical empathy and historical imagination to fill the gaps between available sources and produce a cohesive narrative. By centring her historical narrative on these women, Davis thus undermines traditional upperclass, male-dominated Rankean history. The book’s unconventional opening, of an imagined conversation between the three women and Davis herself, reflects how historical empathy enables intimacy between the historian and people of the past, thus facilitating a more holistic construction of history. Through this methodology, Davis is able to challenge von Ranke’s tendency to exclude the lower-class from the historical record.

While Collingwood and Davis challenge Rankean history within academic spheres, the value of historical empathy is applicable to public history as well, as is evident in former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating’s December 1992 Redfern Speech, for the United Nations Year of the Indigenous People. Occurring within a context of social change for Australian First Nations People, following the Mabo Decision in June 1992, the speech encouraged the use of historical empathy to progress towards reconciliation. By recognising how “we took the traditional lands … We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers”, Keating encourages Australians to face their history. He then references the importance of historical empathy, with “we failed to … enter into their hearts and minds. We failed to ask – how would I feel if this were done to me”. Consequently, Keating’s Redfern Speech, as a form of public history, undermines Rankean history, in calling for the use of historical empathy to progress towards reconciliation with the First Nations community.

While historical empathy is valuable in challenging Rankean history, it is also inherently limited in aiding an accurate construction of history. Postmodern British historiographer Keith Jenkins presents this view, arguing how “the past is never empathetically recoverable … you [cannot] think yourself straight into the past”. Born in 1943, Jenkins is heavily influenced by postmodern historian Hayden White (1928-2018). Encouraged by White’s view of history as a pastiche of constructed narratives representing the irrecoverable past, Jenkins questions the possibility of historical empathy. This is evident in Jenkins’ apprehension towards the idea of the historian transcending their context to empathise with the past, with Jenkins arguing, “given that interpretations of the past are constructed in the present, the possibility of the historian being able to slough off his present to reach somebody else’s past on their terms looks remote”. Jenkins also discusses the problem of “other minds”, in questioning the ability of historical empathy to overcome differences in ethnicity and culture. English historian William V. Harris aligns with this view, arguing “what really makes life difficult for historical empathisers … is the sheer otherness of the people we are … trying to investigate”, going on to ask, “can a modern American understand an emperor of China, or of Rome?”. Although historians and public figures like Natalie Zemon Davis and Paul Keating attempt to challenge this perspective, Jenkins’ and Harris’ criticisms are ultimately a valuable contribution, in revealing how historical empathy is limited.

Historical empathy is also limited when used in a generalised sense, as seen through the writings of Thucydides (c. 460BC – c. 404 BC), an ancient Athenian historian and general. Thucydides believed that his role as a general enabled him to use generalised historical empathy to write about the experiences of others of similar status during the period, due to similarities in context. This was evident in his record of speeches, such as Pericles’ Funeral Oration, with Thucydides writing in The History of the Peloponnesian War, “… my method has been, while keeping as closely as possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used, to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by each situation”. This methodology limited Thucydides’ construction of history, with British historian of the Classics, Moses Finley, arguing, “if all speakers said what, in Thucydides’ opinion, the situation called for, the remark becomes meaningless”. This again highlights the limitations of historical empathy, with the generalised use of the concept potentially eroding individual experiences from the historical record.

HSC Extension History

A further caveat of historical empathy is its potential to be used in excess, as seen in the work of Australian popular historian Peter FitzSimons. A self-proclaimed “storian”, FitzSimons is known for his style of authoring best-selling non-fiction history books using techniques associated with works of fiction. This form is intended to bring the historical narrative to ‘life’, with FitzSimons reflecting in the introduction to his book James Cook (2019), “I have tried to bring the story part of this history alive, by putting it in the present tense, and constructing it in the manner of a novel”. Similar to R.G. Collingwood and Natalie Zemon Davis, FitzSimons’ methodology places significant weight on primary sources, with FitzSimons eventually using the sources to construct a version of events which reads similar to a piece of fiction, including dialogue and figurative language. This writing style is evident in Breaker Morant, with the onomatopoeia of “causing solid things to … smack, smash, thrash and slice”, coupled with the metaphor of “the cruel calculus of death”. This form has been criticised by academics, with Australian historian Peter Stanley arguing, “FitzSimons’ style is that of a graphic novel without the pictures”. In Breaker Morant, FitzSimons also alludes to his use of historical empathy, with “my goal has been to determine what were the words used, based on the primary documentary evidence presented, and what the feel of the situation was”. In this way, FitzSimons echoes Thucydides, in using historical empathy to justify the creation of dialogue. While FitzSimons’ approach brings history to the people through an engaging form, his representation of individuals is largely based in his historical imagination. Consequently, his work, at times, is a product of excessive historical empathy, and is therefore in danger of constituting an inaccurate construction of history.

Ultimately, historical empathy has the potential to successfully challenge Rankean history, specifically von Ranke’s omission of the lower-class from his construction of history. However, while historical empathy has its benefits, it is also inherently limited. Consequently, in order to constitute a holistic construction of history, historical empathy and certain Rankean empiricist ideas, such as a methodology reliant upon primary sources, must co-exist, albeit with creative tension.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABC Australia. Paul Keating Speech on Impact of European Settlement on Indigenous Australia (1992) | ABC Australia, 2020. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=LAFaHP6w6tE. Adelson, Roger, and Natalie Zemon Davis. “Interview with Natalie Zemon Davis.” The Historian 53, no. 3 (1991): 405–22. AHA Staff. “Natalie Zemon Davis Awarded Holberg Prize.” Perspectives on History, April 1, 2010. https://www.historians.org/publications-anddirectories/perspectives-on-history/april-2010/natalie-zemon-davisawarded-holberg-prize. Ahlskog, Jonas. “R. G. Collingwood and the Presence of the Past.” Journal of the Philosophy of History 11, no. 1 (November 7, 2017): 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1163/18722636-12341375. Ankersmit, Frank R. Meaning, Truth, and Reference in Historical Representation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations: Essays and Reflections. Translated by Harry Zohn. New York: HMH, 1968. Bentley, Jerry H. “The Task of World History.” In The Oxford Handbook of World History, 1–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Bentley, Michael. Modern Historiography: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1999. Berlin, Isaiah. Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas. London: Viking Press, 1976. Bernstein, Howard R. “Marxist Historiography and the Methodology of Research Programs.” History and Theory 20, no. 4 (1981): 424–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2504791. Boldt, Andreas. “Ranke: Objectivity and History.” Rethinking History 18, no. 4 (October 2, 2014): 457–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2 014.893658.

Boldt, Andreas D. Leopold Von Ranke: A Biography. London: Routledge, 2013. Boucher, David. The Social and Political Thought of R. G. Collingwood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Braw, J. D. “Vision as Revision: Ranke and the Beginning of Modern History.” History and Theory 46, no. 4 (2007): 45–60. Briscoe, Luke. “Sorry Day Is about Empathy.” NITV, May 26, 2015. https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2015/05/26/sorry-day-aboutempathy. Bryant, Darren, and Penney Clark. “Historical Empathy and ‘Canada: A People’s History.’” Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’éducation 29, no. 4 (2006): 1039–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/20054210. Cairns, John. “Some Reflections on Empathy in History.” Teaching History 1, no. 55 (1989): 13–18. Canby, Vincent. “‘Martin Guerre.’” The New York Times, June 10, 1983, https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/10/movies/martin-guerre.html. City of Sydney – News. “The Legacy of Paul Keating’s Redfern Speech,” December 8, 2017. https://news.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/articles/thelegacy-of-paul-keatings-redfern-speech. Cochrane, Peter. “Exploring the Historical Imagination.” Griffith Review. Accessed February 14, 2021. https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/ exploring-the-historical-imagination/. Cohn, Dorrit. “Signposts of Fictionality: A Narratological Perspective.” Poetics Today 11, no. 4 (1990): 775–804. https://doi. org/10.2307/1773077. Collingwood, R. G. “The Limits of Historical Knowledge.” Journal of Philosophical Studies 3, no. 10 (1928): 213–22. Comaroff, John, and Jean Comaroff. Ethnography And The Historical Imagination. London: Routledge, 1992. Conze, Werner, and Charles A. Wright. “Social History.” Journal of Social History 1, no. 1 (1967): 7–16. Crane, Susan A. “Historical Subjectivity: A Review Essay.” The Journal of Modern History 78, no. 2 (2006): 434–56. https://doi. org/10.1086/505803. Curthoys, Ann, and John Docker. Is History Fiction? Sydney: University of NSW Press, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central. Curthoys, Ann, and Ann McGrath. “Character and Emotion.” In How to Write History That People Want to Read, 178–97. Sydney, Australia: University of NSW Press, 2009. – How to Write History That People Want to Read. Sydney: University of NSW Press, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central. Daddow, Oliver J. “The Ideology of Apathy: Historians and Postmodernism.” Rethinking History 8, no. 3 (September 2004): 417–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364257042000247855. Davis, Megan. “Closing the Gap in Indigenous Disadvantage: A Trajectory of Indigenous Inequality in Australia.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 16, no. 1 (2015): 34–44. Davis, Natalie Zemon. “Decentering History: Local Stories and Cultural Corssings in a Global World.” History and Theory 50, no. 2 (2011): 188–202.

– The Return of Martin Guerre. Massachusetts: Harvard University

Press, 1984. – “Toward Mixtures and Margins.” The American Historical Review 97, no. 5 (1992): 1409–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/2165943. – “Who Owns History? History in the Profession.” Perspectives: The

Newsletter of the American Historical Association 34, no. 8 (1996): 4–6. – “Women and the World of the Annales.” History Workshop

Journal 33, no. 1 (March 1, 1992): 121–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/ hwj/33.1.121. – Women on the Margins: Three Seventeenth-Century Lives. Boston:

Harvard University Press, 1995. – “‘Women’s History’ in Transition: The European Case.” Feminist

Studies 3, no. 3 (1976): 83–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177729. Davis, Natalie Zemon, and Denis Crouzet. A Passion for History. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2010. Davis, Ozro Luke, Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and Stuart J. Foster. Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. Davison, Martyn. “Developing an Historical Empathy Pathway with New Zealand Secondary School Students.” International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research 12, no. 2 (November 2014): 5–21.

– “The Case for Empathy in the History Classroom.” Curriculum

Matters 6, no. 1 (January 1, 2010): 82–99. Dilthey, Wilhelm. The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. – Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected Works, Volume IV: Hermeneutics and the

Study of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv39x6db. D’Oro, Giuseppina, and James Connelly. “Collingwood, Scientism and Historicism.” Journal of the Philosophy of History 11, no. 3 (November 7, 2017): 275–88. https://doi.org/10.1163/18722636-12341374. Dray, William H. “Collingwood’s Historical Individualism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10, no. 1 (1980): 1–20.

HSC Extension History

– History as Re-Enactment: R.G. Collingwood’s Idea of History.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Duckworth, John. “Imagination in Teaching History.” Teaching History 2, no. 5 (1971): 49–52. Dudash, Susan J. “Christine de Pizan and the ‘Menu Peuple.’” Speculum 78, no. 3 (2003): 788–831. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0038713400131549.

Endacott, Jason, and Sarah Brooks. “An Updated Theoretical and Practical Model for Promoting Historical Empathy.” Social Studies Research and Practice 8, no. 1 (2013): 41–58. Endacott, Jason L. “Negotiating the Process of Historical Empathy.” Theory & Research in Social Education 42, no. 1 (January 2014): 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2013.826158. – “Reconsidering Affective Engagement in Historical Empathy.” Theory & Research in Social Education 38, no. 1 (January 2010): 6–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473415. Endacott, Jason L., and Sarah Brooks. “Historical Empathy: Perspectives and Responding to the Past.” In The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning, 203–25. New York: Wiley, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119100812.ch8. Fines, John. “Imagination & the Historian.” Teaching History 1, no. 18 (1977): 24–26. Finlay, Robert. “The Refashioning of Martin Guerre.” The American Historical Review 93, no. 3 (1988): 553–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1868102. FitzSimons, Peter. Breaker Morant. Paris: Hachette UK, 2020. – Gallipoli. New York: Random House, 2015. – James Cook: The Story behind the Man Who Mapped the World.

Paris: Hachette UK, 2019. Fleming, Grace. “The Importance of Historic Context in Analysis and Interpretation.” ThoughtCo, August 19, 2019. https://www.thoughtco. com/what-is-historical-context-1857069.

Foster, Stuart. “To What Extent Does the Acquisition of Historical Knowledge Really Matter When Studying the Holocaust?” In Holocaust Education, edited by Stuart Foster, Andy Pearce, and Alice Pettigrew, 28–49. Contemporary Challenges and Controversies. London: UCL Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv15d7zpf.8. – “Using Historical Empathy to Excite Students about the Study of History: Can You Empathize with Neville Chamberlain?” The

Social Studies 90, no. 1 (January 1, 1999): 18–24. https://doi. org/10.1080/00377999909602386. Gallagher, Shaun. “Dilthey and Empathy.” In Interpreting Dilthey: Critical Essays, edited by Eric S. Nelson, 145–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781316459447.008. – “Empathy, Simulation, and Narrative.” Science in Context 25, no. 3 (September 2012): 355–81. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.sl.nsw.gov. au/10.1017/S0269889712000117.

Gardner, Philip. “Hermeneutics and History.” Discourse Studies 13, no. 5 (2011): 575–81. – Hermeneutics, History and Memory. London: Taylor & Francis

Group, 2010. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/pymblelc/detail. action?docID=481083.

Gilbert, Felix. “Historiography: What Ranke Meant.” The American Scholar 56, no. 3 (1987): 393–97. Giles, Steve. “Against Interpretation: Recent Trends in Marxist Criticism.” British Journal of Aesthetics 28, no. 1 (Winter 1988): 68–77. Gismondi, Michael A. “‘The Gift of Theory’: A Critique of the Histoire Des Mentalités.” Social History 10, no. 2 (1985): 211–30. Gresham College. The Greatest Speech of All Time: Pericles’ Funeral Oration, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=NzpRgD4H8V4&t=4s. Griffin, Helga M. “Not the Way It Essentially Was.” The Journal of Pacific History 28, no. 1 (1993): 68–74. Harrington, Austin. “Dilthey, Empathy and Verstehen A Contemporary Reappraisal.” European Journal of Social Theory 4, no. 3 (August 1, 2001): 311–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310122225145. Harris, Roy. Linguistics of History. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019. Harris, William V. “History, Empathy and Emotions.” Antike Und Abendland 56, no. 1 (December 2010): 1–23. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy. sl.nsw.gov.au/10.1515/9783110222685.1. Hause, Steven C. “The Evolution of Social History.” French Historical Studies 19, no. 4 (1996): 1191–1214. https://doi.org/10.2307/286669. National Museum of Australia. “Historical Milestones: Key Events in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History 1967–2005.” Accessed June 4, 2021. https://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/off-the-walls/ historical-milestones.

Hopkins, Keith. A World Full of Gods: Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Roman Empire. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999. Hughes, Marnie T. E. “Re-Thinking Collingwood: A Reply to Keith Jenkins’s Rethinking History.” Teaching History 1, no. 80 (1995): 5–8. Hughes-Warrington, Marnie. Fifty Key Thinkers on History. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2014. – How Good an Historian Shall I Be?: R.G. Collingwood, the Historical

Imagination and Education. London: Andrews UK Ltd., 2003.

ProQuest Ebook Central.

Huijgen, Tim, and Paul Holthuis. “‘Why Am I Accused of Being a Heretic?’ A Pedagogical Framework for Stimulating Historical Contextualisation.” Teaching History 1, no. 158 (March 2015): 50–55. Icke, Peter P. “Keith Jenkins: A Very Particular Perspective.” Rethinking History 17, no. 2 (June 2013): 211–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364252 9.2013.778124.

Iggers, Georg G. Historiography in the Twentieth Century. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1997. Jay, Martin. “Historical Explanation and the Event: Reflections on the Limits of Contextualization.” New Literary History 42, no. 4 (2011): 557–71.

Jenkins, Keith. At the Limits of History: Essays on Theory and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central. – Rethinking History. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2003. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203426869. – The Postmodern History Reader. London: Psychology Press, 1997. – Why History?: Ethics and Postmodernity. London: Psychology Press, 1999.

Jenkins, Keith, and Peter Brickley. “Reflections On The Empathy Debate.” Teaching History 1, no. 55 (1989): 18–23. Jensen, J. “Developing Historical Empathy through Debate: An Action Research Study.” Undefined 3, no. 1 (2008): 55–67. Keynes, Matilda. “Empathy and History: Historical Understanding in Re-Enactment, Hermeneutics and Education.” History of Education Review 47, no. 2 (2018): 235–37. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.sl.nsw.gov. au/10.1108/HER-10-2018-063.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONTINUED)

Kogler, Hans Herbert. Empathy And Agency: The Problem Of Understanding In The Human Sciences. London: Routledge, 2018. Koopman, Colin. “Historicism in Pragmatism: Lessons in Historiography and Philosophy.” Metaphilosophy 41, no. 5 (2010): 690–713. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01662.x. Koss, Juliet. “On the Limits of Empathy.” The Art Bulletin 88, no. 1 (March 2006): 139–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2006.1078 6282.

Krznaric, Roman. “Is Empathy the Hidden Motor of Human History?,” November 30, 2015. https://newhumanist.org.uk/4962/is-empathythe-hidden-motor-of-human-history. Kugler, Michael. “A Course in Empathy? Sympathy and Historical Training and Reflection.” Fides et Historia 51, no. 2 (June 2019): 60–74. Lacapra, Dominick. History and Reading: Tocqueville, Foucault, French Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central.

LearncastNSW. Peter FitzSimons: Writing History, 2010. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=1yYQm0Oo1CE. Lee, P. J. “History Teaching and Philosophy of History.” History and Theory 22, no. 4 (1983): 19–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2505214. Lee, Peter, and Denis Shemilt. “The Concept That Dares Not Speak Its Name: Should Empathy Come out of the Closet?” Teaching History 1, no. 143 (2011): 39–49. Levy, Jack S. “Too Important to Leave to the Other: History and Political Science in the Study of International Relations.” International Security 22, no. 1 (1997): 22–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539325. Lewis, Bernard. “Historiography: Other People’s History.” The American Scholar 59, no. 3 (1990): 397–405. Little, Vivienne. “What Is Historical Imagination?” Teaching History 1, no. 36 (1983): 27–32. Low-Beer, Ann. “Empathy and History.” Teaching History 1, no. 55 (1989): 8–12. Mann, Douglas. Structural Idealism: A Theory of Social and Historical Explanation. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Megill, Allan. “Coherence and Incoherence in Historical Studies: From the ‘Annales’ School to the New Cultural History.” New Literary History 35, no. 2 (2004): 207–31. Moyn, Samuel. “Empathy in History, Empathizing with Humanity.” Edited by Carolyn J. Dean and Dominick LaCapra. History and Theory 45, no. 3 (2006): 397–415. Munslow, Alun. A History of History. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central.

– “On Keith Jenkins.” Rethinking History 17, no. 2 (June 2013): 253–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2013.778125. – The Future of History. London: Macmillan Science and Eduction, 2010.

– The New History. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2003. ProQuest

Ebook Central.

Munslow, Alun, and Keith Jenkins. “Alun Munslow: In Conversation with Keith Jenkins.” Rethinking History 15, no. 4 (December 1, 2011): 567–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2011.617124. Nitz, Julia. “History, a Literary Artifact? The Traveling Concept of Narrative in/on Historiographic Discourse.” Interdisciplinary Literary Studies 15, no. 1 (2013): 69–85. https://doi.org/10.5325/ intelitestud.15.1.0069. Olsen, Mark. “Motives, Memory and Mind: Collingwood’s Theory of Actions and ‘Histoire Des Mentalités.’” Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 19, no. 1 (1993): 35–62. Orwin, Clifford. “Thucydides’ Contest: Thucydidean ‘Methodology’ in Context.” The Review of Politics 51, no. 3 (1989): 345–64. Patterson, James. “The Politics of Sorry.” AQ: Australian Quarterly 81, no. 2 (2009): 19–25. SBS News. “Paul Keating’s Redfern Speech Still Powerful after 25 Years.” Accessed June 4, 2021. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/paul-keatings-redfern-speech-still-powerful-after-25-years. Paul, Laurie Ann. Transformative Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pellauer, David. “Ricœur and White on the Historical Imagination.” Archivio Di Filosofia 81, no. 1 (2013): 261–70. Perrotta, Katherine Assante, and Chara Haeussler Bohan. “More than a Feeling: Tracing the Progressive Era Origins of Historical Empathy in the Social Studies Curriculum, 1890–1940s.” The Journal of Social Studies Research 42, no. 1 (January 1, 2018): 27–37. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.01.002. Pihlainen, Kalle. “Escaping the Confines of History: Keith Jenkins.” Rethinking History 17, no. 2 (June 2013): 235–52. https://doi.org/10.10 80/13642529.2013.778126.

– “Escaping the Confines of History: Keith Jenkins.” Rethinking History 17, no. 2 (June 1, 2013): 235–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529. 2013.778126.

Portal, Christopher. “Debate: Empathy.” Teaching History 1, no. 58 (1990): 36–38. Prinz, Jesse. “Against Empathy.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 49, no. 1 (September 2011): 214–33. R. G. Collingwood. The Idea Of History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946. Ranke, Leopold von, and Georg G. Iggers. “Preface to the First Edition of Histories of the Latin and Germanic Peoples (October 1824).” In The Theory and Practice of History. London: Routledge, 2010. Ranum, Morten. “Rethinking History. The Journal of Theory and Practice.” Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung 25, no. 1 (2000): 171–77. Retz, Tyson. “A Moderate Hermeneutical Approach to Empathy in History Education.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 47, no. 3 (February 23, 2015): 214–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013. 838661.

– Empathy and History: Historical Understanding in Re-Enactment,

Hermeneutics and Education. 1st ed. Making Sense of History 35.

New York: Berghahn Books, 2018. – “Why Re-Enactment Is Not Empathy, Once and for All.” Journal of the Philosophy of History 11, no. 1 (November 7, 2017): 306–23. https://doi.org/10.1163/18722636-12341376. Robbins, Jane. “A Nation within? Indigenous Peoples, Representation and Sovereignty in Australia.” Ethnicities 10, no. 2 (2010): 257–74. Roitman, Jessica, and Karwan Fatah-Black. “‘Being Speculative Is Better than to Not Do It at All’: An Interview with Natalie Zemon Davis.” Itinerario 39, no. 1 (April 2015): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0165115315000108.

Samuel, Raphael. “What Is Social History?,” March 1985. https://www. historytoday.com/archive/what-social-history. Shuman, Amy. Other People’s Stories: Entitlement Claims and the Critique of Empathy. Baltimore: University of Illinois Press, 2005. ProQuest Ebook Central.

HSC Extension History

Siljak, Ana. “Adventure and Empathy.” Literary Review of Canada (blog), May 2011. https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2011/05/adventure-andempathy/. Skinner, Quentin. “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” History and Theory 8, no. 1 (1969): 3–53. https://doi. org/10.2307/2504188. –“The Limits of Historical Explanations.” Philosophy 41, no. 157 (1966): 199–215.

Skolnick, Joan, Nancy Dulberg, and Thea Maestre. Through Other Eyes: Developing Empathy and Multicultural Perspectives in the Social Studies. Toronto: Pippin Publishing Corporation, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Smith, R. B. “R.G. Collingwood’s Definition of Historical Knowledge.” History of European Ideas 33, no. 3 (2007): 350–71. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.histeuroideas.2006.11.010. Smith, Roger. “Reflections on the Historical Imagination.” History of the Human Sciences 13, no. 4 (2000): 103–8. https://doi. org/10.1177/09526950022120890. Snowman, D. “Natalie Zemon Davis.” In Historians, 175–86. New York: Springer, 2006. Snowman, Daniel. “Natalie Zemon Davis.” History Today 52, no. 10 (2002): 18–20. Soffer, Reba N. “The Conservative Historical Imagination in the Twentieth Century.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 28, no. 1 (1996): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/4051951. St Mary’s University, Twickenham. Interview with Professor of Historical Theory Keith Jenkins (University of Chichester), 2013. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=cu2znmjTgvM. – Professor Alun Munslow – The Gap Between the Past and History, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHC3PAbpI1U. Stanley, Peter. “Three Great War Histories Review: Was the Slaughtering Really Worth It?” Sydney Morning Herald, November 7, 2016. Stueber, Karsten. Rediscovering Empathy: Agency, Folk Psychology, and the Human Sciences. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central.

– “The Psychological Basis of Historical Explanation: Reenactment,

Simulation, and the Fusion of Horizons.” History and Theory 41, no. 1 (2002): 25–42. Tatz, Colin. “Australia: The ‘Good’ Genocide Perpetrator?” Health and History 18, no. 2 (2016): 85–98. https://doi.org/10.5401/ healthhist.18.2.0085. Tenembaum, Yoav. “Why Historians Need Imagination | History News Network,” 2016. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/163280. Then & Now. Rethinking History: Keith Jenkins & Postmodernism, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJv0RsM5w40. Traverso, Enzo. “Marx, History, and Historians: A Relationship in Need of Reinvention.” Actuel Marx No 50, no. 2 (November 14, 2011): 153–65. Turberville, A. S. “History Objective and Subjective.” History 17, no. 68 (1933): 289–302. Usher, Abbott Payson. “The Significance of Modern Empiricism for History and Economics.” The Journal of Economic History 9, no. 2 (1949): 137–55. Verducci, Susan. “A Conceptual History of Empathy and a Question It Raises for Moral Education.” Educational Theory 50, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 63. Warren, John. History and the Historians. 1st ed. Access to History. London: Hodder, 1999. Wilson, John. “What Does Thucydides Claim for His Speeches?” Phoenix 36, no. 2 (1982): 95–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/1087670. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. New Jersey: Wiley, 2010.

Yilmaz, Kaya. “Historical Empathy and Its Implications for Classroom Practices in Schools.” The History Teacher 40, no. 3 (2007): 331–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036827.

FOOTNOTES

1. “Empathy,” Oxford Dictionaries, accessed May 12, 2021, https://www.lexico.com/definition/empathy. 2. Isaiah Berlin, Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas (London: Viking Press, 1976): 186. 3. Kaya Yilmaz, “Historical Empathy and Its Implications for Classroom

Practices in Schools,” The History Teacher 40, no. 3 (2007): 332, https://doi.org/10.2307/30036827. 4. Vivienne Little, “What Is Historical Imagination?,” Teaching History 1, no. 36 (1983): 28. 5. Little: 27.

6. John Cairns, “Some Reflections on Empathy in History,” Teaching

History, no. 55 (1989): 14. 7. John Warren, History and the Historians, 1st ed., Access to History (London: Hodder, 1999): 58. 8. Ann Curthoys and John Docker, Is History Fiction? (Sydney:

University of NSW Press, 2009): 52, ProQuest Ebook Central. 9. Jerry H. Bentley, “The Task of World History,” in The Oxford

Handbook of World History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 3.

10. Helga M. Griffin, “Not the Way It Essentially Was,” The Journal of

Pacific History 28, no. 1 (1993): 68. 11. Felix Gilbert, “Historiography: What Ranke Meant,” The American

Scholar 56, no. 3 (1987): 393. 12. Marnie Hughes-Warrington, Fifty Key Thinkers on History, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2014): 262. 13. Andreas Boldt, “Ranke: Objectivity and History,” Rethinking History 18, no. 4 (October 2, 2014): 466, https://doi.org/10.1080/1364252 9.2014.893658.

14. Andreas D. Boldt, Leopold Von Ranke: A Biography (London:

Routledge, 2013): 4. 15. David Boucher, The Social and Political Thought of R. G.

Collingwood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003): 5. 16. Wilhelm Dilthey, The Formation of the Historical World in the

Human Sciences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002): 235. 17. Dilthey: 235. 18. R. G. Collingwood, The Idea Of History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946): 297. 19. Hughes-Warrington, Fifty Key Thinkers on History: 38. 20. R. G. Collingwood, The Idea Of History: 241. 21. Marnie Hughes-Warrington, How Good an Historian Shall I Be?:

R.G. Collingwood, the Historical Imagination and Education (London: Andrews UK Ltd., 2003): 256, ProQuest Ebook Central. 22. Jonas Ahlskog, “R. G. Collingwood and the Presence of the Past,”

Journal of the Philosophy of History 11, no. 1 (November 7, 2017): 291, https://doi.org/10.1163/18722636-12341375. 23. Little, “What Is Historical Imagination?”: 30. 24. Daniel Snowman, “Natalie Zemon Davis,” History Today 52, no. 10 (2002): 18. 25. Roger Adelson and Natalie Zemon Davis, “Interview with Natalie

Zemon Davis,” The Historian 53, no. 3 (1991): 411. 26. Robert Finlay, “The Refashioning of Martin Guerre,” The

American Historical Review 93, no. 3 (1988): 553, https://doi. org/10.2307/1868102. 27. Natalie Zemon Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre (Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press, 1984): 4. 28. Adelson and Davis, “Interview with Natalie Zemon Davis”: 412. 29. T. C. R. Horn and Harry Ritter, “Interdisciplinary History: A

Historiographical Review,” The History Teacher 19, no. 3 (1986): 428, https://doi.org/10.2307/493382. 30. Adelson and Davis, “Interview with Natalie Zemon Davis”: 419. 31. Jessica Roitman and Karwan Fatah-Black, “‘Being Speculative Is

Better than to Not Do It at All’: An Interview with Natalie Zemon

Davis,” Itinerario 39, no. 1 (April 2015): 8, https://doi.org/10.1017/

S0165115315000108.

32. Natalie Zemon Davis, Women on the Margins: Three Seventeenth-

Century Lives (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1995): 5. 33. “Historical Milestones: Key Events in Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander History 1967–2005,” National Museum of Australia, accessed June 4, 2021, https://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/offthe-walls/historical-milestones.

34. ABC Australia, Paul Keating Speech on Impact of European

Settlement on Indigenous Australia (1992) | ABC Australia, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAFaHP6w6tE. 35. ABC Australia.

36. Keith Jenkins and Peter Brickley, “Reflections On The Empathy

Debate,” Teaching History 1, no. 55 (1989): 21. 37. Alun Munslow and Keith Jenkins, “Alun Munslow: In Conversation with Keith Jenkins,” Rethinking History 15, no. 4 (December 1, 2011): 570, https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2011.617124. 38. Keith Jenkins, Rethinking History, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2003): 49, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203426869. 39. Jenkins: 48.

40. William V. Harris, “History, Empathy and Emotions,” Antike Und

Abendland 56, no. 1 (December 2010): 10, http://dx.doi.org. ezproxy.sl.nsw.gov.au/10.1515/9783110222685.1. 41. Roy Harris, Linguistics of History (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press, 2019). 42. John Wilson, “What Does Thucydides Claim for His Speeches?,”

Phoenix 36, no. 2 (1982): 96. 43. LearncastNSW, Peter FitzSimons: Writing History, 2010. 44. Peter FitzSimons, James Cook: The Story behind the Man Who

Mapped the World (Paris: Hachette UK, 2019): ix. 45. FitzSimons: 186.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Sophia Mitchell

1. Where did the inspiration for your extension work come from?

I was always very interested in researching an area of Indigenous history, so I started broad and then came across some interesting articles about the Myall Creek Massacre. After talking to my teachers, we decided to create some big questions that I could research before deciding on the topic. Once I had compiled a list of resources and websites, I became fascinated with the topic. Moreover, my passion for Visual Arts led me to research the depiction of colonial history through art, which was one of the most interesting parts of the essay for me. Whilst it was challenging at times to find secondary sources and other opinions as my essay was so specific, part of my interest in the project was researching deeply to uncover as much information as I could before forming my own opinion.

2. What was your planning process?

The planning process involved a lot of brainstorming, talking to my teachers and classmates, saving the links of as many interesting articles that I could find and, most importantly, keeping an open mind for my project. I borrowed a few books from the library before the writing process so that I had a broad understanding of the period I chose to write about.

3. What challenges did you come across?

One of the biggest challenges for all History Extension students is deciding on a final essay question, as it feels natural to choose that before researching your area. I initially compiled a list of five specific questions about my chosen area so, at times, my research felt slightly overwhelming, as this process of writing was different to what I was used to in previous assessments. 4. How did you overcome them?

By doing such broad research and documenting it all in different documents, I found that deciding on my question was much easier, as I could write concisely and clearly from the beginning once I had chosen it. Talking to all the supportive teachers and my classmates was also extremely valuable as I could listen to the opinions of others and utilise their feedback. Keeping a comprehensive list of all websites, newspaper articles and books in a document was also very important as it allowed me to organise my research and refer to previous sources.

5. What advice did you give future Extension students?

Don’t be scared! The essay can seem overwhelming at first, but if you keep up to date with the check-ins with your teachers and choose a topic that you are genuinely interested in, the rest will fall into place. This course gives you an amazing opportunity to research on a much deeper level than you would have previously, so make the most of it and have fun! Make sure to take advantage of the valuable resources your teachers and the school provides by talking to a librarian or other teachers for extra input.