5
This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge] On: 24 October 2014, At: 13:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Australian Historical Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rahs20 Open and closed historiographies Bill Gammage Published online: 30 Sep 2008. To cite this article: Bill Gammage (1991) Open and closed historiographies, Australian Historical Studies, 24:97, 443-446, DOI: 10.1080/10314619108595859 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10314619108595859 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Open and closed historiographies

  • Upload
    bill

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 24 October 2014, At: 13:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Historical StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rahs20

Open and closed historiographiesBill GammagePublished online: 30 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Bill Gammage (1991) Open and closed historiographies, Australian Historical Studies, 24:97, 443-446, DOI:10.1080/10314619108595859

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10314619108595859

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMENTS

OPEN AND CLOSED HISTORIOGRAPHIES

BILL GAMMAGE

Donald Denoon's remarks on the character and direction of Australian history inhis 'Open and Closed Histories',1 deserve a response. Denoon characterises 'closed'history as seeking 'to answer one question definitively . . .', and 'open' history aspursuing 'consequences as well as causes' and traversing 'a host of issues'.Understandably, he offers this as only a 'loose distinction', but he uses it to implya significant claim. Although he writes that open history 'is not necessarily betterthan closed history', his work and conversation make clear that, assuming goodhistory, he thinks open is better than closed. His disarming [sic] disclaimer maytherefore be set aside. Further, substantially if not wholly, Denoon equates openhistory with comparative (that is, for him, international or transnational) history,and closed history with national history. He declares 'dissatisfaction' with goodhistory closed in by national boundaries, and delight with good history whichopens perspectives across those boundaries. For him open and comparative isbetter than closed and national.2

Open and comparative and closed and national may be assembled in variousways, rather than merely juxtaposed, but I take it that Denoon is concerned withorders of superiority rather than exclusive definitions. I take it that he considersthat good open and comparative history which addresses questions inherentlysupra-national in character is superior to useful comparisons of nations orsocieties, which in turn is superior to history within the 'limitations of nationalcompartments'.3 I question this, and more importantly I question whether it isprogressive for Australia.

I suggest that Denoon's premises are rooted in a European historiographicaltradition which has served Australian historians well but which we must now seekto move beyond, and that we need to encourage an Australian outlook andmethodology. Denoon calls to the past: to a world in which few had learning andequated standards and progress with writing for each other, a world of thereasoning and reasonable observer, and a world of Empire and colony, or at least

1 D. Denoon, 'Open and Closed Histories', Historical Studies, vol. 24, 1990, pp. 175-88 (hereafter'Histories').2 For this para., ibid., pp. 175-6; D. Denoon, 'The Isolation of Australian History', Historical Studies,vol. 22, 1986, pp. 252-60 (hereafter 'Isolation').3 'Histories', p. 178.

443

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

13:

10 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

444 Bill Gammage

of measuring small nations against the interests of great. In Australia those daysare waning, even in universities: that is the road of closed historiography.Australian historians began in that tradition, and its high standards of proof andinquiry continue to have value. But since World War Two some Australianhistorians have liberated themselves from its content. Now they must similarlyliberate themselves from its methodology. That is the road to open historiography.

Open historiography would not exclude comparative history of the kindDenoon espouses, but it would give it a subordinate role, until we know enoughabout Australia to make such history capable of answers as well as questions.Open historiography would accept that although overseas, especially European,influences have been important, Australia's history has largely been worked outnationally or regionally, yet our discovery of these potentially rich areas has barelybegun.

Probably there is no need for more national histories at the moment.Although Manning Clark's work has brought us to the verge of independence,perhaps it is still too early to ask how the world seems to Australians no longerconcerned about old ties with Empire and Europe. However, one day that mustsurely be considered. Many Australian national (and thematic) historians stillaccept the assumptions and values of the history-makers: in that sense muchAustralian historiography has ignored the passage of time. We have much tocheck, challenge and re-cast, not only by including in the record such groups asAborigines and women, but also by testing basic assumptions and generalisationsabout existing themes. But that might most profitably be done, for the moment, atregional and local level. I repeat, therefore, that it is time for more local studies, 'totest past orthodoxies, and to probe beyond established generalisations'.4 (I use thephrase Denoon objects to, 'it is time', in the sense made popular in Australia in1972, meaning 'it is past time'.5) We need to know what happened in Australia.Only then can we state what that might contribute to a larger sphere.

This in no sense means a retreat from Hancock's intellectual span orCrawford's sense of human destiny. Denoon implies the contrary. 'Geographicalconcentration", he writes, 'does not matter unless it reinforces another kind ofnarrowing—a retreat from . . . intellectual "span".'6 A more balanced statementmight have begun, 'geographical concentration or dispersion . . .', for obviouslyintellectual narrowing is neither caused by, nor exclusive to, geographical concen-tration. An Australian local history is not inevitably more parochial than an openand comparative history. Denoon suggests that it is. For example, he reinforcesthe prejudice just cited by damning increasing geographical concentration in J.M.Ward's work.7 He needs reminding that Hancock, whom here and elsewhere hepraises, indulged in similar concentration.8 Denoon does not wonder why. In fact,

4 B. Gammage, Review, Historical Studies, vol. 23, 1988, p. 255.5 See 'Histories', p. 178.6 Ibid., p. 176.7 Ibid.8 See e.g. W.K. Hancock, Discovering Monaro, Cambridge 1972; The Battle of Black Mountain,Canberra 1974.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

13:

10 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Comment 445

not only is there no warrant for presuming that geographical and intellectualnarrowing move in tandem, but national and regional histories have been and canbe the means of liberation from existing orthodoxies including, in Hancock'swork and elsewhere, the imperial history which once dominated Denoon's openand comparative field.

In practice at least, Denoon does not accept this. He contrasts favourably atheme in Avner Offer's splendid The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation,'Coast, Interior and Metropolis', with a theme in my Narrandera Shire, 'Sydneyand the Bush'.9 He thinks the former open, the latter closed. I see both themes asthe same, though certainly presented with differing emphasis and focus. Moreimportantly, the idea is not new; indeed in Australia it is ancient. My purpose wasto show how strongly it has been believed in rural areas, and to see whether it hasexplanatory power when applied to a specific case. Denoon is not curious aboutsuch matters, not, I believe, because they are demonstrably unworthy, but becausethey are national, or more precisely, cast in a national mould. For him, thenationalism more than the historiography is vicious.

Why? It may simply be that Denoon has lived in (and in some cases rejected)Scotland, South Africa, Cambridge, Uganda, Papua New Guinea and Canberra,whereas almost always I have made excursions from Australia. But Denoon mayalso have historiographical objections to nationalism and hence national history.Because nationalism promotes racism and war? Certainly that has often proved soat Denoon's comparative level, but in Australia racism pre-dates nationalism, andAustralia's wars have been fought under the sway of internationalism, notnationalism. Because nationalism engenders parochialism? That is indeed a risk,but one which all intellectual traditions run. Denoon rightly remarks on howthesis specialisation can encourage parochialism,10 but he and I and everyone else,nationalist or not, can be victims of it, because our reasoning has in part anemotional base, which leads us to rank and prefer differing values. Denoon'sworld, the world which thinks open history 'more fun', Wallerstein more stimu-lating than Frank, and national history unsatisfying,11 strikes me as parochial: aparticular kind of training induces that way of thinking. Denoon sees the 'largequestion' in my The Broken Years as 'what did Anzacs experience in the GreatWar?'12, whereas I see it as contributing to an explanation of why nineteenth andtwentieth-century Australia are different. Denoon may well be right, but he is notless parochial. Nationalism and parochialism are neither inseparable nor inevitabletwins.

History has a choice of being about the present or the future: the latter isinfinitely more preferable, and in Australia infinitely more necessary. Historiansin Australia, no less than novelists, painters, poets and architects, must take a leadin saying what they think a future Australia should be like, and to do that they

9 'Histories', p. 181.10 Ibid., p. 175.11 Ibid., p. 176.12 Ibid., p. 178.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

13:

10 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

446 Bill Gammage

must shake free of old constraints, whatever the virtues of those. They must treadthe unsteady path of independence.

How? We should learn from the Aborigines, and learn more about Australia'senvironment. Well-equipped Australian historians would know more historicalgeography, soil and marine science, botany and geology—and more about HughStretton's ideas. We must also recognise that the premises of Australian historicalcommunication are outdated. Almost all of us write books which cost too muchand sell too little, which may enlighten colleagues and students but touch fewothers, which have high standards of evidence but low capacity for social commentor even for proclaiming the beauty of history. Even at some early cost, we mustupdate our methods and expand our audience. We must write more readablebooks on more popular topics as well as maintain professional journals andtreatises. We must learn to use television, radio and film. We must influenceprimary and secondary, as well as tertiary, eduction. We must recognise that atpresent most Australians find genealogy, family history and local history 'morefun', and lead and shape those trends. We must develop methods appropriate tomass enthusiasms, a populist society, growing economic inequality, our situationas a white island in Asia and the Pacific, and conflicting expectations aboutmaterial comfort and environmental security. Above all, we must develop anAustralian perspective. In many fields of Australian endeavour such prescriptionsare already unremarkable, yet they will still dismay many professional historiansin Australia. But they outline our choice. We can let history pass us by, or we can,in Denoon's words,'. . . hope to reintegrate Australia into the history of humanity;and . . .dream of rediscovering the whole of human experience in the Australianrecord'.13

13 'Isolation', p. 260.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

13:

10 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014