Hermeneutics, History and Memory

History is the true record of an absent past. The trust between historians and their readers has always been founded upon this traditional claim. In a postmodern world, that claim and that trust have both been challenged as never before, draw- ing either angry or apologetic responses from historians. Hermeneutics, History and Memory answers differently. It sees the sceptical challenge as an opportunity for reflection on history’s key processes and practices, and draws upon methodological resources that are truly history’s own, but from which it has become estranged. In seeking to restore these resources, this book presents a novel contribution to topical academic debate, focusing principally upon:

• the challenges and detours of historical methodology; • hermeneutic interpretation; • the work of Paul Ricoeur; • the relation between history and memory.

Hermeneutics, History and Memory will appeal to experienced researchers who seek to explore the theoretical and methodological foundations of their empirical investigations. It will also be highly beneficial to research students in history and the social sciences concerned with understanding the principles and practices through which documentary analysis and in- depth interview can be both validated and conducted.

Philip Gardner is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Cambridge, UK.

Philip Gardner First published 2010 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Gardner, Philip, 1951- Hermeneutics, History, and Memory / Philip Gardner. p. cm. 1. History—Philosophy. 2. History—Methodology. 3. History— Research. 4. History—Sources. 5. Hermeneutics. 6. Memory. 7. Narration (Rhetoric) 8. Ricoeur, Paul 9. Historiography. I. Title. D13.G2265 2010 901—dc22 2009030357

ISBN 0-203-86012-8 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0- 415- 35337- 8 (hbk) ISBN10: 0- 415- 35338- 6 (pbk) ISBN10: 0- 203- 86012- 8 (ebk)

ISBN13: 978- 0- 415- 35337- 3 (hbk) ISBN13: 978- 0- 415- 35338- 0 (pbk) ISBN13: 978- 0- 203- 86012- 0 (ebk) Contents

Acknowledgements vii

Introduction 1

1 History: challenges and detours 11

2 History and hermeneutics 36

3 History, hermeneutics and Ricoeur 61

4 History and memory 89

Conclusion 116

Notes 121 Bibliography 179 Index 195

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to many colleagues and friends for their help, advice and stimulating conversation in the course of the preparation of this work. In particular, I would like to express my thanks to Richard Altenbaugh, Madeleine Arnot, Maurice Bond, Kevin Brehony, Peter Cunningham, Jo-Anne Dillabough, Paul McDonald, Philip Raymont and Deborah Sabric, along with all my graduate students, past and present. To Camille Lowe, and to Philip Mudd, Amy Crowle and Emily Laughton at Routledge, my admiration for their professionalism and my gratitude for their unalloyed patience and unfailing support. Thank you to all.

Introduction

Adding his thoughts to those of the many who have had their say on the reloca- tion of the British Library from London’s Bloomsbury to St Pancras in 1998, the writer of a letter to The Times Literary Supplement was fulsome in his praise for the quality and the ambience of the new reading rooms. There was, however, a qualification: ‘I find that the only irritants, or rather depressants, are the subjects my neighbour may be studying, eg, hermeneutics, semiotics and stuff like that.’1 Within the community of today’s working historians, concerned with recovering the truth of the past and reporting it accurately, there will be many who might feel considerable sympathy for this sceptical, suspicious observation, with this impatience for theoretical or philosophical complexities that appear to promise little more than an obfuscation of the painstaking but essentially straightforward business of telling the story of the past as it actually happened.2 The working historian, frustrated by the prospect of such complexities, might agree with the sentiments once expressed by Michael Simon: ‘one might do well to try to make the relation of historian to history less mysterious rather than more so.’3 For disciplinary practitioners dedicated above all else to the ‘(s)till … dominant idea of practice among modern, professional, Western historians’,4 which is to say, to the maintenance of ‘the standards of Rankean methodological objectivity in their works’,5 the diverse and often wearying intellectual challenges of recent decades – ranging from the epistemological questions raised by the ‘linguistic turn’ to the evidential problems presented by the burgeoning use of non-documentary sources such as the visual image or the spoken word – have been hard to escape.6 In the face of such provocations, the assessment of a leading ‘traditional’ historian such as Gertrude Himmelfarb is that ‘postmodernism reverses two centuries of scholarship designed to make history a “discipline” – a rigorous, critical, systematic study of the past, complete with a methodology designed to make that study as objective as possible’.7 How might practitioners best respond to such challenges to their established or customary methodological practices? One strategy is simply to ignore any perceived threat or, more actively, to demean or ridicule it, thereby seeking to neutralize its effects.8 A second is to meet the challenge head on, defending and 2 Introduction explicating established disciplinary principles and practices in a more explicit and comprehensive fashion.9 A third is to pursue an exploratory approach, on the ground that a discipline such as history, so open in terms of its substantive range, reach and scope, may have something to learn about its methodological assumptions and its practical methods by way of a similar openness to that which other branches of intellectual endeavour have to say about these matters.10 This book is guided by the third course, seeking above all else to reach out for resources which may enable us to do our history better. What then might these resources be? Each historian will have their own thoughts on this point, the combined product of their practical experience, their intellectual predilections and their professional desire to bring the best of their efforts to the understanding of the past. There are many possibilities. Dominick LaCapra has itemized some of these, including, ‘formalism, structuralism, poststructuralism, literary theory, or what is more generally termed literary theory … (r)ecently one has looked to such noteworthy developments as postcolonial theory, queer theory and critical race theory’.11 For me, however, there have been two particular areas which, over the years, have consistently focused my interest and attention in this respect. Each of them is marked by important methodological considerations with direct resonance for the practice of history. The first, driven initially by my interest in the history of education and teaching, comprises that growing and increasingly sophisticated branch of historical research concerned with living memory and which gathers under the title of oral history.12 The second – stimulated chiefly by a more general puzzlement as to why a long- established branch of knowledge which is specifically concerned with the historian’s cardinal problem of interpretation has not been of more sustained interest to mainstream historians – is constituted by that broad philosophical tradition known as hermeneutics.13 The object of this book is to endeavour to explore these two fields a little, in order to discover how the insights they offer may have utility for the practical exercise of carrying out and reporting historical research. History is a hard taskmaster. With good reason, historians are often inclined to the view that in seeking out the evidential traces of the past, making sense of them, and then fashioning them into coherent and convincing accounts, they have an intellectual workload that is quite large enough. Taking this view – an expression of that which Carolyn Steedman has called a ‘kind of professional self- presentation’14 – we might invoke the words of Raphael Samuel, a historian of rare talent and insight, who once observed that ‘getting up stuff is what we are good at’.15 Samuel was right. By virtue of sustained labour in the archives, professional historians build up immense stores of detailed knowledge about their particular corner of the past, and usually about many others too. For the working historian, the stuff of historical knowledge reveals itself bit by bit as dense, rich, detailed and complex, the record of endless successions of singular and specific happenings, dredged and weighed from the incalculable accumulation of once-lived time that has slipped into history. Knowledge of this sort, unique and voluminous, lends itself most readily to those kinds of detailed historical narratives and analyses – whether in Introduction 3 the form of specialist articles, learned books or scholarly lectures – which reading publics have long been accustomed to expect from professional historians. Such products characteristically comprise, in the words of Simon Schama, ‘the book- bound, text-dominated, academy-generated histories we have been accustomed to assume define the discipline’.16 In the same vein, Samuel himself observes that, ‘History, in the hands of the professional historian, is apt to present itself as an esoteric form of knowledge. It fetishizes archive-based research, as it has done ever since the Rankean revolution – or counter- revolution – in scholarship.’17 Moreover, despite regular periodic agonizing over successive crises within the discipline – most recently over the disciplinary challenges posed by postmodernism and post-structuralism, together with the more practical questions raised by the ramifications of ‘heritage’ or ‘public history’18 – popular demand for the knowledge that historians have traditionally produced remains highly resilient. This fact adds great force to Samuel’s persuasive aphorism. And yet his own personal example shows us that his words do not quite capture the whole story. For Samuel was not merely a working historian of the highest ability, but an original and sophisticated historical theorist as well. As such, he was skilled not only in the getting up of stuff, but also in sustained reflection upon the processes and experiences of doing so.19 We should not be surprised that Raphael Samuel’s exceptional dual ability both in the doing of history and in the systematic consideration of its production remains a relatively uncommon one within the historical community.20 It is, after all, easier to ride one horse rather than two. Many historians prefer to become familiar with a single, tractable steed, to learn to master it well, to understand its nature intimately, and to control its actions with confidence.21 The other beast they may decide to leave well alone, unbroken, unpredictable and dangerous, better left to the attentions of specially trained riders.22 For such practitioners, in other words, sustained engagement with issues of historical methodology and its associated philosophical positions is seldom a welcome or attractive prospect. And still more important, neither might any exercise of this sort be perceived to yield much in the way of intellectual profit for the discipline. It is more likely to be seen to hinder than to help, to divert rather than to direct. ‘The practising historian’, wrote J. H. Plumb in The Death of the Past – a volume which Simon Schama has justly noted as an ‘important and lasting little polemic’23 – ‘is like the practising scientist. Just as the latter has no great interest in or use for the philosophy of science, so the active historian is not much concerned with the philosophy of history. He knows history exists and he has been trained in the methods necessary for its investigation.’24 Such counsels do not perhaps take us as far today as they once did. In the interdisciplinary age of the twenty-first century, as LaCapra has put it, any intellectual field, ‘including its craftlike dimensions, becomes poorer if it is not quickened by critical reflection and internal self-questioning, including at times the internaliza- tion or recognition as relevant of questions coming from other fields’.25 Welcome or not then, the option of simply ignoring the wild horse of methodology has 4 Introduction become progressively more difficult in recent years, and this will probably con- tinue to be the case into the future. In part this is surely a consequence of the force of those well-known, pervasive and endlessly rehearsed shifts in the general intellectual climate over the past few decades which, to one degree or another, for better or for worse, have affected most fields of academic endeavour.26 So far as they may be known, it is, of course, possible to disagree with any or all of the complex and multifarious principles and practices constituting that which might be broadly called the postmodern challenge to traditional forms of knowing.27 But simply to ignore such intellectual challenges, to assume that they have no bearing upon what non- postmodernists do is a strange response, and for historians, whose very business is the understanding and explanation of human thought and action in time, a somewhat perverse and ill-judged one.28 There is another and more specific reason why practising historians cannot afford to turn their backs on an engagement with the theoretical and methodological principles that may impinge upon their practice. However stoutly we may resist as empty or pretentious, or malign the incursions of newfangled conceptual terminologies, whether emanating from this or that branch of social science or, latterly, from literary theory or from varieties of European philosophy, we will not easily banish the residual theoretical tension that sits at the heart of all historical endeavour. This is a tension that most mainstream historians are not much driven to address at any length, though all will recognize it, if only tacitly. It is a tension that has always been known to the historian’s craft. It is a tension that is immanent in the nature of the forms of historical knowledge which we strive to generate and to communicate. It certainly does not originate with postmodernism, though it would be fair to say that postmodernism has done much to chase it out onto more open ground. It is a tension that belongs properly to history itself. At the practical level of the working historian, it resolves itself most characteristically into the mundane use of two categorical terms which we have long fallen into employing, routinely, comfortably and largely consensually, to describe and account for the character of our familiar intellectual work. These terms are ‘truth’ and ‘interpretation’. These are words that figure very prominently within the common currency of general historical discourse. They will be heard wherever historians present or debate their substantive work. And historians know, sufficient for the purposes of their everyday scholarly interaction on historical matters, what these terms may be taken to mean. Between them they declare history as ‘both a literary artifact and a representation of reality’.29 They announce that history may be seen to operate according to a fundamental assumption that, through the adoption of careful and consistent evidential and interpretive procedures, the past may indeed be known in ways that might legitimately be called true, that there can be knowledge of past time which might, in principle, fairly match the reality it constituted when it was yet present time. Without such assumptions, the enterprise of history may be seen as permanently threatened with collapse into the realms of fable, myth or fiction.30 In this respect, history rests upon the fundamental premise that the past may be represented Introduction 5 accurately to the present. Yet at the same time as asserting this very powerful realist conviction, the majority of practitioners are content – perhaps they are even anxious – equally to acknowledge a second proposition with epistemological entailments of a much weaker kind. This accepts that historical accounts always carry the status of interpretations of real past events, rather than straightforward factual representations of them. In other words, historical accounts are recognized as not solely or directly the product of such events, but also of the agency and the imagination of the historian operating in his or her own distinctive historical, political and personal contexts.31 As Paul Ricoeur observes, a recognition ‘(t)hat the meaning of human actions, of historical events, and of social phenomena may be construed in several different ways is well known to all experts in the human sciences’.32 Thus it is that for Plumb, as a historian, ‘(o)f course there will not be agreement; historians will speak with different voices’;33 and for David Kaplan, as a hermeneutic philosopher, ‘(i)t is always possible … to tell another version of what happened’.34 This raises the problem – thoroughly well known but momen- tous for all that – which Mary Fulbrook has succinctly summarized: ‘what are the implications of the fact that a multiplicity of interpretations (or stories) can be constructed out of the “same” past?’35 The problem’s consequence, in the words of Hayden White, reviewing Paul Ricoeur’s last great historiographical work, Memory, History, Forgetting, is that ‘historians must always come to conclusions that can only be provisional and subject in principle to infinite revision’.36 This is an observation from which few historians might demur; but neither is it one upon which they might be inclined to dwell. Just as the historian is seen to deal in real events which are understood to be singular and therefore problematical for the nomothetic classification systems of social science, so the act of historical interpretation itself may be perceived as an extension, if of a particularly concentrated and refined kind, of the interpretive practices of everyday life.37 In this respect, historical interpretation can never be wholly reducible to the exercise of a specialist or arcane skill, in the way that Geoffrey Elton, for example, might have argued,38 for it is also an artefact of everyday human experience and of practical wisdom. This is precisely why it is, as Richard Evans has suggested, that ‘even the most inexperienced history student can dispute interpretations put forward by even the grandest of professors, while no chemistry or biology student is going to dispute the scientific laws taught in the classroom by the most junior instructor’.39 It is this characteristic interpretive openness, together with its reliance upon the discourse of common or everyday language, which makes history among the most accessible of disciplines. This allows interpretation to be comprehended both simply and benignly as no more than part of the historian’s ordinary way of going on, as he or she sets about the task – perhaps ultimately unattainable but still legitimate for all that – of seeking to recover the past ‘as it really was’.40 In this understanding, ‘interpretation’ is a comfortable, untroubling and essentially honest word. On the one hand, it nods in the direction of the fact that what is taken to be a single common past may nonetheless be understood and written about in very different ways. On the other, it declines the full embrace of that intellectual relativism which 6 Introduction always beckons it by ‘celebrat(ing)’, in Steedman’s words, ‘the constraints on it, constraints – so it is said – … made by the documents themselves’.41 In the defence of a secure epistemological ground for history, interpretation might therefore be understood as constituting a succession of imperfect, contest- able and thus inherently provisional expressions that are saved from relativism precisely because they operate under the governance of the epistemological ideal represented in the established notion of historical truth.42 In this way, commitment to the goal of the past as truth is able to ameliorate the dangers attending the recognition of history as inherently interpretive, allowing the claim, in Gibbon’s echoing words, for ‘Truth, naked, unblushing truth, the first virtue of more serious history’.43 This is why, in everyday practice, it is not at all difficult for historians to invoke both terms, ‘truth’ and ‘interpretation’, in the same breath without evin- cing very much in the way of anxiety, self-doubt or methodological reflection.44 And if realist assumptions may be seen logically to imply the idea of cumulative (rather than successively revisionist) historical knowledge, then historians may be seen to have succeeded in pulling off the very considerable trick of accepting, as Kevin Passmore has put it, ‘that their monographs represent partial views of history, but nevertheless see(ing) them as part of a real past, reconstructed through the interconnections of the whole body of historical writing’.45 A major, enduring and remarkable accomplishment of academic history, in other words, is the suc- cessful validation of its customary practices through the fundamental procedural stratagem – amounting to an effective ‘professional consensus’46 – of conjoining a thoroughly realist epistemology alongside an explicitly interpretive methodology. This is a union which, as James Risser reminds us, has marked the task of history for more than a century, finding its most notable exemplification in the tireless methodological labours of Wilhelm Dilthey:

On the one hand Dilthey recognized that the one who studies history also makes history, that the knower is historically conditioned. On the other hand Dilthey did not want to give up the ideal of objectivity in historical understanding; his analysis of historical understanding attempts to legitimate as the achievement of objective science the knowledge that is historically conditioned. Dilthey, in other words, thought he could gain objectivity in historical research and thus escape the problem of historicism without giving up historicism.47

From the time of Dilthey, such a disciplinary strategy has proved a tenacious one, founded upon strongly held, though latterly increasingly implicit, epistemological grounds. It has also commonly demonstrated a powerful pragmatic dimension. There is a clear disciplinary utility in seeking to avoid undue analytical probing of the distinction between truth and interpretation in history, for the very reason upon which postmodernist critiques have habitually seized, namely that each may be seen to involve broader epistemological assumptions of jarringly different sorts.48 In the first case, history might be presented as the exercise of uncovering past events as they actually were, and in the second, as a process of imposing upon Introduction 7 the past narrative constructions which do not derive primarily from the events of the past but from the interests of the present.49 For those who seek to explore this distinction at greater critical depth, it is not at all difficult to suggest that interpretation and truth make uncongenial bedfellows. When the relativist intimations of the notion of interpretation are pushed to their logical limits, as for example in the assertive and emblematic work of Keith Jenkins, then the historian’s defining intellectual tool – interpretation – is made to devour the defining intellectual objective of ‘old-fashioned history’50 – historical truth. In this vein Jenkins argues that ‘(i)f history is interpretation, if history is historians’ works, then historiography is what the “proper” study of history is actually about’.51 To the extent that they decide to recognize it then, the problem facing historians is that the procedures that they wish to practise and to promote as essentially unproblematical, namely the routine combination of the goal of truth and the process of interpretation, might be understood by others as conflating terms which may be seen as mutually challenging and even contradictory. In continuing to harness these two concepts in the routine, casual or customary ways that they have traditionally done, historians might be charged, not unfairly, with a degree either of methodological ingenuous- ness or intellectual laziness. As for ‘mainstream’ historians themselves, they would doubtless prefer to be left to their customary practices without having, in Elizabeth Clark’s telling phrase, to ‘“think” their discipline’,52 free from the incursions of pernicious theoretical commentaries upon the epistemological implications of their key terms which, despite their lack of theoretical elaboration, have always seemed to work well enough in historical practice. Nevertheless, refiguring St Augustine’s well-known reflection on the problem of comprehending time, we might yet find positive advantage in pondering its application to our own familiar disciplinary practice: ‘What is history? If no one asks me, I know what it is; if someone asks me I no longer know.’53 The problem is that today, historians are no longer so easily left to their own devices as they once were. New times have everywhere brought new expectations and increased demands to be more explicit about the methodological principles upon which knowledge claims rest. As a result, historians correspondingly have to decide, individually as well as collectively, how they will respond. To the extent that they choose to do so at all, their principal task must be the clarification and defence of the conceptual apparatus upon which the exercise of their craft depends. In this respect, the most pressing issue should be the elaboration of the concept of interpretation, for it is upon the robustness of this term – which Quentin Skinner, quoting H. D. Aiken, once associated ‘with abominable looseness’ in usage54 – that the character of the truth claims made by history may be seen substantially to rest. If interpretation is to be a functional term of historical analysis, rather than merely a vague description of unelaborated customary procedure, then historians must establish the nature and the extent of their claims upon it. It falls to practitioners not only to practise the art of historical interpretation, but also to account for it within the operation of their practice. This is, after all, a problem with which social science engaged long ago in attritional knowledge wars in which positivist 8 Introduction and interpretivist approaches, each more or less caricatured by its notional oppo- nent, sought to establish their epistemological and methodological credentials for achieving the more convincing appreciation of social reality.55 The expression of this long confrontation has sometimes been illuminating and constructive, sometimes trite, repetitive and disrespectful, but in any event, the issues that have informed it have been, and remain, real and important ones. In the end, they are unavoidable. History has perhaps congratulated itself too much for escaping more lightly in recent years than other disciplines from such bruising and drain- ing debates. In the end, the issues they raise are better addressed than ignored. Indeed, the steadily increasing volume of work animated by this recognition in recent years may be seen as a welcome and positive trend which augurs well for the future of the discipline and for its products, for history, as it was understood by the great Marc Bloch, is always ‘a thing in movement’.56 This book seeks to contribute to this burgeoning interest in historical methodology, though neither in the spirit of an academic exercise nor of a polemic. It is not founded, at least in the first instance, upon a turn away from the enterprise of traditional history to seek the inspiration of that to which the eminent historian of Tudor England, G. R. Elton, once referred as the ‘theory-frozen mind’, or as the propensity of ‘the philosophers and critics to play their games’.57 It rests instead upon a recognition that history as an academic discipline has its own history and its own deeply distinctive and powerful methodological approaches which are continually exemplified in practice, but which are seldom much elaborated in theory.58 Its impulse is to reflect upon how the history that we place before our audiences might simply be done better by being more explicit about its epistemological assumptions. It is written, therefore, from the perspective of the working historian who practises and celebrates the process of interpretation in history, and who is happy to claim the term as a special and defining one for historical understanding, but who is concerned by the nature of its deployment – intuitive rather than reasoned – across much of the field.59 The work is rooted in the experience – both in the archive and in the oral history interview, both in history work and in memory work – of empirical historical research, in the recognition of its daunt- ing challenge, and in the awareness that the histories we write can never do full justice to the past that we endeavour to represent.60 In this, history, wrapped in ‘its special kinship to life’,61 will always have a Sisyphean quality. For all our striving, the histories that we produce must always fail to capture the depth of this special kinship, or to express fully the ‘need felt in practical life to understand the past’.62 In the end we must fail to master the complexities of trying to relate the passing of time in history, just as we must fail to master the temporal conundrums of our own existence. This does not, of course, stop us from trying to understand both as best we might; quite the reverse. But it may help us to do so with humility as well as with honesty. If our historical endeavours fall short of capturing the lived past as it was, to the degree that they must always surrender to David Lowenthal’s celebrated image of that past as a ‘foreign country’, we need to probe our own disciplinary assumptions to see if they are up to the task that our discipline sets Introduction 9 itself.63 In particular, we need to contemplate the possibility that the epistemological terms of the temporal enterprise in which we are engaged need to be explored more rigorously. Such exploration will have, above all else, practical benefits for the historical writing that is informed by it. Equally importantly, it will help to prevent such theoretical work from being roped off for the specialist attention of non- historians, for the issues involved require, as Laura Lee Downs puts it, ‘to be resolved by history’s practitioners [rather] than by those who merely speculate about how history can and cannot be written’.64 For this endeavour, as we have noted, we will need the help of theoretical sup- ports upon which we have not habitually drawn. If in the practical interests of doing our history better, of being more explicit about what we understand our- selves to be doing when we endeavour to interpret the past, then this is help that we would do well actively to solicit. How might we best represent this position? One attractive and apposite way of thinking about garnering support from new quarters invokes a metaphor familiar to any traveller – namely the unexpected obligation to make a long detour in the course of an otherwise familiar journey. The idea of the detour as a positive and instructive enterprise is the guiding and unifying metaphor throughout the work of Paul Ricoeur, for whom the notion of ‘(t)he detour/return is the rhythm of my philosophical respiration’.65 It is a metaphor and a technique I have long had in mind for reflecting on my own experience of doing historical research and on how it might have been done better. Ricoeur himself is the dominating intellectual figure throughout the book, for his cumulative oeuvre demonstrates a breadth and depth of scholarly insight from which I have derived the greatest benefit in thinking about the doing of history. Time and again it has seemed to me that, even where one may not always agree with – or indeed fully understand – all of the answers he gives, the questions Ricoeur poses, and, equally important, the manner in which he sets about addressing them, are fundamentally the right ones.66 If this book had carried a subtitle, it might well have been: ‘Ricoeur for Historians’. Our first, and substantially longer, detour will take us to hermeneutics, that long- standing branch of scholarship which, taking its name from Hermes, the messenger of the gods, is dedicated to ‘the art or science of interpretation’, to the uncovering and elaboration of meanings which are hidden or obscure.67 For a discipline so centrally implicated in issues of interpretation, it is remarkable that contemporary historical scholarship – unlike literary studies or theology68 – has shown so little sustained interest in what it may learn from a closer engagement with hermeneutics, with which it shares a common methodological objective and which at one time could indeed have proclaimed itself to be, as Zygmunt Bauman says, ‘an indispensable branch of historiography’.69 Oddly, hermeneutics, as Richard E. Palmer once noted, remains ‘a term at once unfamiliar to most edu- cated people’ despite being ‘at the same time potentially significant to a number of disciplines concerned with interpretation’.70 For this reason, the first detour is a more lengthy enterprise than the second, which takes us to a field with which historians have commonly had considerably more contact. 10 Introduction

The second detour takes us towards memory, history’s unruly disciplinary cousin and old intellectual adversary in seeking to understand the past.71 Memory’s defining concern, like that of history, is to acknowledge the past, to engage it and to live with it. But unlike history, founded upon its confident ‘fetishiz(ation)’ of ‘archive-based research’,72 memory’s claims to understanding its object have often been seen to be partial, promiscuous and unreliable. These, however, are charges – not infrequently emanating from mainstream history itself – with which memory studies in general, and oral history in particular, have become increasingly familiar and have done much in recent years to counter.73 In the course of doing so, they have achieved much. In the first place, they have reminded us emphatically of that which should never have been forgotten – that memory, in Samuel’s words, always remains ‘dialectically related to historical thought, rather than being some kind of negative other to it’.74 In the second, they have shed considerable new light on the complex and delicate range of methodological problems encountered by any temporal study – principally history of course – by which the present seeks to comprehend its absent other, the past. These then are the two detours – by way of hermeneutics and memory – which this book seeks to explore in the hope of returning to its original destination, history, better equipped both to contemplate its special and intractable characteristics, and to engage them in the service of generating better accounts, fashioned in the here and now, of the lives and events of vanished times. Bibliography

Abbott, A. (1994) ‘History and Sociology: the Lost Synthesis’, in E. H. Monkkonen (ed.) Engaging the Past: The Uses of History Across the Social Sciences (London, Duke University Press), 77–112. Abel, O. (2008) ‘Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics: from Critique to Poetics’, in David M. Kaplan (ed.) Reading Ricoeur (Albany, State University of New York Press), 183–96. Abrams, P. (1980) ‘History, Sociology, Historical Sociology’ Past and Present, 87: 3–16. Aldrich, R. (1991) ‘Always Historicise? A Reply to Keith Jenkins and Peter Brickley’ Teaching History, 65: 8–12. Aldrich, R. (2003) ‘The Three Duties of the Historian of Education’ History of Education, 32.2: 133–43. Altenbaugh, R. J. (ed.) (1992) The Teacher’s Voice: A Social History of Teaching in Twentieth-Century America (London, Falmer). Amdal, G. (2001) ‘Explanation and Understanding: the Hermeneutic Arc, Paul Ricoeur’s Theory of Interpretation’ (University of Oslo, PhD Thesis), 3–4. Anderson, W. T. (1995) The Truth about the Truth: De-confusing and Re-constructing the Postmodern World (New York, Tarcher/Putnam). Andrew, D. (2000) ‘Tracing Ricoeur’ diacritics, 30.2: 43–69. Appleby, J., Hunt, L. and Jacob, M. (1994) Telling the Truth About History (London, Norton). Appleby, J., Covington, E., Hoyt, D., Latham, M. and Sneider, A. (eds) (1996) Knowledge and Postmodernism in Historical Perspective (New York, Routledge). Archibald, R. R. (2002) ‘A Personal History of Memory’, in J. J. Climo and M. G. Cattell (eds) Social Memory and History (Walnut Creek, CA, Altamira), 65–80. Arnold, J. H. (2000) History: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Ashton, R. (2002) Thomas and Jane Carlyle: Portrait of a Marriage (London, Pimlico). Atkinson, P. (1992) Understanding Ethnographic Texts (London, Sage). Austin, J. L. (1976, 2nd edn) How to do Things With Words (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Austen, J. (2006) Northanger Abbey (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Aylesworth, G. E. (1991) ‘Dialogue, Text, Narrative: Confronting Gadamer and Ricoeur’, in H. J. Silverman (ed.) Continental Philosophy IV: Gadamer and Hermeneutics (London, Routledge), 63–81. 180 Bibliography

Baert, P. (1992) Time, Self and Social Being (Aldershot, Avebury). Bailyn, B. (1994) On the Teaching and Writing of History: Responses to a Series of Questions (Hanover, NH, University Press of New England). Barclay, C. R. (1986) ‘Schematization of Autobiographical Memory’, in D. C. Rubin (ed.) Autobiographical Memory (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 82–99. Bauman, Z. (1978) Hermeneutics and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding (London, Hutchinson). Bauman, Z. (2004) Identity (Cambridge, Polity Press). Bell, D. S. A. (2001) ‘The Cambridge School and World Politics: Critical Theory, History and Conceptual Change’. Available online at: http://www.theglobalsite. ac.uk. Berkhofer, Jr., R. F. (1995) Beyond the Great Story: History as Text and Discourse (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). Bentley, M. (1999) Modern Historiography: An Introduction (London, Routledge). Berger, S., Feldner, H. and Passmore, K. (eds) (2003) Writing History: Theory and Practice (London, Arnold). Berlin, I. (2000) The Roots of Romanticism (London, Pimlico). Blamey, K. (1995) ‘From the Ego to the Self: A Philosophical Itinerary’, in L. E. Hahn (ed.) The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur (Chicago, Open Court), 571–603. Bloch, M. (1953) The Historian’s Craft (New York, Vintage Books). Board of Education (1944) Teachers and Youth Leaders: Report of the Committee Appointed by the President of the Board of Education to Consider the Supply, Recruitment and Training of Teachers and Youth Leaders (London, HMSO). Borges, J. L. (1998) Collected Fictions, trans. A. Hurley (London, Allen Lane). Boucher, D. (1985) Texts in Context: Revisionist Methods for Studying the History of Ideas (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff). Bowie, A. (1996) ‘The Meaning of the Hermeneutic Tradition in Contemporary Philosophy’, in A. O’Hear (ed.) Verstehen and Humane Understanding (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Bowie, A. (1997) From Romanticism to Critical Theory: The Philosophy of German Literary Theory (London, Routledge). Boyer, P. (2009) ‘What Are Memories For? Functions of Recall in Cognition and Culture’, in P. Boyer and J. V. Wertsch (eds) Memory in Mind and Culture (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 3–28. Brehony, K. J. (1996) ‘Texts, Meaning and Interpretation: Hermeneutics and Historical Research’, Joint Conference of the Canadian History of Education Association and the History of Education Society, University of Toronto, October 1996. Available online at: http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/staff/Kevin%20J.Brehony/Papers.asp. Breisach, E. (2003) On the Future of History: The Postmodernist Challenge and its Aftermath (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Briggs, R. S. (2006) ‘What Does Hermeneutics have to do with Biblical Interpretation?’ Heythrop Journal, 47: 55–74. Bruner, J. (1991) ‘The Narrative Construction of Reality’ Critical Inquiry, 18.1: 1–21. Bruner, J. (1998) ‘What is a Narrative Fact?’ Annals of the American Academy, 560: 17–27, 23. Bruns, G. L. (1992) Hermeneutics Ancient & Modern (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). Bibliography 181

Bunzl, M. (1997) Real History: Reflections on Historical Practice (London, Routledge). Burke, C. and Grosvenor, I. (2008) School (London, Reaktion Books). Burke, P. (1980) Sociology and History (London, Allen and Unwin). Burke, P. (1990) The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School, 1929–89 (Cambridge, Polity). Burke, P. (1992) History and Social Theory (Cambridge, Polity). Burke, P. (2001) Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence (London, Reaktion). Burke, P. (2002) ‘Historiography and Philosophy of History’, in P. Burke (ed.) History and Historians in the Twentieth Century (Oxford, Oxford University Press), 230–49. Burke, P. (2004) What is Cultural History? (Cambridge, Polity). Burke, P. (2005, 2nd edn) History and Social Theory (Cambridge, Polity). Burrow, J. (2007) A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances and Inquiries from Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century (London, Allen Lane). Caldwell, R. (2004) ‘How to Get Real’ Philosophy Now, 42: xx. Carlyle, T. (2002) ‘On History’, in C. R. Vanden Bossche (ed.) Thomas Carlyle: Historical Essays (Berkeley, University of California Press), 3–4. Carr. D. (1986) Time, Narrative, and History (Bloomington, Indiana University Press). Carr, E. H. (1987, 2nd edn) What is History? (London, Penguin Books). Carroll, N. (1990) ‘Interpretation, History and Narrative’ The Monist, 73.2: 134–66. Cate, C. (2002) Friedrich Nietzsche: a Biography (London, Pimlico). Cattell, M. G. and Climo, J. J. ‘Meaning in Social Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives’, in J. J. Climo and M. G. Cattell (eds) (2002) Social Memory and History (Walnut Creek, CA, Altamira), 3–7. Caws, P. (1997) Structuralism: A Philosophy for the Human Sciences (New Jersey, Humanities Press). Chafe, W. and Tannen, D. (1987) ‘The Relation Between Written and Spoken Language’ Annual Review of Anthropology, 16: 383–407. Changeux, J-P. and Ricoeur, P. (2002) What Makes Us Think? A Neuroscientist and a Philosopher Argue About Ethics, Human Nature and the Brain (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). Clark, E. A. (2004) History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). Clark, S. H. (1990) Paul Ricoeur (London, Routledge). Clare, M. and Johnson, R. (2000) ‘Method in Our Madness? Identity and Power in a Memory Work Method’, in S. Radstone (ed.) Memory and Methodology (Oxford, Berg), 197–224. Cohen S. (1999) Challenging Orthodoxies: Toward a New Cultural History of Education (New York, Peter Lang). Collingwood, R. G. (1993, rev. edn) The Idea of History (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Collins, R. (1994) Four Sociological Traditions (New York, Oxford University Press). Collins, R. (1998) The Sociology of Philosophies (Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press). Collins, R. (1999) Macrohistory: Essay in Sociology of the Long Run (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press). 182 Bibliography

Connerton, P. (1989) How Societies Remember (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Connerty, J. P. (1990) ‘History’s Many Cunning Passages: Paul Ricoeur’s Time and Narrative’ Poetics Today, 11.2: 383–403. Cook, G. (1990) ‘Transcribing Infinity: Problems of Context Presentation’ Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 1–24. Cooper, F. (2005) Colonialism in Questions: Theory, Knowledge, History (Berkeley, University of California Press). Cortazzi, M. (1993) Narrative Analysis (London, Falmer). Cuban, L. (1993, 2nd edn) How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms, 1880–1990 (New York, Teachers College Press). Cubitt, G. (2007) History and Memory (Manchester, Manchester University Press). Cunningham, P. and Gardner, P. (2004) Becoming Teachers: Texts and Testimonies 1907–1950 (London, Woburn Press). Daddow, O. J. (2004) ‘The Ideology of Apathy: Historians and Postmodernism’ Rethinking History, 8.3: 417–37. Daglish, N. (1996) Education and Policy-Making in England and Wales: The Crucible Years, 1895–1911 (London, Woburn Press). Dance, E. H. (1960) History the Betrayer (London, Hutchinson). Dangerfield, G. (1935, 7th edn 1961) The Strange Death of Liberal England 1910–1914 (New York, Capricorn). de Certeau, M. (1988) The Writing of History (New York, Columbia University Press). Dolezel, L. (2000) ‘Poststructuralism: a View from Charles Bridge’ Poetics Today, 21.4: 633–52. Domanska, E. (1998) Encounters: Philosophy of History after Postmodernism (Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia). Downs, L. L. (2003) ‘From Women’s History to Gender History’, in S. Berger, H. Feldner and K. Passmore (eds) Writing History: Theory and Practice (London, Hodder), 261–81. Draaisma, D. (2004) Why Life Speeds Up As You Get Older (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Dressler, R. A. and Kreuz, R. J. (2000) ‘Transcribing Oral Discourse: A Survey and a Model System’ Discourse Processes, 29.1: 25–36. Dudley, K. M. (1998) ‘In the Archive, in the Field’, in M. Chamberlain and P. Thompson (eds) Narrative and Genre (London, Routledge). Dufty, D., Harman, G. and Swan, K. (eds) (1973) Historians at Work: Investigating and Recreating the Past (Sydney, Hicks Smith & Sons). Dummett, M. (2004) Truth and the Past (New York, Columbia University Press). Dunaway, D. K. and Baum, W. K. (1996, 2nd edn) Oral History: An Interdisciplinary Anthology (Walnut Creek, CA, Altamira). Eco, U. (1992) ‘Interpretation and History’, in S. Collini (ed.) Interpretation and Overinterpretation (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Edling, M. and Mörkenstam, U. (1995) ‘Quentin Skinner: From Historian of Ideas to Political Scientist’ Scandinavian Political Studies, 18.2: 119–32. Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) ‘The Chancellor’s Memory: Rhetoric and Truth in Discursive Remembering’ Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6: 187–215. Elton, G. R. (1991) Return to Essentials: Some Reflections on the Present State of Historical Study (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Bibliography 183

Evans, R. (1997) In Defence of History (London, Granta). Fay, B., Pomper, P. and Vann, R. T. (eds) (1998) History and Theory (London, Blackwell). Fasolt, C. (2004) The Limits of History (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Fasolt, C. (2005) ‘The Limits of History: an Exchange’ Historically Speaking, 6.5: 5–17. Ferguson, N. (1969, 2004 edn) ‘Introduction’ in J. H. Plumb, The Death of the Past (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan). Fleming, P. A. (1990) ‘Paul Ricoeur’s Methodological Parallelism’ Human Studies, 13: 221–36. Finnegan, R. H. (1992) Oral Traditions and the Verbal Arts: A Guide to Research Practices (London, Routledge). Fokkema, D. W. (1984) Literary History, Modernism, and Postmodernism (Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company). Foot, M. (1998) ‘Words, Songs and Books. Oral History in Italy: A Review and Discussion’ Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 3.2: 164–74. Franco, P. (2004) Michael Oakeshott: An Introduction (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). Freeman, M. (1993) Rewriting the Self: History, Memory, Narrative (London, Routledge). Frisch, M. H. (1990) A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History (Albany, State University of New York Press). Fulbrook, M. (2002) Historical Theory (London, Routledge). Füredi, F. (1992) Mythical Past, Elusive Future (London, Pluto Press). Gadamer, H-G. (2004, 3rd edn) Truth and Method (London, Continuum). Gaddis, J. L. (2002) The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Gardiner, P. (1996) ‘Interpretation in History: Collingwood and Historical Understanding’, in A. O’Hear (ed.) Verstehen and Humane Understanding (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 109–20. Gardner, P. (1984) The Lost Elementary Schools of Victorian England (London, Croom Helm). Gardner, P. (2003) ‘Oral History in Education: Teacher’s Memory and Teachers’ History’ History of Education, 32.2: 175–88. Gay, P. and Cavanaugh, G. J. (1975) Historians at Work, vol. 4 (New York, Harper and Row). Geertz, C. (1973) ‘Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture’ in C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (London, Fontana), 3–30. Geertz, C. (2000) Available Light: Anthropological Reflections of Philosophical Topics (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). Gibbon, E. (1911) Memoirs of my Life and Writings (London, J.M. Dent & Sons). Giddens, A. (1971) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Giddens, A. (1982) ‘A Mediator of Meanings’ Times Literary Supplement, 5 March, 240. Godon, R. (2004) ‘Understanding, Personal Identity and Education’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38.4: 589–600. Gonzalez, F. J. (2006) ‘Dialectic and Dialogue in the Hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur and H. G. Gadamer’ Continental Philosophy Review, 39: 313–45. 184 Bibliography

Gordon, D. (1999) ‘Capital Punishment for Murderous Theorists?’ History and Theory, 38.3: 378–88. Gorman, J. L. (1982) The Expression of Historical Knowledge (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). Gracia, J. J. E. (2000) ‘Relativism and the Interpretation of Texts’ Metaphilosophy, 31.1/2: 43–62. Green, A. (1990) Education and State Formation: The Rise of Education Systems in England, France and the USA (Basingstoke, Macmillan). Green, A. (1994) ‘Postmodernism and State Education’ Journal of Education Policy, 9.1: 67–83. Grondin, J. (2003) The Philosophy of Gadamer (Chesham, Acumen). Grosvenor, I., Lawn, M. and Rousmaniere, K. (eds) (1999) Silences and Images: The Social History of the Classroom (New York, Peter Lang). Gumbrecht, H. U. (2003) The Powers of Philology: Dynamics of Textual Scholarship (Urbana, University of Illinois Press). Gunnell, J. G. (1987) Political Theory: Tradition and Interpretation (Lanham, MD, University Press of America). Gutting, G. (2005) Foucault: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Habermas, J. (1986) ‘On Hermeneutics’ Claim to Universality’, in K. Mueller- Vollmer (ed.) The Hermeneutics Reader: Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlightenment to the Present (Oxford, Basil Blackwell), 294–319. Hall, W. D. (2007) Paul Ricoeur and the Poetic Imperative: The Creative Tension Between Love and Justice (Albany, State University of New York Press). Halpern, R. (1998) ‘Oral History and Labor History: A Historiographic Assessment after Twenty-five Years’ Journal of American History 85.2: 596–610. Halbwachs, M. (1992) On Collective Memory: Edited, Translated and with an Introduction by Lewis A. Coser (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Hamilton, P. (1996) Historicism (London, Routledge). Hammersley, M. (2002) Educational Research, Policy Making and Practice (London, Paul Chapman Publishing). Hannoum, A. (2005) ‘Paul Ricoeur on Memory’ Theory, Culture & Society, 22.6: 123–37. Harré, R. (2000) One Thousand Years of Philosophy (Oxford, Blackwell). Harris, J. (1993) Private Lives, Public Spirit: A Social History of Britain, 1870–1914 (London, Penguin). Harris, R. (1989) ‘How Does Writing Restructure Thought?’ Language and Communication, 9.2/3: 99–106. Hastings, M. (2009) Review of America, Empire of Liberty: a New History, by David Reynolds, The Sunday Times, 25 January, 43. Healy, M. E. (2001) ‘Behind, in Front of … or Through the Text?’, in C. G. Bartholomew, S. C. Evans and M. Healy (eds) (2003) Behind the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan), 181–95. Hekman, S. J. (1986) Hermeneutics and the Sociology of Knowledge (Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press). Herman, P. C. (2004) ‘The Resistance to Historicizing Theory’, in P. C. Herman (ed.) Historicizing Theory (Albany, State University of New York Press), 1–16. Hexter, J. H. (1971) The History Primer (London, Allen Lane The Penguin Press). Bibliography 185

Himmelfarb. G. (1989) ‘Some Reflections on the New History’ American Historical Review, 94.3: 661–70. Himmelfarb. G. (2004, rev. edn) The New History and the Old: Critical Essays and Appraisals (Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press). Hirsch Jr., E. D. (1967) Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, Yale University Press). Hobsbawm, E. (1994) Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914–1991 (London, Michael Joseph). Hobsbawm, E. (1997) On History (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson). Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds) (1983) The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Holub, R. (1995) ‘Hermeneutics’, in R. Selden (ed.) The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism: From Formalism to Poststructuralism, vol. 8 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 255–88. Howkins, A. (1994) ‘Inventing Everyman: George Ewart Evans, Oral History and National Identity’ Oral History, 22.2: 26–32. Hughes, H. S. (1958, 1979 edn) Consciousness and Society (Brighton, Harvester). Humphries, S. (1984) The Handbook of Oral History: Recording Life Stories (London, Inter-Action). Hunt, L. (1989) ‘Introduction: History, Culture, and Text’, in L. Hunt (ed.) The New Cultural History (Berkeley, University of California Press), 1–22. Hunt, L. (1998) ‘Does History Need Defending?’ History Workshop Journal, 46: 241–9. Hutton, P. H. (1988) ‘Collective Memory and Collective Mentalities: The Halbwachs- Aries Connection’ Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques 15:2: 311–22. Hutton, P. H. (1993) History as an Art of Memory (Hanover, University of Vermont). Hutton, P. H. (1994) ‘Sigmund Freud and Maurice Halbwachs: the Problem of Memory in Historical Psychology’ The History Teacher, 27.2: 145–58. Hutton, P. H. (1996) ‘Vico and the End of History’ Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques, 22.3: 537–58. Hutton, P. H. (2000) ‘Recent Scholarship on Memory and History’ The History Teacher, 33.4: 533–48. Iggers, G. G. (1990a) ‘Historical Studies in the 1980s: Some Observations’, in J. Topolski (ed.) Narration and Explanation: Contributions to the Methodology of Historical Research (Amsterdam, Rodopi), 11–30. Iggers, G. G. (1990b) ‘The Crisis of the Rankean Paradigm in the Nineteenth Century’, in G. G. Iggers and J. M. Powell (eds) Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline (New York, Syracuse University Press). Iggers, G. G. (1995) ‘Historicism: The History and Meaning of the Term’ Journal of the History of Ideas, 56.1: 129–52. Iggers, G. G. (1997) Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge (Hanover, Wesleyan University Press). Iggers, G. G., Wang, Q. E. and Mukherjee, S. (2008) A Global History of Modern Historiography (London, Pearson Longman). Ihde, D. (1995) ‘Paul Ricoeur’s Place in the Hermeneutic Tradition’, in L. E. Hahn (ed.) The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur (Chicago, Open Court), 59–70. 186 Bibliography

Izenberg, G. N. (1993) ‘Text, Context and Psychology in Intellectual History’, in H. Kozicki (ed.) Developments in Modern Historiography (Palgrave), 40–62. Jenkins, K. (1991) Re-Thinking History (London, Routledge). Jenkins, K. (1992) ‘Clear Views from the South Downs: a Reply to Aldrich and Alexander’ Teaching History, 68: 26–34. Jenkins, K. (1995) On ‘What is History?’ (London, Routledge). Jenkins, K. (1997) ‘Introduction: on Being Open About our Closures’, in K. Jenkins (ed.) The Postmodern History Reader (London, Routledge), 1–30. Jenkins, K. and Brickley, P. (1991) ‘Always Historicise: Unintended Opportunities in National Curriculum History’ Teaching History, 62: 8–14. Jones, A. (2000) ‘Word and Deed: Why a Post-poststructural History is Needed, and How it Might Look’ The Historical Journal, 43.2: 517–41. Jones, G. S. (1972) ‘The Poverty of Empiricism’, in R. Blackburn (ed.) Ideology in Social Science: Readings in Critical Social Theory (London, Fontana/Collins), 96–115. Júnior, J. F. (2008) ‘Taking Text Seriously: Remarks on the Methodology of the History of Political Thought’ Contributions to the History of Concepts, 4: 57–80. Kaha, C. W. (1989) ‘Memory as Conversation’ Communication, 11: 115–22. Kaplan. D. M. (2003) Ricoeur’s Critical Theory (Albany, State University of New York Press). Kaplan. D. M. (2008) ‘Ricoeur’s Critical Theory’, in D. M. Kaplan (ed.) Reading Ricoeur (Albany, State University of New York Press), 197–212. Kean, H., Martin, P. and Morgan, S. J. (eds) (2000) Seeing History: Public History in Britain Now (London: Francis Boutle). Kearney, R. (1998a) The Wake of Imagination (London, Routledge). Kearney, R. (1998b) ‘Ricoeur’, in S. Critchley and W. R. Schroeder (eds) A Companion to Continental Philosophy (London, Blackwell), 443–51. Kearney, R. (2004) On Paul Ricoeur: the Owl of Minerva (Aldershot, Ashgate). Kearney, R. (2006) ‘Introduction: Ricoeur’s Philosophy of Translation’, in P. Ricoeur, On Translation (London, Routledge), vii–xx. Kidd, A. and Nicholls, D. (eds) (1998) The Making of the British Middle Class? (Stroud, Sutton). Kjellström, P. (1995) ‘The Narrator and the Archaeologist: Modes of Meaning and Discourse in Quentin Skinner and Michel Foucault’ Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 98.1: 21–41. Kusch, M. (2003) ‘Explanation and Understanding: the Debate over von Wright’s Philosophy of Action Revisited’ Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 80: 327–53. Lagemann, E. C. (2000) An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Klein, K. L. (2000) ‘What Was the Linguistic Turn?’ Clio, 30.1: 79–90. Koselleck, R. (2002) The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press). Kozicki, K. (1993) Developments in Modern Historiography (Basingstoke, Palgrave). Kramer, L. S. (1989) ‘Literature, Criticism, and Historical Imagination: the Literary Challenge of Hayden White and Dominick LaCapra’, in L. Hunt (ed.) The New Cultural History (Berkeley, University of California Press), 97–128. Bibliography 187

LaCapra, D. (2004) History in Transit: Experience, Identity, Critical Theory (Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press). Lamb, R. (2004) ‘Quentin Skinner’s “Post-modern” History of Ideas’ History, 89: 424–33. Lane, M. (2002) ‘Why History of Ideas At All?’ History of European Ideas, 28.1/2: 33–41. Laughery, G. J. (2000) ‘Reading Ricoeur: Authors, Readers, and Texts’ European Journal of Theology, 9.2: 159–70. Laughery, G. J. (2003) ‘Ricoeur on History, Fiction and Biblical Hermeneutics’, in C. Bartholomew, C. S. Evans, M. Healy and M. Rae (eds) ‘Behind’ the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan), 339–62. Layder, D. (1997) Modern Social Theory: Key Debates and New Directions (London, University College London Press), 89–93. Leonardo, Z. (2003) ‘Interpretation and the Problem of Domination: Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics’ Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22: 329–50. Lodge, D. (2002) Consciousness and the Novel: Connected Essays (London, Secker and Warburg). Lowe, R. (1996) ‘Postmodernity and Historians of Education: A View from Britain’ Paedagogica Historica, 32.2: 307–23. Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). McCulloch, G. (2004) Documentary Research in Education, History and the Social Sciences (London, RoutledgeFalmer). McCulloch, G. and Richardson, W. (2000) Historical Research in Educational Settings (Buckingham, Open University Press). McDonald, T. J. (ed.) (1996) The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press). MacIntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London, Duckworth). Macmillan, M. (2009) The Uses and Abuses of History (London, Profile Books). Madison, G. B. (1994) ‘Hermeneutics: Gadamer and Ricoeur’, in R. Kearney (ed.) Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century, Routledge History of Philosophy, vol. 8 (London, Routledge), 290–349. Makkreel, R. A. and Rodi, F. (eds) (1996) Wilhelm Dilthey, Selected Works, vol. 4, Hermeneutics and the Study of History (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). Margolis, J. and Rockmore, T. (eds) (2000) The Philosophy of Interpretation (London, Blackwell). Mandelbaum, M. (1938) The Problem of Historical Knowledge: An Answer to Relativism (New York, Liveright Publishing Corporation). Marwick, A. (1989, 3rd edn) The Nature of History (Basingstoke, Macmillan Education). Marwick, A. (2001) The New Nature of History: Knowledge, Evidence, Language (Basingstoke, Palgrave). Massey, D. (2005) For Space (London, Sage). Matsuda, M. K. (1996) The Memory of the Modern (New York, Oxford University Press). Megill, A. (1989) ‘Recounting the Past: “Description,” Explanation, and Narrative in Historiography’ American Historical Review, 94.3: 627–53. 188 Bibliography

Megill, A. (2007) Historical Knowledge, Historical Error: A Contemporary Guide to Practice (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Mill, J. S. (signed as ‘A.’) (1840) Essay in The London and Westminster Review, xxxiii: 257–302. Mink, L. O. (1970) ‘History and Fiction as Modes of Comprehension’ New Literary History, 1.3: 541–58. Mishler, E. G. (1986) Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). Moore, R. (2004) Education and Society: Issues and Explanations in the Sociology of Education (Cambridge, Polity). Müller, P. (2009) ‘Understanding History: Hermeneutics and Source-Criticism in Historical Scholarship’, in M. Dobson and B. Ziemann (eds) Reading Primary Sources: The Interpretation of Texts from Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century History (Abingdon, Routledge), 21–36. Munslow, M. (1997) Deconstructing History (London, Routledge), 30. Munslow, M. (2003) The New History (Harlow, Pearson). Munslow, M. (2007) Narrative and History (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan). Nead, L. (2000) Victorian Babylon: People, Streets and Images in Nineteenth-Century London (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). Neisser, U. (1981) ‘John Dean’s Memory: A Case Study’ Cognition, 9: 1–22. Neisser, U. (1982) Memory Observed: Remembering in Natural Contexts (San Francisco, W. H. Freeman). Nietzsche, F. (1997) ‘On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life’, in D. Breazeale (ed.) Untimely Meditations (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 57–124. Nora, P. (ed.) (1992) Realms of Memory, vol. 1, Conflicts and Divisions (New York, Columbia University Press). Norman, A. P. (1991) ‘Telling It Like It Was: Historical Narratives on Their Own Terms’, History and Theory, 30.2: 119–35. Novick, P. (1988) That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Novitz, D. (2000) ‘Interpretation and Justification’ Metaphilosophy, 31.1/2: 4–24. Odman, P. J. (1992) ‘Interpreting the Past’ Qualitative Studies in Education, 5.2: 167–84. Ormiston, G. L. and Swift, A. D. (1992) ‘Introduction’, in G. L. Ormiston and A. D. Schrift (eds) The Hermeneutic Tradition, from Ast to Ricoeur (New York, State University of New York Press), 1–38. Outhwaite, W. (2001) ‘History of Hermeneutics’ in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 10 (Amsterdam, Elsevier), 6661–5. Oxford English Dictionary (1989, 2nd edn) (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Palmer, R. E. (1969) Hermeneutics (Evanston, Northwestern University Press). Palonen, K. (1997) ‘Quentin Skinner’s Rhetoric of Conceptual Change’ History of the Human Sciences, 10.2: 61–80. Passmore, K. (2003) ‘Poststructuralism and History’, in S. Berger, H. Feldner and K. Passmore (eds) Writing History: Theory and Practice (London, Hodder), 118–40. Peim, N. (2001) ‘The State of the Art or the Ruins of Nostalgia? The Problematics of Subject Identity, its Objects, Theoretical Resources and Practices’ Paedagogica Historica, 37.3: 653–60. Bibliography 189

Peim, N. (2005) ‘Introduction: the Life of Signs in Visual History’, in U. Mietzner, K. Myers and N. Peim (eds) Visual History: Images of Education (Bern, Peter Lang), 9. Pellauer, D. (1979) ‘The Significance of the Text in Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutical Theory’, in C. E. Reagan (ed.) Studies in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur (Athens, Ohio University Press), 98–114. Pellauer, D. (2003) ‘Ricoeur at Ninety’ Philosophy Today, 47: 12–22. Pellauer, D. (2007) Ricoeur: A Guide for the Perplexed (London, Continuum). Peniston-Bird, C. M. (2009) ‘Oral History: the Sound of Memory’, in S. Barber and C. M. Peniston-Bird (eds) History Beyond the Text: a Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources (Abingdon, Routledge), 105–21. Pérez-Castillo, E. (2003) ‘History, Historicity and the Self’ Neohelicon, 30.1: 43–8. Perks, R. (1998) Oral History: Talking About the Past (London, Historical Association and Oral History Society). Perks, R. and Thomson, A. (eds) (1998) The Oral History Reader (London, Routledge). Piercey, R. (2009) The Crisis in Continental Philosophy: History, Truth and the Hegelian Legacy (London, Continuum). Pirsig, R. M. (1974) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (London, The Bodley Head). Plato (1995) Phaedrus, trans. A. Nehamas and P. Woodruff (Indianapolis, Hackett). Plummer, K. (1983) Documents of Life: An Introduction to the Problems and Literature of a Humanistic Method (Allen and Unwin). Plummer, K. (2001) Documents of Life 2: An Invitation to Critical Humanism (London, Sage). Popkin, J. D. (2005) History, Historians and Autobiography (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Popular Memory Group (1982) ‘Popular Memory: Theory, Politics, Method’, in R. Johnson, G. McLennan, B. Schwarz and D. Sutton (eds) Making Histories: Studies in History-writing and Politics (London, Hutchinson), 205–52. Portelli, A. (1991) The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History (Albany, State University of New York Press), 5. Portelli, A. (1998) ‘Oral History as Genre’, in M. Chamberlain and P. Thompson (eds) Narrative and Genre (London, Routledge), 23–45. Rae, M. A. (2005) History and Hermeneutics (London, T&T Clark). Reagan, C. E. (1989) ‘The Dialectic Between Explanation and Understanding’ Journal of Literature & Theology, 3.3: 285–95. Reagan, C. E. (1993) ‘The Self as An Other’ Philosophy Today, Spring, 3–21. Reagan, C. E. (1996) Paul Ricoeur: His Life and Work (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Reagan, C. E. (2005) ‘Reflections on Paul Ricoeur’s Memory, History, Forgetting’ Philosophy Today, 49(3): 309–16. Reynolds, D. (2009) America, Empire of Liberty: A New History (London, Allen Lane). Richardson, W. (1999) ‘Historians and Educationists: the History of Education as a Field of Study in Post-war England. Part I: 1945–72’ History of Education, 28.1: 1–30. Richardson, W. (1999) ‘Historians and Educationists: the History of Education as a Field of Study in Post-war England. Part II: 1972–96’ History of Education, 28.2: 109–41. 190 Bibliography

Richter, M. (1995) The History of Political and Social Concepts: A Critical Introduction (New York, Oxford University Press). Ricoeur, P. (1974) The Conflict of Interpretations (Evanston, Northwestern University Press). Ricoeur, P. (1976a) ‘History and Hermeneutics’ The Journal of Philosophy, 73.19: 683–95. Ricoeur, P. (1976b) Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, The Texan Christian University Press). Ricoeur, P. (1981) Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Ricoeur, P. (1984a) Time and Narrative, vol.1 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Ricoeur, P. (1984b) The Reality of the Historical Past (Milwaukee, Marquette University Press). Ricoeur, P. (1988) Time and Narrative, vol. 3 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Ricoeur, P. (1991) From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II (London, The Athlone Press). Ricoeur, P. (1992) Oneself as Another (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Ricoeur, P. (1994) ‘History and Rhetoric’, in F. Bedarida (ed.) The Social Responsibility of the Historian (Providence, RI, Berghahn Books), 7–24. Ricoeur, P. (2004), Memory, History, Forgetting (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Ricoeur, P. (2005) ‘Devenir Capable, Être Reconnu’ (‘Becoming Capable, Becoming Recognized’), trans. Chris Turner, Esprit, 7: 125–9. Available online at: http:// www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/Revue_des_revues_200_112B72.pdf. Ricoeur, P. (2006) On Translation (London, Routledge). Ricoeur, P. (2007) History and Truth (Evanston, Northwestern University Press). Risser, J. (1997) Hermeneutics and the Voice of the Other: Re-reading Gadamer’s Philosophical Hermeneutics (Albany, State University of New York Press), 63. Ritchie, D. A. (1994) ‘Foreword’, in J. Jeffrey and G. Edwall (eds) Memory and Oral History: Essays on Recalling and Interpreting Experience, (Lanham, MD, University Press of America,), vii. Roberts, C. (1997) ‘The Politics of Trancription’ TESOL Quarterly, 31.1: 167–71. Roberts, D. D. (1995) Nothing but History: Reconstruction and Extremity after Metaphysics (Berkeley, University of California Press). Roberts, G. (1996) ‘Narrative History as a Way of Life’ Journal of Contemporary History, 31: 221–8. Rockmore, T. (1990) ‘Epistemology as Hermeneutics’ The Monist, 73.2: 115–33. Rockmore, T. (1992) ‘Knowledge, Hermeneutics and History’ Man and World, 25: 79–101. Rose, J. (2007) ‘The History of Education as the History of Reading’ History of Education, 36.4/5: 595–605. Rosenfield, I. (1995) ‘Memory and Identity’ New Literary History, 26: 197–203. Rossington, M. and Whitehead, A. (2007) ‘Introduction’, in M. Rossington and A. Whitehead (eds) Theories of Memory: A Reader (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press), 1–16. Roth, M. S. (2004) ‘Classic Postmodernism’ History and Theory, 43: 372–8. Bibliography 191

Rury, J. L. (2009, 3rd edn) Education and Social Change: Contours in the History of American Schooling (New York, Routledge). Samuel, R. (1989) Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity (London, Routledge). Samuel, R. (1991) ‘Reading the Signs’ History Workshop Journal, 32: 88–109. Samuel, R. (1992) ‘Reading the Signs II: Fact-grubbers and Mind-readers’ History Workshop Journal, 33: 220–51. Samuel, R. (1994) Theatres of Memory, Volume 1: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture (London, Verso). Samuel, R. (1998a) ‘Perils of the Transcript’, in R. Perks and A. Thomson (eds) The Oral History Reader (London, Routledge), 389–92. Samuel, R. (1998b) Island Stories: Unravelling Britain: Theatres of Memory, vol. 2 (London, Verso). Samuel, R. and Thompson, P. (eds) (1990) The Myths We Live By (London, Routledge). Santos, M. S. (2001) ‘Memory and Narrative in Social Theory: the Contributions of Jacques Derrida and Walter Benjamin’ Time and Society, 10.2/3: 163–89. Schama, S. (1969, 2004 edn) ‘Foreword: J. H. Plumb’, in J. H. Plumb, The Death of the Past (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan), xix. Schama, S. 1999 ‘People’s History’ The Guardian, 13 November, 24. Schmidt, L. K. (2006) Understanding Hermeneutics (Stocksfield, Acumen). Scott, J. (1990) A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research (Cambridge, Polity Press). Seidman, S. (1983) ‘Beyond Presentism and Historicism: Understanding and the History of Social Science’ Sociological Inquiry, 53.1: 79–94. Shapin, S. (1994) A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Simon, M. (1976) ‘Does History Need Hermeneutics?’ The Journal of Philosophy, 73: 695–7. Simms, K. (2003) Paul Ricoeur (London, Routledge). Sipe, D. (1998) ‘The Future of Oral History and Moving Images’, in R. Perks and A. Thomson (eds) The Oral History Reader (London, Routledge), 379–88. Skinner, Q. (1975) ‘Hermeneutics and the Role of History’ New Literary History, 7.1: 209–32. Skinner, Q. (1988) ‘A Reply to my Critics’, in J. Tully (ed.) Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press), 232–3. Skinner, Q. (2002) Visions of Politics, Volume 1: Regarding Method (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Skinner, Q. (2008) ‘Part Two: Is it still Possible to Interpret Texts?’ International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 89: 647–54. Smith, A. D. (2003) Husserl and the Cartesian Meditations (London, Routledge). Smith, B. D. (1987) ‘Distanciation and Textual Interpretation’ Laval théologique et philosophique, 43.2: 205–16. Sokolowski, R. (2000) Introduction to Phenomenology (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Somers, M. (1992) ‘Narrativity, Narrative Identity, and Social Action: Rethinking English Working Class Formation’ Social Science History, 16.4: 591–630. 192 Bibliography

Southgate, B. C. (1996) History: What and Why? Ancient, Modern and Postmodern Perspectives (London, Routledge). Stanford, M. (1986) The Nature of Historical Knowledge (Oxford, Basil Blackwell). Steedman, C. (1998) ‘The Space of Memory: In an Archive’ History of the Human Sciences, 11.4: 65–83. Steedman, C. (2003) Dust (Manchester, Manchester University Press). Stone, L. (1992) ‘History and Post-Modernism’ Past and Present, 135: 189–94. Stronach, I. and Maclure, M. (1997) Educational Research Undone: The Postmodern Embrace (Buckingham, Open University Press). Summerfield, P. (1998) Reconstructing Women’s Wartime Lives (Manchester, Manchester University Press). Swift, G. (1992) Waterland (New York, Vintage). Tannen, D. (1987) ‘Repetition in Conversation: Towards a Poetics of Talk’ Language, 63.3: 574–605. Tedlock, D. (1983) The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press). Teichert, D. (2004) ‘Narrative Identity and the Self’ Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11.10–11: 175–91. Teixeira, J. B. (2006) ‘Situating Ricoeur Within the Hermeneutic Tradition: An Overview of His Life and Works’ Divyadaan, 17.3: 265–92. Terkel, S. (1970) Hard Times (London, Allen Lane). Thomson, A. (1994) Anzac Memories: Living with the Legend (Melbourne, Oxford University Press). Thomson, A. (1998a) ‘Fifty Years On: An International Perspective on Oral History’ Journal of American History, 85.2: 581–95. Thomson, A. (1998b) ‘Unreliable Memories? The Use and Abuse of Oral History’, in W. Lamont (ed.) Historical Controversies and Historians (London, University College London Press), 23–34. Thomson, A. (1998c) ‘Anzac Memories: Putting Popular Memory into Practice in Australia’, in R. Perks and A. Thomson (eds) The Oral History Reader (London, Routledge), 300–310. Thomson, A., Frisch, M. and Hamilton, P. (1994) ‘The Memory and History Debates: Some International Perspectives’ Oral History, 22.2: 33–43. Thompson, E. P. (1978) The Poverty of Theory (London, Merlin Press). Thompson, M. P. (1993) ‘Reception Theory and the Interpretation of Historical Meaning’ History and Theory, 32.3: 248–72. Thompson, P. (1988, 2nd edn) The Voice of the Past: Oral History (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Thompson, P. (1994) ‘Believe It or Not: Rethinking the Historical Interpretation of Memory’, in J. Jeffrey and G. Edwall (eds) Memory and Oral History: Essays on Recalling and Interpreting Experience (Lanham, University Press of America), 1–13. Thompson, P. (2000, 3rd edn) The Voice of the Past: Oral History (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Thucydides (1954) History of the Peloponnesian War (Harmondsworth, Penguin). Times Literary Supplement (2005) 30 September, No. 5348, 17. Toews, J. (1987) ‘Intellectual History after the Linguistic Turn: The Autonomy of Meaning and the Irreducibility of Experience’ American Historical Review, 92: 879–907. Bibliography 193

Tonkin, E. (1990) ‘History and the Myth of Realism’, in R. Samuel and P. Thompson (eds) (1990) The Myths We Live By (London, Routledge), 25–35. Tonkin, E. (1992) Narrating Our Pasts: The Social Construction of Oral History (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Tosh, J. (2002, rev. 3rd edn) The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History (London, Longman). Trevelyan, G. M. (1949) An Autobiography and Other Essays (London, Longmans). Tully, J. (ed.) (1988) Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Cambridge, Polity). Valdes, M. J. (1991) ‘Introduction: Paul Ricoeur’s Structuralist Hermeneutics’, in M. J. Valdes (ed.) A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination (London, Harvester Wheatsheaf), 23–4. Valdes, M. J. (1992) World-Making: The Literary Truth-claim and the Interpretation of Texts (Toronto, University of Toronto Press). van den Hengel, J. W. (1982) The Home of Meaning: the Hermeneutics of the Subject of Paul Ricoeur (Washington, DC, University Press of America). van den Hengel, J. W. (2002) ‘Can There Be a Science of Action?’, in R. A. Cohen and J. L. Marsh (eds) Ricoeur as Another (Albany, State University of New York), 73. Vann, R. T., Partner, N., Domanska, E. and Ankersmit, F. (eds) (1998) History and Theory, 37.2. Verhesschen. P. (2003) ‘“The Poem’s Invitation”: Ricoeur’s Concept of Mimesis and its Consequences for Narrative Educational Research’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37.3: 449–65. von Wright, G. H. (1971) Explanation and Understanding (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul). Wasserman, J. (2004) ‘Ships That Should Pass in the Night’ Philosophy Now, 48: 25–8. Weinsheimer, J. (1995) ‘Foreword’, in P. Szondi, Introduction to Literary Hermeneutics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), xi-xxiii. Weinsheimer, J. C. (1985) Gadamer’s Hermeneutics: A Reading of Truth and Method (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). Wertsch, J. (2002) Voices of Collective Remembering (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Wertsch, J. (2009) ‘Collective Memory’, in P. Boyer and J. V. Wertsch (eds) Memory in Mind and Culture (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 117–37. West, C. (1996) ‘Ethnography and Orthography: A (Modest) Methodological Proposal’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 25.3: 327–52. White, H. V. (1959) ‘Translator’s Introduction’, in C. Antoni, From History to Sociology: The Transition in German Historical Thinking (London, Merlin Press), xviii–xxiv. White, H. V. (1987) The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore, MA, Johns Hopkins University Press). White, H. V. (2002) ‘Foreword’, in R. Kosselleck, The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press), xiii. White, H. V. (2007) ‘Guilty of History? The Longue Durée of Paul Ricoeur’ History and Theory, 46: 233–51. Widdershoven, G. (1993) ‘The Story of Life: Hermeneutic Perspectives on the 194 Bibliography

Relationship between Narrative and Life History’, in R. Josselson and A. Lieblich (eds) The Narrative Study of Lives, vol. 1 (London, Sage), 1–20. Wieder, A. (1998) ‘Trust and Memory: Explorations in Oral History and Biography’, in C. Kridel (ed.) Writing Educational Biography (New York, Garland), 113–19. Wiener, M. J. (1998) ‘Treating “Historical” Sources as Literary Texts: Literary Historicism and Modern British History’ Journal of Modern History, 70: 619–38. Wilson, N. J. (1999) History in Crisis? Recent Directions in Historiography (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall). Windschuttle, K. (1994) The Killing of History: How a Discipline is Being Murdered by Literary Critics and Social Theorists (Sydney, Macleay Press). Wineburg, S. S. (2001) Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past (Philadelphia, Temple University Press). Winter, J. (1996) ‘Public History and Historical Scholarship’ History Workshop Journal, 42: 169–72. Wood, D. (1991) ‘Introduction: Interpreting Narrative’, in D. Wood (ed.) On Paul Ricoeur: Narrative and Interpretation (London, Routledge), 1–19. Zagorin, P. (1998) ‘Historiography and Postmodernism: Reconsiderations’, in B. Fay, P. Pomper and R. T. Vann (eds) History and Theory: Contemporary Readings (Malden, MA, Blackwell), 193–205. Zammito, J. H. (1993) ‘Are We Being Theoretical Yet? The New Historicism, the New Philosophy of History, and “Practicing Historians”’ Journal of Modern History, 65.4: 783–814. Zimmerman, J. (2009) Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press).