The politics of theorising in historical reconstruction: An examination of the views of the protagonists and antagonists

Abstract

The significance of theory in research has made the formulation and use of theories a common practice in most fields of study, particularly in the natural sciences and in some social sciences. In history, however, there is a lack of unanimity regarding the formulation and application of theories in the reconstruction of the past. Thus, whereas some historians accept and employ theoretical formulations in their studies, others reject and avoid them altogether in their works. Interestingly, both camps have raised strong arguments in support of their positions. To understand the opposing camps, therefore, necessitates a thorough appraisal of their views. Accordingly, this paper, employing the multi-disciplinary approach, first distinguishes between the ‘pro-theorists’ and the ‘anti-theorists’ in historical studies. It then examines in detail two of the important arguments the two schools of thought have advanced in relation to formulating and applying theories in the study and reconstruction of the past. Finally, the paper attempts to contribute towards resolving this somewhat controversial issue in the historical theatre by way of permitting itself the luxury of stating its own views on the matter. It concludes that to help make historical studies more scientific and easily intelligible, theories should be applied, with utmost caution, in historical research