Scientific Standards and Ideological Preferences in Historical Writing: Their Relationsship and Conflict

As a participant of the Knowledge and Belief project, my research focuses on the problems of source, evidence, proof and belief in modern historiography. My special interest resides in the 19th century, a paradoxical period, when the professionalisation of historical studies went hand in hand with its exploitation for nationalist purposes.

It was in this era that, in preference to the educational and entertaining function of history, factual accuracy and methodological rationality gained increasing significance. Legends and myths, which had previously constituted part of the narrative, were no longer seen to provide reliable evidence. This new attitude required the historian to acquire training in auxiliary sciences, which enabled him the critical analysis and interpretation of sources.

At the same time, scientific argumentation became more and more influenced by political-ideological ambitions and many historians were themselves involved in the national movements. As a corollary, history was exploited to justify and legitimize political claims.

In this framework, my principal concern is related to the ways in which the historian’s pre-existing ideological and personal preferences (which invariably influence and often pre-determine the outcome of research ) may be contextualised. In particular, I am focusing on the question as to what extent, if at all, those two conflicting values –scholarly and ideological- may be rendered compatible.

Possible treatments may include the understanding of the relation between the historian as scholar and ideologist as one between knowledge and belief. As an alternative, the connection between the two components ma be interpreted as a relation between objectivity (adherence to scholarly standards) and subjectivity (personal -emotional involvement).

My general research interests lie in modern historiography and the theory of history, with special attention to the period of the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Apart from the study of mainstream history-writing, I also investigate the work of historians which do not form part of the historiographical canon.

My doctoral thesis: ‘The Historian and the Nation in the 19th century, the case of East-Central Europe’ (2002) compared the work of five scholars, who were contemporaries in the 19th century but belonged to different nationalities. Pivotal issues in this study revolve around the problems of intellectual transfer, authorship, originality and imitation. It also touches upon questions concerning the professionalisation and institutionalisation of the historical discipline in the 19th century.

In addition, I have an interest in the history of forgeries, in counter-factual history and the uses of fiction for the purpose of historical sources.