Postmodernist Historical Google doc
The other night, we were asked in class to think about what a postmodernist history would look like, and even though we talked about it, I am still struggling with it. When I pondered the question initially, my first instinct was that a postmodernist history would be full of narrative and fiction. I thought about Ragtime and how Doctorow creates "pockets" in his narrative, pushing the perceived boundary between history and fiction to achieve some kind of higher truth. For example, we talked about how Morgan and Ford have a secret society in Ragtime or how Morgan thinks he is a reincarnated pharaoh. Doctorow never explicitly writes anything in his novel that violates our perception of history, or could not feasibly have happened - he makes Morgan and Ford's society a secret that they never share with anyone. He creates a pocket instead of writing, for example, that Morgan and Ford both turned themselves into bees and lived the rest of their lives as bees, because there is enough historical evidence in our minds to deny that idea. The effect of these pockets is to create a sort of higher truth. In a way, when we consider the possibility that Morgan thought he was a reincarnated pharaoh, it forces us to rethink American capitalism in the early 1900s.
For my homework, I wrote that a postmodernist history would be a gigantic google doc that anyone could access and edit, since postmodernism asserts that all viewpoints are equally valid. This google doc would have memes, gifs, stories, fanfictions, serious historical accounts, timelines, whatever! At the same time, I wrote that history still aspires to some level of accuracy based on evidence. Therefore, there would be one caveat to using this google doc - everyone who edits it has to promise to do their best. (Alternatively, I said that a postmodernist history would look a lot like History of Japan. If you're not familiar with History of Japan, it's a YouTube video by Bill Wurtz. I think it's postmodernist in its blending of media, humor, and casual language. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh5LY4Mz15o .)
But then I started to think that there is fundamentally dissonance between history and postmodernism. History as a discipline aspires to a greater truth, to seek the truth of the past - and as we have discussed in class, that truth can come in multiple forms, with various levels of fiction (still generally aspiring to accuracy based on evidence)(and truth in the sense that Morgan did not necessarily have a secret society with Ford, but that considering that possibility broadens our historical perspective on American capitalism in the Ragtime era). However, postmodernism argues that there is no one truth, no one perspective which is inherently more true. Here is the dissonance - if history aspires to truth, albeit in different ways and for different truths depending on who's writing the history, then history cannot be postmodernist. Postmodernism seeks to equate all truths - history seeks to find the truth. Postmodernism rejects "fact."
Another thought I had was to try to think of objective history (i.e. what truly happened throughout all of time) as a person, and the discipline of history as trying to paint this person. There are infinite painters who will see the subject of their painting differently, and will try to portray it differently - some will try to paint the person as "accurately" as possible, trying to capture the shapes of the face, each freckle. Others may try to make the subject look more beautiful, painting them wearing earrings and a wider smile. Another painter might make a more abstract painting, giving the subject green skin and triangles for eyes... or something. (I am not a painter.) A postmodernist would argue that every painting done of the subject is an accurate painting - even the one with triangles for eyes, because thinking of a person with triangle eyes gives us a more complicated perspective on people, or eyes. Triangle eyes are truth, in a way. They are as true as the eyes painted by the painter obsessed with "accuracy," because don't the triangle eyes and the realistic eyes share the same level of accuracy when we consider how intricate an image of a human eye is? You can never paint the perfect eye. A postmodernist rejects that any painting can be the same as a real eye, just as a postmodernist would reject that one interpretation of history can be the same as what actually happened.
I will be honest, my brain is really starting to hurt, especially when you consider what this rejection of one truth does to a postmodernist narrative. If postmodernism argues that there is no one truth, then by nature are postmodernist texts incapable of making arguments about history? For example, we assert that Ragtime is a postmodernist text because it blends fiction with history, much like the abstract painting. But Doctorow makes points in his novel about what the truth of history is - that the era of Ragtime was full of social problems that we choose to forget when we remember the time period. So, is Ragtime really postmodernist? Can anything really be postmodernist?
Please help me understand. My brain is deep fried and I need other perspectives. Additionally, let's do an experiment. Below is the link to a google doc - the google doc of history. Please edit at your leisure (but remember to try your best!):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1avDw2OqICjLJez_5YDL3F50esD8w0VfYP9gMJZRON8U/edit?usp=sharing
I think that that is the point-- by having to question the viability of Ragtime as a postmodernist narrative, while still fitting the dictionary definition of postmodernism by commenting on previous paradigms, Doctorow reaffirms that yes, indeed this is a postmodern text.
ReplyDeleteI love this. I really liked when you said that although we can't prove Morgan and Ford had a secret society, that possibility broadens our understanding of capitalism in the Ragtime era. All this stuff hurts to think about because its so complicated (and is there really such thing as a true history let alone a truly postmodern history) but it does seem that part of a postmodern history is taking something not necessarily true and then using that to understand what we can of the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting. History is sort of in the eye of the beholder. Some people might see an event in a different way than others, and postmodernism seems to say that it's totally fine, and in fact, everyone is correct. The fiction really seems to add to the more objectively historical aspects of the story, which shows that everyone needs a little interpretation of events. Sometimes, hearing a made up story of the lives of some people in the middle ages is more helpful than a huge history textbook.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think Ragtime is postmodernist for similar reasons to Jack. Ragtime is using fiction that is challenging to previous notions to give us a better understanding of history from a certain perspective, which is very postmodern.
I think that you're right in struggling with postmodernism, because it is inherently self-destructive. But that doesn't remove it's use. We as humans are not capable of rejecting the idea of something that is true and something that isn't. But what Ragtime and postmodernism offer is a difference in perspective. Ragtime both challenges the traditional perspective on that time period, as well as often challenging itself in its own arguments. Take Tateh and Mother, their relationship is depicted as both a good thing and a bad thing depending on how you read it. Tateh is still a horrible misogynist as shown by his take on his own wife, so Mother is not getting a great partner, but then again maybe it's better than Father. The book challenges all perspectives, while still making an argument. The argument is just to reevaluate our own perspective on the time period.
ReplyDeleteI think because of that dissonance between history and postmodernism, a sort of Google Doc where everyone tries their best to create their version of history is close to ideal. A postmodern history may be inherently impossible, but you could have a collection of different versions of history, and that could almost serve as a postmodern history. I think even though you can't really have a postmodern history as you say, looking at history in a postmodern sense is still useful.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post! The example of a painting of an eye really helped me understand how something not factually accurate could depict a truth. One thing I noticed across your ideas was that for a lot of them there would be no single author. I think it would make sense for a postmodernist history to challenge the idea that one person has the authority to decide what happened and so be more of a collection.
ReplyDeleteXanthe, I agree with your google docs analogy and especially about your brain being fried. Postmodernism is certainly tough stuff. Interestingly, I think the google doc analogy would have some subtle differences from postmodernism. Postmodernist theory includes a speculation of authoritative figures. Because of this, I see a lot of arguing about others viewpoints on the hypothetical google doc, rather than collaboration. However, we know from postmodernism that even though there may be disagreement within this hypothetical doc, any ideas inside the doc should be treated just as equally as any other idea in this hypothetical doc.
ReplyDeleteGreat way of sorting out your ideas! I think that the google doc analogy is almost there, but I think that the postmodernist history would see itself as more authoritative and a bit more professional in a way. It would be a mix of narrative and history, but I feel like it would be more “true” (as weird as that sounds). But defeinitely it would be more individualistic with personal stories and a variety of perspectives, which captures the google doc analogy.
ReplyDeleteI'm also confused, but I think it might be helpful to look at how postmodernist thinkers connect and conceptualize themselves and history. Like one of my favorite artists, Gordon Matta-Clark, who interacted with history by cutting apart lots of historical buildings. He was dealing with his own place in a historical narrative that he didn't create, by cutting it up. I'm not sure where this is going, but here's some links: https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/gordon-matta-clark
ReplyDeletealso Bill Wurtz?? Is maybe this thing?