Evolving Definition of Historical Imagination
My initial reflections and research led me to two theoretical concepts, historical imagination and historical empathy. Both concepts, unique to the practice of history, require high levels of critical thinking and ingenuity. Historical imagination is broader in scope. The concept recognizes that a historians’ creativity, although limited by context, must be refined and thoughtful to create a larger narrative or understanding of a historical event. This element of creativity in the historians’ work intrigued me. Too often, we focus on the strictly logical, almost mathematical skills of a historian. But there is artistry as well; the ability to weave together sources and ideas to create a larger more comprehensive narrative, a narrative that at its most basic level is a story. Historians are storytellers that must understand the perceptions of others. But unlike a novelist, their imagination is restricted. This restriction requires unique critical thinking skills. When I discovered Collingwood’s theory of ‘historical imagination’, I felt like I finally found the concept that accurately defined the unique job of a historian.
R.E. Collingwood’s concept of “historical imagination” explains why, unlike scientific disciplines, history requires the student to use of level of imagination and empathy to consider the impact of what is unobservable. For example, a historian may write about how a president viewed the potential impact of legislation when no primary source directly addresses the research question. This level of creative thinking requires students and historians to use the limited available evidence and construct a larger image or narrative of an event. Historical imagination is bound by time and context, as well as the available primary source evidence. (as cited in Lemisko, 2004.)
According to Collingwood, historical imagination includes three main functions, to re-enact, interpolate and interrogate. Re-enacting is best described as “to understand and imagine past human actions and thought, we must think ourselves into the situation - that is, we re-think the thoughts of the persons engaged in the situation.” (Lemisko, 2004.) This portion of historical imagination starkly resembles historical empathy.
Interpolation requires a student to fill the gaps of the historical record (Lemisko, 2004). Since a historian has a limited amount of primary sources on any one event or person, he or she must make educated guesses about what is not written. This responsibility is not boundless. Once, again historians are restrained by historical context. And even then, this imagination must be restrained or at the very least, acknowledged by the historian as speculation.
The final component of historical imagination is the skill of interrogation. Interrogating involves historians and students critically analyzing the sources, looking for the more hidden biases and messages that can only be identified if the students correctly imagine the proper historical context. (as cited in Lemisko, 2004). Interrogation requires a level of re-enactment. To consider the biases inherent in the available sources, one must imagine the perspectives of the authors and artists.
All of these elements of historical imagination require a large amount of initial research on the historical context. Considering and incorporating outside sources and knowledge is a necessity. My inquiry focuses on analyzing whether the students’ imagination, although creative, still restricts itself to the context. I have used Collingwood’s three criteria of historical imagination in my student work analysis [See Method of Analysis].
R.E. Collingwood’s concept of “historical imagination” explains why, unlike scientific disciplines, history requires the student to use of level of imagination and empathy to consider the impact of what is unobservable. For example, a historian may write about how a president viewed the potential impact of legislation when no primary source directly addresses the research question. This level of creative thinking requires students and historians to use the limited available evidence and construct a larger image or narrative of an event. Historical imagination is bound by time and context, as well as the available primary source evidence. (as cited in Lemisko, 2004.)
According to Collingwood, historical imagination includes three main functions, to re-enact, interpolate and interrogate. Re-enacting is best described as “to understand and imagine past human actions and thought, we must think ourselves into the situation - that is, we re-think the thoughts of the persons engaged in the situation.” (Lemisko, 2004.) This portion of historical imagination starkly resembles historical empathy.
Interpolation requires a student to fill the gaps of the historical record (Lemisko, 2004). Since a historian has a limited amount of primary sources on any one event or person, he or she must make educated guesses about what is not written. This responsibility is not boundless. Once, again historians are restrained by historical context. And even then, this imagination must be restrained or at the very least, acknowledged by the historian as speculation.
The final component of historical imagination is the skill of interrogation. Interrogating involves historians and students critically analyzing the sources, looking for the more hidden biases and messages that can only be identified if the students correctly imagine the proper historical context. (as cited in Lemisko, 2004). Interrogation requires a level of re-enactment. To consider the biases inherent in the available sources, one must imagine the perspectives of the authors and artists.
All of these elements of historical imagination require a large amount of initial research on the historical context. Considering and incorporating outside sources and knowledge is a necessity. My inquiry focuses on analyzing whether the students’ imagination, although creative, still restricts itself to the context. I have used Collingwood’s three criteria of historical imagination in my student work analysis [See Method of Analysis].
Evolving Definition of Historical Empathy
In addition to examining interrogation, interpolation and re-enactment, an educator should also consider the concept of “historical empathy”. This concept strongly relates to Collingwood’s definition of re-enactment but delves slightly deeper into all of the requirements and implications. Downey developed thoughtful criteria for assessing a students’ ability to demonstrate empathy.
Students must 1) indicate that the past is different from the present and a historical outcome is specific to a time and event 2) explain the perspectives they take and the consequences for the historical participants involved 3) develop factually accurate perspectives on the basis of historical evidence 4) judge whether the student is demonstrating the ability to distinguish between past perspectives and shift skillfully from one perspective to another. (as cited in Yilmaz, 2007, p. 5).
My inquiry uses Downey’s requirements of historical empathy to analyze my students’ work in simulation and role-play activities [See Method of Analysis]. However, throughout my research, I have found that this definition does not fully encompass my notion of empathy. The criteria may outline the necessary skills to practice historical empathy, but they do not fully describe my desired goals for the practice. When considering the term ‘empathy’, larger societal definitions, especially in respect to character development and morality, come to mind. In my opinion, it is not entirely possible to fully separate these associated definitions and feelings from the theoretical concept.
Teaching someone to consider another’s perspective is not just a research or academic skill, it is a moral action. I intend to explore this notion of morality in my findings. However, scholar, Steven Fosters’ interpretation of teaching empathy, provides a good starting point for my own understanding of the term. "Finally, historical empathy requires a respect for, an appreciation of, and sensitivity toward, the complexity of human action and achievement. Students must be aware that historical study is not a scientific process and that no absolute rules apply to the actions of humans in the past. (Foster, 2009, pg. 19)
My later analysis addresses this notion of respect and sensitivity. Beyond Fosters’ definition, however, I did not discover a significant amount of research that ventured into this nebulous ‘feelings and morality’ territory. The following analysis examines both the more practical advantages and disadvantages of role-play activities in addition to the larger pedagogical implications.
Students must 1) indicate that the past is different from the present and a historical outcome is specific to a time and event 2) explain the perspectives they take and the consequences for the historical participants involved 3) develop factually accurate perspectives on the basis of historical evidence 4) judge whether the student is demonstrating the ability to distinguish between past perspectives and shift skillfully from one perspective to another. (as cited in Yilmaz, 2007, p. 5).
My inquiry uses Downey’s requirements of historical empathy to analyze my students’ work in simulation and role-play activities [See Method of Analysis]. However, throughout my research, I have found that this definition does not fully encompass my notion of empathy. The criteria may outline the necessary skills to practice historical empathy, but they do not fully describe my desired goals for the practice. When considering the term ‘empathy’, larger societal definitions, especially in respect to character development and morality, come to mind. In my opinion, it is not entirely possible to fully separate these associated definitions and feelings from the theoretical concept.
Teaching someone to consider another’s perspective is not just a research or academic skill, it is a moral action. I intend to explore this notion of morality in my findings. However, scholar, Steven Fosters’ interpretation of teaching empathy, provides a good starting point for my own understanding of the term. "Finally, historical empathy requires a respect for, an appreciation of, and sensitivity toward, the complexity of human action and achievement. Students must be aware that historical study is not a scientific process and that no absolute rules apply to the actions of humans in the past. (Foster, 2009, pg. 19)
My later analysis addresses this notion of respect and sensitivity. Beyond Fosters’ definition, however, I did not discover a significant amount of research that ventured into this nebulous ‘feelings and morality’ territory. The following analysis examines both the more practical advantages and disadvantages of role-play activities in addition to the larger pedagogical implications.