Literary Discourse and the Social Historian
Brian Stock
N ANY COMMUNITY or period of time, two sorts change are presumably always going on at once: real change, which is happening but may not be perceived, and perceived taking place. History, in practical terms, largely the story change. Change an objective sense well place, materials out books history made almost never reflect it directly. Instead, they tell various, partial recordings which, however fact disguised, really add up to interpretations.' Even quantitative history, latest most ambitious objectifying techniques, does provide a satisfactory account transformations external world. I do wish argue that esse equals percipi, pure objectivity, like subjectivity, unattainable--these problems for philosopher-merely that, historian, everyday practice his craft, objectivity subjectivity exist rough continuum. Drawing hard-and-fast line between them impossible. Of course, historian tries use evidence such way own bias original participants balanced by countervening factors, he often attempts give air theoretical respectability. But last analysis approach boils down common sense. If one looks back over historical writing since nineteenth century, there no simple summing various trends. repeatedly stated goals. One closer accounting The other gradual awakening patterns inner development. Rightly wrongly, difference has been looked upon as opposition subjectivity. About century ago, economic emerged from legal political faithful adherent external-world hypothesis; twentieth especially World War I, social become its sister discipline, incorporating into larger more flexible framework-the system economy part-while retaining much vigor method. link provided new methods counting, also furnish justification empirical framework. No now doubts quantification good thing. success relative, absolute. Those who entertain wildest illusions about statistical
New Literary History