English Language and Literature Essay

1306 Words 6 Pages
English Language and Literature
The works of Michael Foucault, Diana Taylor, and Carla Freccero’s thoughts on history share underlying similarities yet differ in their approaches to understand the past. The differences that are brought out by these historians are based on the traditional and contemporary definitions as well as the extent of study directed to history. Within these three arguments, there are correlations as well as deviations in ideologies and interpretations, generating contention and debate on the true meaning of history.
Foucault (2011) describes history as a field that is composed of both proper thoughts and historical thoughts that generate similar problems while focusing more on the documented information than on the
…show more content…
Instead, the entities should be incorporated into all events without separating the changes according to the discontinuity perspective and the periods they happened as it has always been.
The separation of events and ideologies has shifted the interpretations and created disparities between proper history and history of thought. The argument therefore concurs with the dictionary meaning that interprets history as a reference to past events and activities. These arguments, though interpreted in a different way by Taylor, all agree with the overall definition.
Taylor (n.d) defines history as part of our existence. While Foucault identifies history with the past and the documents containing such information, Taylor (n.d) identifies history as a field correlated to the trauma that forms part of human existence. According to Taylor (n.d) history is part of human existence and it should be referenced according to the events that took part in the past years.
This means that it should never be separated in terms of durations of discontinuities, but it should rather form part of the existence. Unlike Foucault who associates history with the past, Taylor develops a correlation between the past and the present by making history to look like the determinant of the present. By describing history as a part of the present, the author develops a clear understanding of how history is the formal record of

Related Documents