Meaning is always meaning in the context of history, and history includes both the text and its various interpreters.I use Huntington's article as a springboard from which to analyze the readings for this week because his theories of methodology and historical research provided me with a comprehensive framework within which to situate my understanding of the subject at hand.~ "Methodological Considerations," Huntington (10)
Early in his article (5-6), Huntington outlines two research models upon which historical methodological investigation has traditionally been conducted: the philological, or text-critical, model, and the proselytic model.
The philological model draws on the branch of knowledge that deals with the structure, historical development, and relationships of languages. It makes use of all available resource materials in order to relate known historical events to one another. For instance, the philological model will often use multiple translations of a source to arrive at a median of meaning. Its aim is to define a coherent tradition for the continuum of texts, where meaning is trumped by material.
In comparison to the philological model’s rigorous methodology and attention to sources, the proselytic model is often seen as less rigorous in its methodology. It is uncritical and accepts historical accounts at face value, rather than digging further or questioning other sources. The existence of tradition is taken for granted rather than questioned. Often, this model is seen as the laissez-faire sister to the type-A philological model!
In a world where the scientific method trumps all, it is no wonder that Huntington asserts that the philological model is given scholarly preference over the proselytic model. I must insert here, my own thought on the idea of scientific methodology: while I am of the mind that nothing can replace tried-and-true, resource rich, research, there is something to be said for giving credence to tradition-based research; especially in fields of scholarship that deal with intangible entities such as history, anthropology, art, and time periods not currently available. Furthermore, while the philological method aims to emulate the scientific method of research in its rigour, it fails to take a stab at ‘meaning’ – because ultimately, isn’t the aim for doing research not for research’s own sake, but rather for the purposes of better understanding that which is being studied? Furthermore, I believe the two categories of methodology to be premature. That is, while they exist neatly in theory, the categories are more fluid in reality. Huntington concurs with this thought in his article (8-9) when he asserts that in order to maximize the work of literary predecessors, it is vital to dismantle the methodology used, use what is valuable to the present research, and move on. He believes that this is a necessary step that will ultimately “break the closed circle of dogmatic adherence to methodology” (9).
By blurring the lines between hard-and-fast methodology, Huntington believes that a fuller understanding will be reached. “Understanding of a distant text requires a step beyond translation and reconstruction of the context of its source, mode by mode, so as to describe and explore its particularity” (9). I use this sentiment as a segue into the Bynum articles.
Bynum corroborates Huntington’s notion that historically-inclined research must be multi-modal. She explains methodology as a means to achieving a goal (Holy Feast, 6). Ultimately however, Bynum leans toward the philological model’s end of the research spectrum in her belief that a historian’s job is to regurgitate fragments and piece them into a whole (Fragments, 14). Simultaneously, in accordance with a more proselytic viewpoint, she also holds that history itself is disproportionately reflective of those with greater access to means of communication and to raw power (Fragments, 17). For instance here, Bynum is critical of the positioning of the medieval woman within male created categories, and believes critical questioning to be the answer.
Later in In Praise of Fragments, Bynum addresses the methodology of historians and anthropologists in modern-day scholarship. In the past, historians used quantitative methodology as the cornerstone of research; today, however, literary theory and the study of anthropology has joined that methodology to provide a more rounded way of studying the past through our 21st century lenses.
The comedic, or ironic, stance that Bynum adopts in her writing of this article (and book) is a means of acknowledging that while she is a particular person at a particular moment in history, i.e. a female historian in the 21st century, she is attempting to comprehend the position of the medieval woman outside of the presupposed boxes created by medieval patriarchy or modern feminism. By seeking the truth in the fragments and, like Huntington suggested, letting go of the rest, Bynum seeks to find meaning to history (Fragments, 26).
In Introduction: Holy Feast, there were a couple of methodological aspects that I appreciated, as a reader. First, I liked that Bynum explains explicitly the extent and limits of her research for the purposes of that particular book. While see acknowledges that the scope of her research could go beyond the book, she sets up parameters within which to work thus preventing the reader from being disillusioned about the aims of the book itself. Secondly, Bynum provides reasoning for limiting her scope within the book. Finally, in this introductory chapter, Bynum points out the possible weak points within the research. By doing so, Bynum creates an opportunity to be self-analytical and possible reparation. This also creates a stepping-stone upon which further research can be jump-started.
I would like to conclude this week’s blog with a theme that I found recurring through the readings – the idea of branches, or limbs. Methodology seems to be like a robust tree from which a multitude of limbs grow, each with sub-limbs of their own. A researcher seems to have a plethora of forks in the methodological road – meaning versus interpretation, observation versus analysis, text-critical versus proselytic research, multi-modal versus uni-modal, tradition versus modernity…
“The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body.”~ 1 Corinthians 12 (New International Version)
5 comments:
Hi Roselle! I agree with your analysis of Huntington vis-a-vis his belief that one cannot adhere to only one form of methodology, especially as that presupposes your subject matter is somehow static, and will fit into the boundaries created by the methodology. Social sciences often cite quantitative methodologies in order to bolster their claims, in general, qualitative observations are done a little self-consciously.
Second, Bynum's comedic stance seems to me another way of saying that she's being self-consciously phenomenological in her approach by bracketing her presuppositions before her reading public.
Finally, I completely agree with you in praising Bynum's self-imposed research limitations. The reader then has a clear understanding of what her aims are, and will critique based on her own parameters. This is something that I think is very important for a paper, (I think of our future thesis) so that the reader does not expect you to address every possible issue in a subject.
See you Wednesday!
thanks ada! i think this course in general is supposed to get us thinking about our own methodological approaches, so i'm glad you pointed out how bynum's technique of self-limitation is of value when thinking of framing our own research!
I agree with your statement regarding the fluidity of models. The idea that methodologies, while consisting of neat packages in "theory", are actually less defined and are often inter-twined branches of a large tree called Methodology. I really enjoyed the imagery of the tree which you incorporated at the end of your post.
Hey Roselle,
Huntington’s article was an excellent starting point for your look into the fluidic nature of methodologies. I agree that the strict categorization of method can be misleading, since I’ve rarely encountered an other that would only use a ‘text-critical’ method or just take a ‘philological’ look at a subject (unless of course, they are arguing vehemently about why that particular method is the correct one). Your analogy of a tree is great, and really captures how new methods arise out of the authors combining currently existing models (A deconstructionist approach with a post-modern zest and a hint of phenomenology).
I’m glad you pointed out Bynum’s self imposed restrictions in the introduction to Holy Feast, since it was something I just glossed over while I read it. I think we often just assume that their will be limits to research, since the book isn’t..well..infinitely big…, and don’t think about their importance. Bynum’s acknowledgement of the limitation of her work, her own biases and possible weaknesses, as well as the possible course of future work clearly shows which ‘fragment’ of history she is looking at. Such acknowledgement allows the author to, as you say, be ‘self-analytical’ and improves the argument as a whole.
I tried to think of a good biblical quote to go here, but couldn’t.
"A deconstructionist approach with a post-modern zest and a hint of phenomenology"
my new most favourite sentence of all time!
Post a Comment