Reflexivitás a történetírásban
Reflexivity in History

Summary/Abstract: Historical theory, in discussing the requirements of good historical practice, tends to place reflexivity on top of the list. The recommended kind of reflexivity is a mixture of methodological reflexivity and radical referential reflexivity; the requirement of philosophical introspection about one’s own presuppositions and the actions one performs (methodological reflexivity) is intertwined with the requirement of scepticism about representation (radical referential reflexivity). Due to this intertwinement, when historical theory requires introspection, it determines the result of introspection as well: historians provide representations while they have to subscribe to the theoretical position of being sceptical about it. In other words, in the name of reflexivity historical theory offers the result of its own inquiries into the nature of historical writing as a criterion of good historical practice. This essay argues against the notion of reflexivity as familiarity with historical theory and regards reflexivity as a literary device – not as a matter of necessity but as a matter of choice. As a literary device, reflexivity is neither a necessary feature of performing good historical practice, nor an attachment to any theory. Due to its indifference to epistemological, ontological, or other philosophical concerns, reflexivity as a literary device does not oppose any particular historical theory, but, as a consequence, it deprives every historical theory of its ambition and objective to measure and transform historical practice. Finally, it is important to point out that the essay is not an argument against historical theory and its insights into the nature of the entire historical enterprise, but an argument against unjustifiably high ambitions.

• Details
• Contents