Tarih Disiplinine Postmodernist Yaklaşım

Öz

Postmodernist tarih yaklaşımı, tarihçiler ve tarih eğitimcileri arasında en az bilinen tarih yazım türlerinden birisidir. Tarihçilerin ve tarih eğitimcilerinin historiografyadaki postmodernist akımını daha iyi anlamalarını amaçlayan bu makale, tarih disiplininin temel özelliklerini ve tarihsel gelişimini kısaca özetleyerek, postmodernist historiografyanın konseptüel temellerini, metodlarını, başlıca kavramlarını, argümanlarını ve ideolojik özelliklerini ana hatlarıyla açıklamaktadır. Değişik tarih ekollerinin temsilcileri tarafından postmodernist yaklaşıma karşı ileri sürülen temel eleştiriler ve argümanlar da ayrıntılarıyla sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Historiografya, Tarih Felsefesi, Tarih Eğitimi, Postmodernizm

Postmodernist Approach to the Discipline of History

Öz

The postmodernist approach to history is one of the least known modes of historical writing among historians and history educators. Aiming to enhance historians’ and history educators’ understanding of the postmodern challenge to the discipline of history, this article first presents an overview of the basic features of history and its historical trajectory as a discipline. It then explains postmodernist historiography’s conceptual underpinnings, methods, principal concepts, and ideological positions. It also maps out the key debates, criticisms, and arguments that historians of different historical orientations engaged in

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Historiography, Philosophy of History, History Education, Postmodernism

Kaynakça

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993), Benchmarks for Science Literacy: A Project 2061 Report,Oxford University Press: New York.
2. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000), “Developing and Acting upon One's Conception of the Nature of Science: A Follow-up Study”, Journal of Research in Sci- ence Teaching, 37(6), 563-581.
3. Berkhofer, R. (1995), Beyond the Great Story. History as Text and Discourse, Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
4. Breisach, E. (1994), Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Second Edition, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
5. Christianson, P. (1991), Patterns of Historical Interpretation, In W. J. Van Dussen, & L. Rubinoff (eds.), Objectivity, Method, and Point of View: Essays in the Philosophy of History, E. J. Brill: Leiden.
6. Cohen, S. (1999), Challenging Orthodoxies. Towards a New Cultural History of Education. Representation of History in the Linguistic Turn, Peter Lang: New York.
7. Evans, R. J. (2002), Prologue: What is history? –Now, In D. Cannadine (ed.) What is History Now, Palgrave Macmillan: New York .
8. Fuchs, E. (2002), Conception of Scientific History in the Nineteenth-century West, In Q. Edward Wang & G. Iggers (eds.) Turning Points in Historiography: A Cross Cultural Per- spective, Rochester Press: New York.

9. Gilderhus, M. T. (1987), History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction, Pren- tice-Hall: New Jersey.
10. Iggers, G. G. (1997), Historiography in the Twentieth Century. From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge,Wesleyan University Press: London.
11. Jenkins, K. (1991), Re-thinking History, Routledge: London.
12. Jenkins, K. (1997), Introduction: On Being Open about Our Closures, In K. Jenkins (ed.), The Postmodern History Reader,Routledge: New York.
13. Jenkins, K. (1999), Why History: Ethics and Postmodernity,Routledge: London.
14. Lee, P. J. (1983), “History Teaching and Philosophy of History”, History and Theory, 2(4), 19- 49.
15. Lee, P. & Ashby,R. (2000), Progression in Historical Understanding among Students Ages 7- 14, In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (eds.), Knowing, Teaching and Learning History: National and International Perspectives, New York University Press: New York.
16. Lemon, M. C. (2003), Philosophy of History, Routledge: London.
17. Lyotard, J. F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition, Manchester University Press: Manches- ter.
18. Lyotard, J. F. (1997), The Postmodern Condition. In K. Jenkins (ed.), The Postmodern His- tory Reader, Routledge: New York.
19. McCullagh, C. B. (1998), The Truth of History, Routledge: London.
20. Munslow, A. (1997), Deconstructing History, Routledge: London.
21. National Research Council (NRC) (1996), National Science Education Standards, National Academic Press: Washington.
22. Seixas, P. (2000), Schweigen Die Kinder or, Does Postmodern History Have a Place in the Schools, In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (eds.), Knowing, Teaching and Learn- ing History: National and International Perspectives, New York University Press: New York.
23. Seixas, P. (2001)., Review of Research on Social Studies, In V. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, American Educational Research Association: Washington.
24. Seixas, P. (2002), “Purposes of Teaching Canadian History”, Canadian Social Studies, 36 (2).
25. Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P. & Wineburg, S. (Eds.). (2000), Knowing, Teaching and Learning History: National and International Perspectives, New York University Press: New York.
26. Thompson, W. (2000), What Happened to History, Pluto Press: Sterling.
27. Tosh, J. (2002), The Pursuit of History, Third Edition, Pearson Education Limited: London.
28. Tosh, J. (2005), History and Historiography, Retrieved January 15, 2005 from Microsoft® Encarta® http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555707/History_and_ Historiog- raphy.html
29. White, H. (1987), The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Represen- tation, The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
30. Windschuttle, K. (2002), A critique of the Postmodern Turn in Western Historiography, In Q. Edward Wang, & G. Iggers (eds.), Turning Points in Historiography: A Cross Cultural Perspective, Rochester Press: New York.
31. Zagorin, P. (1997), Historiography and Postmodernism, In K. Jenkins (ed.), The Postmodern History Reader, Routledge: New York.
32. Zagorin, P. (1999), “History, the Referent, and Narrative: Reflections on Postmodernism Now”, History and Theory, 38(1), 1-24.