单选题 Most of us raised to think about history in the traditional way would read an account of a Revolutionary War battle written by an American historian in 1944 and ask, if we asked anything at all, "Is this account accurate?" or "What does this battle tell us about the 'the spirit of the age' in which it was fought?" In contrast, a new historicist would read the same account of that battle and ask, "What does this account tell us about the political agendas and ideological conflicts of the culture that produced and read the account in 1944?" New historical interest in the battle itself would produce such questions as, "At the time in which it was fought, how was this battle represented(in newspapers, magazines, tracts, government documents, stories, speeches, drawings, and photographs)by the American colonies or by Britain(or by European countries), and what do these representations tell us about how the American Revolution shaped and was shaped by the cultures that represented it?" As you can see, the questions asked by traditional historians and by new historicists are quite different, and that's because these two approaches to history are based on very different views of what history is and how we can know it. Traditional historians ask, "What happened?" and "What does the event tell us about history?" In contrast, new historicists ask, "How has the event been interpreted?" and "What do the interpretations tell us about he interpreters?" For most traditional historians, history is a series of events that have a linear, causal relationship: event A caused event B; event B caused event C; and so on. Furthermore, they believe we are perfectly capable, through objective analysis, of uncovering the facts about historical events, and those facts can sometimes reveal the spirit of the age, that is, the world view held by the culture to which those facts refer. Indeed, some of the most popular traditional historical accounts have offered a key concept that would explain the world view of a given historical population, such as the Renaissance notion of the Great Chain of Being the cosmic hierarchy of creation, with God at the top of the ladder, human beings at the middle, and the lowliest creatures at the bottom—which has been used to argue that the guiding spirit of Elizabethan culture was a belief in the importance of order in all domains of human life. You can see this aspect of the traditional approach in history classed that study past events in terms of the spirit of an age, such as the Age Reason or the Age of Enlightenment, and you can see it in literature classes that study literary works in terms of historical periods, such as the Neoclassical, Romantic, or Modernist periods. Finally, traditional historians generally believe that history is progressive, that the human species is improving over the source of time, advancing in its moral, cultural, and technological accomplishments. New historicists, in contrast, don't believe we have clear access to any but he most basic facts of history. We can know, for example, that George Washington was the first American president and that Napoleon was defeated Waterloo. But our understanding of what such facts mean, of how they fit within the complex web of competing ideologies and conflicting social, political, and cultural agendas of the time and place in which they occurred is, for new historicists, strictly a matter of interpretation, not fact. Even when traditional historians believe they are sticking to the facts, the way they contextualize those facts(including which facts are deemed important enough to report and which are left out)determines what story those facts will tell. From this perspective, there is no such thing as a presentation of facts; there is only interpretation. Furthermore, new historicists argue that reliable interpretations are, for a number of reasons, difficult to produce. The first and most important reason for this difficulty, new historicists believe, is the impossibility of objective analysis. Like all human beings, historians live in a particular time and place, and their views of both current and past events are influenced in innumerable conscious and unconscious ways by their own experience within their own culture. Historians may believe they're objective, but their own views of what is right and wrong, what is civilized and uncivilized, what is important and unimportant, an the like, will strongly influence the ways in which they interpret events. For example, the traditional view that history is progressive is based on the belief, held in past by many Anglo-European historians, that the sol-called "primitive" cultures of native peoples are less evolved than, and therefore inferior to, the so-called "civilized" Anglo-European cultures. As a result, ancient cultures with highly developed art forms, ethical codes, and spiritual philosophies, such as the tribal cultures of Native Americans and Africans, were often misrepresented as lawless, superstitious, and savage. Another reason for the difficulty in producing reliable interpretations of history is its complexity. For new historicists, history cannot be understood simply as a linear progression of events. At any given point in history, any given culture may be progressing in some areas and regressing in other. And any two historians may disagree about what constitutes progress and what doesn't, for these terms are matters of definition. That is, history isn't an orderly parade into a continually improving future, as many traditional historians have believed. It's more like an improvised dance consisting of an infinite variety of steps, following any new route at any given moment, and having no particular goal or destination. Individuals and groups may have goals, but human history does not. Similarly, while events certainly have causes, new historicists argue that those causes are usually all multiple, complex, and difficult to analyze. One cannot make simple causal statements with any certainty. In addition, causality is not a one-way street from cause to effect. Any given event whether it be a political election or a children's cartoon show is a product of its culture, but it also affects that culture in return. In other words, all events including everything from the creation of an art work, to televised murder thai, to the persistence of or change in the condition of the poor are shaped by and shape the culture in which they emerge. In a similar manner, our subjectivity, or selfhood, is shaped by and shapes the culture into which we were born. For most new historicists, our individual identity is not merely a product of society. Neither is it merely a product of our own individual will and desire. Instead, individual identity and its cultural milieu inhabit, reflect, and define each other. Their relationship is mutually constitutive(they create each other)and dynamically unstable. Thus, the old argument between determinism and free will can't be settled because it rests on the wrong question: "Is human identity socially determined or are human beings free agents?" For new historicism, this question cannot be answered because it involves a choice between two entities that are not wholly separate. Rather, the proper question is, "What are the processes by which individual identity and social formations—such as political, educational, legal, and religious institutions and ideologies—create, promote, change each other?" For every society constrains individual thought and action within a network of cultural limitations while it simultaneously enables individuals to think and act. Our subjectivity, than, is a lifelong process of negotiating our way, consciously and unconsciously, among the constraints and freedoms offered, at any given moment in time, by the society in which we live. Thus, according to new historicists, poser does not emanate from the top of the political and socioeconomic structure. According to French philosopher Michel Foucault, whose ideas have strongly influenced the development of new historicism, power circulates in all directions, to and from mall social levels, at all time. And the vehicle by which power circulates is a never-ending proliferation of exchange(1)the exchange of material goods through such practices as buying and selling, bartering, gambling, taxation, charity, and various forms of theft;(2)the exchange of people through such institutions as marriage, adoptions, kidnapping, and slavery; and(3)the exchange of ideas through the various discourses a culture produces. A discourse is a social language created by particular cultural conditions at a particular time and place, and it expresses a particular way of understanding human experience. For example, you may be familiar with the discourse of white supremacy, the discourse of ecological awareness, the discourse of Christian fundamentalism, and the'like. Although the word discourse has roughly the same meaning as the word ideology, and the two words are often used interchangeably, the word discourse draws attention to the role of language as the vehicle of ideology. From a new historicist perspective, no discourse, by itself, can adequately explain the complex cultural dynamics of social power. For there is no monolithic(single, unified, universal)spirit of an age, and there is no adequate totalizing explanation of history(an explanation that provides a single key to all aspects of a given culture). There is, instead, a dynamic unstable interplay among discourses: they are always in a state of flux, overlapping and competing with one another(or, to use new historical terminology, negotiating exchanges of power)in any number of ways at any given point in time. Furthermore, no discourse is permanent. Discourses wield power for those in charge, but they also stimulate opposition to that power. This is one reason why new historicists believe that the relationship between individual identity and society is mutually constitutive: on the whole, human beings are never merely victims of an oppressive society, for they can find various ways to oppose authority in their personal and public live. For new historians, even the dictator of a small country doesn't wield absolute power on his own. To maintain dominance, his power must circulate in numerous discourses, for example, in the discourse of religion(which can promote belief in the "divine right" of kings or in God's love of hierarchical society), in the discourse of science(which can support the reigning elite in terms of a theory of Darwinian "survival of the fittest"), in the discourse of fashion(which can promote the popularity of leaders by promoting copycat attire, as we saw when Hehru jackets wee popular and when the fashion world copied the style of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy), in the discourse of the law(which can make it treasonous offense to disagree with a ruler's decisions), and so on. As these examples suggest, what is "right", "natural," and "normal" are matters of definition. Thus, in different cultures at different points in history, homosexuality has been deemed abnormal, normal, criminal, or admirable. The same can be said of incest, cannibalism, and women's desire for political equality. In fact, Michel Foucault ahs suggested that all definitions of "insanity, crime", and sexual "perversion" are social constructs by means of which ruling powers maintain their control. We accept these definitions as "natural" only because they are so ingrained in our culture.Justas definitions of social and anti-social behavior promote the power of certain individuals and groups, so do particular versions of historical events. Certainly, the whitewashing of General Guster's new infamous military campaigns against Native Americans served the desire of the white American power structure of his day to obliterate Native American peoples so that the government could seize their lands. And that same whitewashing continued to serve the white American power structure for many a decade beyond Guster's time, for even those who had knowledge of Guster's misdeeds deemed it unwise to air America's dirty historical laundry, even in front of Americans. Analogously, had the Nazi won World War II, we would all be reading a very different account of the war, and of the genocide of millions of Jews, than the accounts we read in American history books today. Thus, new historicism views historical accounts as narrative, as stories, that are inevitably biased according to the point of view, conscious or unconscious, of those who them .The more unaware historians are of their biases that is, the more "objective" they think they are the more those biases are able to control their narratives. Tell whether the following statements are True or False according to the text. Write True or False only.

单选题 When reading an account of a historical event in a traditional way, we are always concerned with the accuracy of the account of that event.

单选题 When reading an account of a historical event, new historicists show their interest not only in the accuracy of the account of that event but also in the way in which that event was represented.

单选题 Traditional historians and new historicists have different views of history because their approaches to history are different.

单选题 To new historicists, interpretations of a historical event always vary with the interpreters.

单选题 Traditional historians believe that we can analyze historical events objectively.

单选题 A history class that studies past events in terms of the spirit of an age sees history as a series of events that have a causal relationship.

单选题 New historicists believe that nothing of history is accessible.

单选题 Traditional historians believe that there is no presentation but only interpretation of facts.

单选题 New historicists believe that the distinction between "primitive" cultures and "civilized" cultures is a matter of interpretation.

单选题 Many traditional historians believe that human history has no goal because history is not an orderly parade into a continually improving future.

单选题 Traditional historians believe that all events are influenced by an influence the culture in which they occur.

单选题 New historicists believe that the individual can shape and is always shaped by the society in which he lives.

单选题 New historicists believe that power circulates in exchanges of material goods, people, and ideas.

单选题 New historicists believe that discourses can produce power and opposition to power.

单选题 New historicists believe that nobody but the dictator of a small country can wield absolute power on his own.

单选题 New historicists believe that nothing can be permanently normal and absolutely right.

单选题 New historicists see historical accounts as narrative because no account of a historical event can be absolutely objective.