The following is a post discussing the term "historiography", written for a class, but an interesting topic., especially considering the taste and nerdiness of my readership.

Historiography, by its definition on Dictionary.com, refers to A. The principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation; B. The writing of history based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials and composition of these materials into a narrative subject to scholarly methods of criticism; and/or C. A body of historical literature.

Now in this definition, historiography and objectivity must go hand in hand, based on the fact that it purports to be scholarly and authentic. But let us take, for example, our sorted history of feelings about Christopher Columbus. According to the authentic first-hand accounts written by many of the "whites" who were on the voyage and made it to the "New World" for the first time, Columbus was a hero, to be held high on a pedestal. But to the "Indians", Columbus was a n intrusive barbarian who destroyed their land, culture and people. These two perspectives both stem from authentic primary sources, so how do we choose what to believe?

That is where our written history plays into our current culture. Continuing with the example above, the American school system has for years on end chosen to support the former of the two perspectives. It is only in the present that curricula are even acknowledging another perspective.

So objectivity becomes a concern for both the recorder and the receiver of the written communication. We will look at another example. The political arena, although we try to show it as a fair and open system, is strictly as we know a bipartite system. When a Republican representative says or writes something, that may be far-fetched or even inane, Republican citizens will tend to buy into it, because they identify with the source, and most likely are “hearing what they want to hear”. On the other hand, Democratic citizens and officials will be the ones to question every word, idea, and even spelling put out by the opposition. This obviously works vise-versa as well.

At this point, perception becomes reality. What I perceived to have happened in an event, based on what I read and hear about it, is what I will consider to be the reality of the situation. Which means that every single person’s truth and reality is different from the next’s. This can even vary for primary sources, as we saw in the Columbus example.

Relating back to the Worthen discussion of Peter Holland's writing in which he states that Holland confronts the issue of the academy as an "institutional structure" where there is a tension between "the logic of facts, and the generalizing power of narrative that represents and inevitably falsifies them", I would have to agree with Holland. As seen in the Columbus curricula example above, and in another example: Creation vs. Evolution. The institution that is public education has taken this argument/conflict of theories beyond the point of education. Many schools are so scared of offending parents that they skip over the theory of Creation, and would not even think about teaching any other religions’ theories. The imbedded power and credibility of an American academic institution supports anything that the student is taught, and does not encourage that student to do further research and decide for his/herself what is “true” to him/her.

Based on the issues discussed, I believe that a historiography can be most related to its third definition, C. A body of historical literature. This is because it is through reading of literature, including fiction, non-fiction, theater, etc., that a modern day reader would best be able to assimilate his or her own perspective on the culture and events of the past; without having to question the objectivity of the source nor his/herself, he/she would be creating his/her own truth and reality based on those writings.