|
|
Traditionally, the study of history has had fixed boundaries and focal
points — periods, countries, dramatic events, and great leaders. It also has had
clear and firm notions of scholarly procedure: how one inquires into a
historical problem, how one presents and documents one’s findings, what
constitutes admissible and adequate proof.
Anyone who has followed recent historical literature can testify to the
revolution that is taking place in historical studies. The currently fashionable
subjects come directly from the sociology catalog: childhood, work, leisure. The
new subjects are accompanied by new methods. Where history once was primarily
narrative, it is now entirely analytic. The old questions “What happened?” and
“How did it happen?” have given way to the question “Why did it happen?”
Prominent among the methods used to answer the question “Why” is psychoanalysis,
and its use has given rise to psychohistory.
Psychohistory does not merely use psychological explanations in historical
contexts. Historians have always used such explanations when they were
appropriate and when there was sufficient evidence for them. But this pragmatic
use of psychology is not what psychohistorians intend. They are committed, not
just to psychology in general, but to Freudian psychoanalysis. This commitment
precludes a commitment to history as historians have always understood it.
Psychohistory derives its “facts” not from history, the detailed records of
events and their consequences, but from psychoanalysis of the individuals who
made history, and deduces its theories not from this or that instance in their
lives, but from a view of human nature that transcends history. It denies the
basic criterion of historical evidence: that evidence be publicly accessible to,
and therefore assessable by, all historians. And it violates the basic tenet of
historical method: that historians be alert to the negative instances that would
refute their theses. Psychohistorians, convinced of the absolute rightness of
their own theories, are also convinced that theirs is the “deepest” explanation
of any event, that other explanations fall short of the truth.
Psychohistory is not content to violate the discipline of history (in the
sense of the proper mode of studying and writing about the past); it also
violates the past itself. It denies to the past an integrity and will of its
own, in which people acted out of a variety of motives and in which events had a
multiplicity of causes and effects. It imposes upon the past the same
determinism that it imposes upon the present, thus robbing people and events of
their individuality and of their complexity. Instead of respecting the
particularity of the past, it assimilates all events, past and present, into a
single deterministic schema that is presumed to be true at all times and in all
circumstances.
1. Which of the following best states the main point of the text?
[A] The approach of psychohistorians to historical study is currently in
vogue even though it lacks the rigor and verifiability of traditional historical
method.
[B] Traditional historians can benefit from studying the techniques and
findings of psychohistorians.
[C] Areas of sociological study such as childhood and work are of little
interest to traditional historians.
[D] The psychological assessment of an individual’s behavior and attitudes
is more informative than the details of his or her daily life.
2. The author mentions which of the following as a characteristic of the
practice of psychohistorians?
[A] The lives of historical figures are presented in episodic rather than
narrative form.
[B] Archives used by psychohistorians to gather material are not accessible
to other scholars.
[C] Past and current events are all placed within the same deterministic
diagram.
[D] Events in the adult life of a historical figure are seen to be more
consequential than are those in the childhood of the figure.
3. The author of the text suggests that psychohistorians view history
primarily as
[A] a report of events, causes, and effects that is generally accepted by
historians but which is, for the most part, unverifiable.
[B] an episodic account that lacks cohesion because records of the role of
childhood, work, and leisure in the lives of historical figures are rare.
[C] an uncharted sea of seemingly unexplainable events that have meaning
only when examined as discrete units.
[D] a record the way in which a closed set of immutable psychological laws
seems to have shaped events.
4. The author of the text puts the word “deepest” (line 14, paragraph 3) in
quotation marks most probably in order to
[A] signal her reservations about the accuracy of psychohistorians’ claims
for their work.
[B] draw attention to a contradiction in the psychohistorians’ method.
[C] emphasize the major difference between the traditional historians’
method and that of psychohistorians.
[D] disassociate her opinion of the psychohistorians’ claims from her
opinion of their method.
5. In presenting her analysis, the author does all of the following
EXCEPT.
[A] Make general statements without reference to specific examples.
[B] Describe some of the criteria employed by traditional historians.
[C] Question the adequacy of the psychohistorians’ interpretation of
events.
[D] Point out inconsistencies in the psychohistorians’ application of their
methods. |
|
发表于 2017-8-6 14:08:18