New Historicism

In studying the various ways to read and interpret Hamlet, our class came across the approach called "New Historicism."
First, I just want to put it out there that I am so phenomenally thrilled with the fact that my education in History throughout high school has been largely taught through a new historicist lens. Hopefully you'll see why shortly.

The history that is told in old, stuffy, leather-bounds books regarding, for example, "The Boer Wars" (or any number of wars or events, really) is largely traditionalist. Although there may be accounts of life from some diverse cultures, those who do not "win out"--be it economically, militarily, or socially--certainly do not get to write their own narrative. What you see and hear comes from the lens of the victor. How he (more frequently than "she" in traditionalist history) views the world from his moment on the high horse is the best way, and the only way, to see (and rarely analyze) life. In addition--and, for me, this is the real kicker--Traditionalist history would deem that there are known, indisputable truths in this world. To me, such a statement, robbing existence of its infinite ability to surprise and robbing humanity of its endless lenses and lifestyles, is unendurable and misinformed.

An idea that arose in the 1980's and gained much steam in the coming decades, however, was that of New Historicism, in which every culture is influenced to some extent by another, removing the idea of purity; every criticism contains elements of what it criticizes; concrete, universal, 100 per cent fact does not exist; and that influence occurs as much from the bottom of society-up as it does from the top-down, to the extent that neither can exist without the influence of the other.

I personally love this point of view. I think it is essential to the growth of social equality on this planet. I personally recommend shows like Anthony Bourdain No Reservations (in English, on the Travel Channel) and Taxi 022 (in French), which are both programs centered around an individual's views and explorations of the world around them. The former, centered around how food, culture, and history intertwine across the world, helps us interpret the world more openly. The latter, consisting of the philosophical ramblings of a working-class, unintentionally farcical Montreal taxi driver with a fiercely opinionated world view helps us learn from example about how we should/should not approach the world from our limited, provincial perspectives.

One of the things I look for in a person is that he/she does not take his/herself too seriously. If they have a fault, they can see it, accept it, understand it to an extent, and roll with the punches. They are open to change and accept that they do not have all the answers, while still being undeterred from trying to find these answers to life's many questions. I find that New Historicism, much unlike the rigid, frequently Westward-biased traditionalist history, would be such a person if it had two arms, two legs, human features, speech, etc. New Historicism acknowledges that, although I write a blog, I can both have criticisms of blogs and can be amused by others' criticisms of blogs. For example, Rogatien's rant on blogs in the Taxi 022 posted here and above, although ignorant of blogs used to record and document profound personal discoveries, reveals what many people think about the what he calls (translated) "the internet: democratization of the moron" and about blogs in specific, in which "someone has a boring, crap day and then--on top of that--comes home and tells us about it!" I, myself, know that my blogs have their weak points like Rogatien points out. I ramble, I'm fascinated by too many things at once, and sometimes I post things that most readers won't understand! (That's called static noise interference, by the way. Go broadcasting class!)

In any event, New Historicism is both at the forefront of the democratization of information (a new phenomenon) and the longtime evidence of power/influence of the people: see The French Revolution and Gandhi. What are your thoughts on how we interpret and transmit history? Am I blowing smoke? Is there really some truth that is easily identifiable for all people under all the eccentric mass that is Earth's inhabitants? Feel free to comment.