“The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

“The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White first appeared in 1984 in History and Theory (Vol. 23, No. 1, February 1984, pp. 1-33). This seminal article addresses the role of narrative in the construction and understanding of historical knowledge, challenging the traditional view that narrative is a mere literary device unsuitable for scientific or empirical study. White argues that narrative plays a crucial role in shaping our perception of historical events, linking them together to create coherence and meaning. He suggests that the use of narrative is not merely a method of storytelling but is essential in shaping the way we understand and interpret history. The article is significant in literature and literary theory as it bridges the gap between historiography and narrative theory, highlighting that history, much like literature, constructs meaning through its form. White’s work has been instrumental in the development of postmodern and structuralist critiques of historiography, emphasizing that the historian’s choice of narrative structure influences the interpretation of events, thus positioning historical writing as a form of rhetoric rather than a purely objective recounting of facts.

Summary of “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

• Narrative as a Mode of Historical Representation
  White begins by addressing the intense debate surrounding the use of narrative in historical theory. He notes that while narration is universal and seemingly natural, its use in fields aspiring to scientific rigor is often viewed as problematic. White writes, “The continued use by historians of a narrative mode of representation is an index of a failure at once methodological and theoretical” (p. 1). For him, narrative should not be dismissed simply because it is literary; rather, it is an essential form for making sense of historical events.
• The Role of Narrativity in Historiography
  White argues that within historical studies, narrative is often seen as “a form of discourse” rather than a rigorous method or theory. He highlights that “narrative accounts of its subject matter as an end in itself” seem inadequate to those seeking scientific explanations of the past (p. 2). White contrasts narrative with other discursive forms like analysis or description, noting that the amount of narrative varies depending on whether the historian is trying to tell a story or analyze historical processes.
• The Problem of Objectivity in Historical Narrative
  White points out that one of the main critiques of narrative in historiography is that it imposes a structure on historical events, thus creating a “teleological account” of the past (p. 3). Historians who wish to transform their discipline into a science, he suggests, are concerned that the narrative form distorts historical reality by making it appear as if events unfold according to a preordained pattern.
• Fiction vs. History: The Distinction in Content
  White makes a critical distinction between fictional and historical narratives, noting that “what distinguishes ‘historical’ from ‘fictional’ stories is first and foremost their contents, rather than their form” (p. 4). He argues that while fictional stories are created by the author, historical stories are based on real events. However, the historian’s role is not simply to recount facts but to “find” the story within historical events, shaping them into a coherent narrative.
• Historical Explanation vs. Storytelling
  For White, the difference between explanation and storytelling is fundamental. He notes that traditional historical methods separate the narrative aspect from the explanatory one, with the latter typically seen as more important. “The historian’s dissertation was an interpretation of what he took to be the true story, while his narration was a representation of what he took to be the real story” (p. 7). White suggests that both aspects—narrative and explanation—are necessary for a complete understanding of history.
• Narrative and Ideology
  White discusses the ideological dimensions of narrative, noting that critics argue narrative imposes “mythical” or “ideological” structures on historical events. He explores how narrative history has been critiqued by scholars like the Annales School, who prefer structural and analytical approaches to history. “For the Annalistes, narrative history was simply the history of past politics,” a representation that distorts deeper, long-term social processes (p. 9).
• The Necessity of Narrative in Understanding History
  Despite these critiques, White argues that narrative is necessary for historiography because it helps us make sense of the past. He emphasizes that “the narrative historian, in effect, transforms the chronicle of events into a story” by imposing a structure that highlights causality, meaning, and purpose in historical events (p. 19). Without narrative, history risks becoming a mere list of events devoid of meaning.
• Historical Narrative as Allegory
  White concludes by suggesting that historical narratives should be understood as a kind of “allegory” that speaks to larger truths about human existence. He writes, “Narrative history can legitimately be regarded as something other than a scientific account of events” because it reveals the meaning of those events through its structure, much like literature (p. 21). Thus, narrative plays an essential role in shaping our understanding of history, even if it cannot claim the same objectivity as scientific explanation.
• The Relationship Between Narrative and Reality
  Finally, White asserts that narrative gives shape to historical reality by linking events into a coherent whole. He challenges the notion that narratives are purely ideological, instead proposing that “narrativization” is a way of understanding the complexity of human actions and their consequences (p. 27). For White, “the story told in a narrative is a ‘mimesis’ of the story lived in some region of historical reality” (p. 8), making narrative an essential tool for comprehending history.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Usage/Importance in the Article
Narrative	A mode of discourse that organizes events into a structured story.	White argues that narrative is a fundamental way in which historians organize and represent historical events, giving coherence and meaning to them.
Mimesis	The imitation or representation of reality in art or literature.	White suggests that narrative in historiography is a form of mimesis, as it seeks to mimic real historical events and give them a structured, coherent form.
Teleology	Explanation of phenomena by the purpose or end goal they serve.	White critiques the teleological aspect of historical narratives, arguing that they often impose a sense of purpose or destiny on past events, which may distort historical truth.
Emplotment	The process of arranging events into a plot to create a narrative.	Central to White’s argument, emplotment refers to how historians select and arrange events into a narrative structure, thereby shaping the interpretation of history.
Allegory	A symbolic narrative in which characters and events represent broader ideas.	White compares historical narratives to allegories, as they often present events in ways that suggest broader meanings or truths about human experience and society.
Chronicle	A factual account of events in chronological order without interpretation.	White distinguishes a chronicle from a narrative, noting that while a chronicle simply lists events, a narrative gives those events meaning by arranging them into a plot.
Dissertation	An analytical or explanatory mode of discourse, distinct from narrative.	White highlights the distinction between the narrative and dissertative aspects of historical writing, with the latter focused on analysis and explanation rather than storytelling.
Narrativity	The quality of having a structured story or narrative.	White explores how narrativity is inherent in historical writing, even when historians aim for objectivity, and how this shapes their representation of events.
Historiography	The study and writing of history, focusing on the methods and principles used.	White discusses historiography in terms of its narrative structure, questioning the assumption that historical writing can be purely factual and free from narrative influence.
Ideology	A system of ideas and ideals that influences how one perceives and represents reality.	White examines how narratives can serve as vehicles for ideology, shaping how historical events are interpreted and understood according to particular worldviews.
Fiction vs. History	The distinction between imaginary and real events in storytelling.	White explores the blurred lines between fiction and history, noting that while historical narratives claim to represent real events, they share structural similarities with fictional narratives.

Contribution of “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White to Literary Theory/Theories

• Postmodernism
• White’s work contributes to postmodern literary theory by challenging the assumption that historical narratives can provide an objective representation of the past. He asserts that “narrative history can legitimately be regarded as something other than a scientific account of events” (p. 21), positioning historical writing as inherently subjective and structured by narrative choices. This aligns with postmodern skepticism towards grand narratives and the notion of objective truth, emphasizing that all historical writing is interpretative, not merely descriptive.
• Structuralism
• White engages with structuralist ideas by emphasizing that narrative is not simply a neutral medium but a “code” that structures how historical events are interpreted and understood. He writes, “Narrative does not show, does not imitate… Its function is not to ‘represent,’ it is to constitute a spectacle” (p. 20). This aligns with structuralist thought, particularly Roland Barthes’ notion that narrative is a system of signs, not a transparent window to reality. White suggests that historical narratives function similarly to literary texts, organized by the same deep structures and patterns.
• Narratology
• White’s exploration of emplotment and narrativity contributes to narratology, the study of narrative structure. He argues that “emplotment” is central to historical writing, meaning that historians impose a plot on historical events, much like a novelist shapes a story (p. 19). White’s analysis of how events are turned into stories through narrative structures broadens narratological study beyond fiction, applying it to historiography. His work shows that narrative techniques such as chronology and causality are also present in historical texts, blurring the line between history and literature.
• Hermeneutics
• White’s notion of narrative as a form of “allegory” that interprets historical events aligns with hermeneutic theory, which is concerned with the interpretation of texts. He notes, “The story told in a narrative is a ‘mimesis’ of the story lived in some region of historical reality” (p. 8), suggesting that historical writing is a process of interpreting and reinterpreting events to give them meaning. This resonates with Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutic theory, where narrative plays a key role in the interpretation of human actions and the construction of meaning.
• New Historicism
• White’s critique of historical objectivity contributes to New Historicism by emphasizing that history is not a fixed, factual recounting but a narrative shaped by cultural and ideological influences. He argues that “the continued use by historians of a narrative mode of representation is an index of a failure… methodological and theoretical” (p. 1), challenging the belief that history can be separated from the historian’s interpretative framework. This idea supports New Historicism’s argument that historical texts are products of the cultural forces of their time and are not free from bias.
• Ideology and Literary Criticism
• White’s assertion that narrative “can be ideological” because it imposes a teleological structure on historical events (p. 3) contributes to the critique of ideology in literary theory. His work suggests that the way historians arrange and present events often reflects underlying ideological assumptions, much like how literary texts can reinforce or challenge dominant ideologies. This resonates with Marxist literary criticism, which examines how texts can reproduce or contest the social and political structures of their time.
• Deconstruction
• White’s exploration of the instability of meaning in historical narratives aligns with deconstructive theory. By emphasizing that historical writing is not a transparent reflection of events but a form of representation that shapes and constructs meaning, White deconstructs the notion of historical “truth.” His work echoes Derrida’s concept of the “play of signifiers,” where the meaning of a narrative is never fixed but constantly deferred through the narrative structures imposed upon it. White’s assertion that narrative history “says one thing and means another” (p. 22) parallels Derrida’s idea of textual meaning as always contingent and unstable.
• Fictionality in Historical Writing
• White bridges the gap between fiction and history by asserting that “what distinguishes ‘historical’ from ‘fictional’ stories is first and foremost their contents, rather than their form” (p. 4). This concept contributes to the debate around fictionality in historiography, questioning whether the distinction between historical and fictional narratives is as clear-cut as previously thought. His exploration of how historians use emplotment and figuration to give historical events meaning suggests that historical writing shares more with literary fiction than with objective science.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

Literary Work	White’s Concept Applied	Critique Example
George Orwell’s 1984	Ideology in Narrative	Orwell’s narrative can be critiqued as a form of ideological narrative that illustrates how totalitarian regimes construct historical narratives to serve their ideological purposes, much like White suggests narratives can be ideological forms.
Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace	Emplotment and Historical Fiction	White’s concept of emplotment can be used to critique how Tolstoy arranges historical events into a coherent plot, turning chaotic history into a narrative that appears orderly and meaningful, which White suggests is an artificial construction.
Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude	Myth and History	Through White’s lens, Márquez’s blending of myth and historical narrative challenges the distinction between fiction and history, illustrating how history itself can be mythologized, as White argues.
William Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!	Historical Consciousness and Narrative	Faulkner’s fragmented narrative structure can be analyzed through White’s argument about the instability of historical meaning, as the multiple perspectives reflect the difficulty of establishing a singular, coherent historical truth.

Criticism Against “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

• Overemphasis on the Literary Nature of History: Critics argue that White’s focus on the narrative structure of history risks reducing historical inquiry to the level of fiction, thereby undermining the factual basis of historical research. His assertion that historical writing is primarily emplotted like literary fiction downplays the importance of evidence, sources, and objectivity in historiography.
• Neglect of Historical Truth: White’s suggestion that narrative historiography is more about interpretation and structure than truth raises concerns about relativism. Critics believe this approach undermines the historian’s responsibility to present an accurate account of past events. They contend that factual accuracy and truthfulness are essential components of history, which White’s narrative focus de-emphasizes.
• Failure to Account for Causality: White is critiqued for not sufficiently addressing the importance of causality in history. His emphasis on emplotment and narrative forms leads to a lack of attention to the specific causes and effects that drive historical events. Some scholars argue that a deeper focus on causal relationships is necessary to understand historical phenomena, rather than framing history as simply a story.
• Relativism and the Danger of Ideological Bias: White’s view that all historical narratives are shaped by ideology and interpretation has been criticized for encouraging relativism. This can lead to the belief that all interpretations of history are equally valid, even those that may be biased or politically motivated. Critics argue that this opens the door to subjective manipulation of historical facts, as White does not provide clear criteria for evaluating the validity or reliability of different narratives.
• Dismissal of Historical Objectivity: White’s contention that historians cannot achieve objectivity has been challenged by traditional historians who argue that, while complete objectivity is difficult, historians can still strive for a more balanced and impartial representation of the past. Critics argue that White’s position undermines the value of critical methods that historians use to evaluate sources and aim for as much neutrality as possible.
• Oversimplification of Historical Discourse: Some scholars argue that White oversimplifies historical discourse by categorizing it alongside literary genres like tragedy or comedy. This framework, while useful for analyzing narrative techniques, is seen as insufficient for capturing the complexity of historical events and the myriad ways historians analyze them.
• Reduction of History to a Narrative Form: White’s insistence that all historical accounts are inherently narrative overlooks the possibility of other forms of historiography that do not rely on traditional storytelling. Quantitative history, annalistic history, or social-scientific approaches to history, which focus on data and trends rather than narratives, seem marginalized in White’s framework.
• Misunderstanding of Historical Practice: Historians have criticized White for having a limited understanding of the practical methodologies of historical research. His focus on the literary aspects of history ignores the rigor of source analysis, archival research, and the historian’s efforts to ground interpretations in solid evidence.

Representative Quotations from “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
1. “Narrative is a mode of verbal representation so seemingly natural to human consciousness…”	White argues that narrative is an inherent part of human communication and understanding, raising questions about its role in disciplines like history that aim for objectivity.
2. “The narrative historian… investigates its data in the interest of telling a story…”	White critiques historians for shaping facts into a story, suggesting that history is shaped by narrative choices rather than purely reflecting reality.
3. “The content of historical stories is real events, events that really happened, rather than imaginary events…”	White emphasizes that while the content of history is factual, the form it takes is shaped by narrative structures, much like fiction.
4. “Any narrative account of anything whatsoever is a teleological account…”	White suggests that narrative imposes a goal or direction on events, which often adds unintended ideological biases, questioning the neutrality of historical narratives.
5. “The form of the story told was supposed to be necessitated by the form of the story enacted…”	Here, White critiques the belief that historical events naturally fit into narrative forms, arguing instead that narratives are constructed, not inherent in the events.
6. “Narrative does not show, does not imitate. What happens is language alone, the adventure of language…”	Drawing on post-structuralist thought, White argues that narrative is a construct of language rather than a faithful reflection of reality, challenging the transparency of historical narratives.
7. “A given historical discourse might be factually accurate… and still be assessed as mistaken in its narrative aspect.”	White makes a distinction between the factual accuracy of a historical account and the narrative choices made, suggesting that an accurate history can still be misleading through its narrative form.
8. “In the physical sciences, narratives have no place at all, except as prefatory anecdotes…”	White contrasts history with science, arguing that scientific disciplines avoid narrative because it imposes unnecessary structure and teleology, which he finds problematic in historical writing.
9. “Historiography is ideological precisely insofar as it takes the characteristic form of its discourse…”	White asserts that narrative historiography often reflects ideological biases by treating narrative as a natural form rather than as a subjective interpretive choice.
10. “The historical narrative does not, as narrative, dispel false beliefs about the past…”	White argues that narrative history does not correct misconceptions about the past, but instead works within the constraints of narrative form, which may perpetuate certain myths or distortions.

Suggested Readings: “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

1. White, Hayden. “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory.” History and Theory, vol. 23, no. 1, 1984, pp. 1–33. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2504969. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
2. Vann, Richard T. “The Reception of Hayden White.” History and Theory, vol. 37, no. 2, 1998, pp. 143–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505462. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
3. Tamura, Eileen H. “Narrative History and Theory.” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, 2011, pp. 150–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41303866. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
4. Norman, Andrew P. “Telling It Like It Was: Historical Narratives on Their Own Terms.” History and Theory, vol. 30, no. 2, 1991, pp. 119–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2505536. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.