Reconstructing the Historical Methodology in Reading Texts: An Applied Study

Abstract

The crisis of the historical method and its methodological tools can be described as a tension between inherited traditional narratives, which tend toward a linear and centralized interpretation of events, and modern critical approaches that call for deconstructing historical texts and reading them as products of complex networks of discourses and forces. The epistemological dilemma lies in how to balance respecting the original historical material with subjecting it, at the same time, to multidisciplinary critical analysis tools. This allows for the production of historical knowledge that transcends bias and prejudice, opening horizons for a deeper understanding of historical texts. Based on the above, the historian can modify the methodological steps in analyzing historical texts and readjust and reorganize their study by reconstructing the problem rather than simply re-posing the issue. Within the framework of the traditional method, the problem in historical studies is presented as a question that focuses on the event or occurrence in an attempt to establish a certain truth by invoking evidence to prove that supposed truth. The central question in a study that relies on the traditional methodology is: Why did the event happen? What was the impact of that event on the historical context? However, when a historical text transforms into a discursive structure imbued with meanings, intentions, and linguistic acts within the context of the historical event, the problem posed must consider these meanings, intentions, and linguistic acts. Thus, the question shifts from "What happened?" to "How was what happened conceived and represented?" and "Why was it written in the sources in this way?" The problem, therefore, revolves not only around interpreting the historical event as expressed in the text, but also-and this is crucial-analyzing its meanings and the author's perceptions. Why was it written in this way? For which audience was it written? And with what linguistic and semiotic tools was it formulated?