You know, I’m beginning to love Simon Schama’s work. I’ve read Dead Certainties, and watched all of his History of Britain across two weeks or so, recently. The most fascinating thing about his histories though, is not the content – although it is fascinating; he tells a ripping good story – but Schama himself. Little slips, about his Jewishness, or comments on not being supposed to talk about Marxist concepts following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, little asides like ‘was this not admirable, Michel Foucault?’ when discussing the history of asylums on p.99 of Dead Certainties, the BBC lecture on history and television that is included with the series, the short promo film of him – in his study presumably – explaining his motivation for doing the History of Britain… all of these things are not directed at other scholars.
To be sure, his conception of what he is doing comes from the highest scholarly rigour, but they are communicated as a public conversation. Historians don’t have a monopoly on history. For better or worse, we all make use of history in our day to day decisions. And this is what he wants to address. That is, history is profoundly moral, and political.
This isn’t a conservative agenda. Nor is it necessarily what is frequently called progressive. If you watch, read or listen to his work, you’ll notice that he frequently selects several conflicting accounts of the same events. This isn’t new, as anybody who has read the four gospels telling the story of Jesus’ life can attest. The point is to, I think, on the one hand, acknowledge the possibility of different view points, and that no one necessarily has a monopoly on the correct story. On the other hand, it opens the possibility of, in fact almost forces you to, use your own mind and make your own decision, one that might be different from the one you may have made prior to listening to him. And that, I think, is worth listening to.
If you like a good story, read Dead Certainties; if you like history done well, his History of Britain is well worth the read, watch or listen (you can get it on DVD, on CD, or as a book). He’s got other series as well, which I haven’t got around to yet, but now I think I will.
Filed under: Foucault, Historiography, books, cinema, experiences, history, literature, media , A History of Britain, Dead Certainties, Historiography, history, Simon Schama
haha – sim & i got the DVD britain series for christmas… we’re still going but i too have a growing affection for schama. he is actually quite entertaining, perfect tour guide. (The dvds are my attempt to learn whole of british history b4 trip with my family this yr, -parents returning to england for 1st time in about 30 yrs, meet our extended family etc.)
But one thing i notice sometimes in the docs, is that schama’s “asides” often relate to what he was taught etc. But since I didn’t grow up in britain and learn british history at school and have very little idea what the official version is, i don’t get these (or i see them but recognise i’m on the outside of them).
It’s fun, isn’t it?
I think nearly all his asides are usually something to do with him – I think even the cover design bears this out; it is very much SIMON SCHAMA’S History of Britain. I think he explains it in one or other of the interviews on the 6th disc as well.
But it does give put the question to you – why would British history relate to me? What history does relate to me? etc. Also, his putting the project down to political and ethical motivations also makes you wonder about the relation of these; not a theme unfamiliar to Derrida…
hmm, I’ll have a look for that interview and watch it at the end. sounds interesting
[...] And this is what he wants to address. That is, history is profoundly moral, and political. (schama, schama, schama; [...]