Approaches to Writing History

Although this description is correct, there are exceptions as both knowledge fields will help to understand the past and create the future; evidence is the essence of the two fields. History clearly evolved into a very important field. History is a collection of evidence left behind. Historians remove history from mainstream values. The drop in knowledge is obvious also in human and natural sciences. It is clear that both history and science have changed. At first it distorts to shape the facts into a traditional view, and it changes slowly with changes in society.

"Archeology" was used by Foucault to describe his writing history in the 1960s. Archeology is to investigate the traces and orders of words left in the past to write "current history". In other words, archeology regards history as one way to understand the process leading us today. Foucault's comments on the differences between archeology and genealogy are often quite vague and confusing. The tools Foucault uses to practice both methods are the same. However, if archeology deals with level differences and similarities that are simple organizational levels to create manageable forms of knowledge, the genealogy risk is much higher. Genealogy deals with the same basis of knowledge and culture, but Foucault now describes it as a level of reason for distinguishing between true and false through force mechanics.

When I started studying history at university I did not know much about the history of Europe and how to write historical articles. I see history from the point of genealogy and American family history. Thanks to an excellent teacher, I learned how to build effective historical arguments and master the importance of the history of contemporary Europe. In my teaching, my goal is to invoke the excitement of the same findings and outcomes that I felt when I entered the scene as a non-expert ten years ago.

Historical DA is a historical method of post-structuralist reading and writing, a conceptualizing model of history from a critical theoretical point of view. The historical DA is opposed to the objective paradox of the historical method of traditional positivists and regards the authority of historians as a neutral record of facts and the idea of ​​historical writing is objective re- We regard it as composition. According to the intention of the historical conceptualization method whose destruction is considered commonplace, the work of historical DA is not to find the truth about past events or to pinpoint the cause of past events. Therefore, past DA is not a methodology, but a post method methodology.