Secondary Literature > Secondary Sources

Historians’ accounts are usually termed ‘secondary sources’, in order to distinguish them from the ‘primary’ source material upon which they are based. However, ‘secondary source’ is not an entirely satisfactory term. It suggests a hierarchy of importance, with ‘secondary’ writings ranking less highly than ‘primary’ sources. This can lead the unwary student into assuming that primary sources must somehow be more accurate or reliable. In fact, primary source material may tell us relatively little until a historian has been able to explain what it is and how it fits into its wider context.

Although ‘secondary’ may not be an entirely appropriate term, ‘source’ is absolutely right. Historical writing is as much a reflection of its author and its time as any other writing. It can be ‘secondary’ material for the period it describes but also ‘primary’ evidence of the time when it was written. It is also reflects the personality and concerns of the historian: the selection of material and choice of language mould the past to reflect the historian’s particular vision and outlook. Different audiences can interpret historical writing in very different ways. The highly subjective nature of the process of writing history - selecting the material, constructing the argument and choosing the language in which to communicate it - and the equally subjective process of reading history have led postmodernist scholars to declare the writing of history largely a pointless task, at least insofar as it makes any claim to objectivity or accuracy. Historians have responded robustly to this attack on their profession: after all, the logic of the postmodernist case would undermine the writing of any ‘factual’ writing by anyone (certainly, as historians of science have pointed out, much the same accusations of subjectivity can be made against scientists). Indeed, it would be very difficult to conceive of what an entirely objective historical account might look like, for even the most apparently neutral and factual account, such as one might see in an encyclopedia, carries its own interpretation which others might contest, as the original designers of Wikipedia, to name but one example, clearly understood!

Hidden Meanings of Historical Writing >>