Document Type : Scientific-Research
Author
Associate Professor, Department of History and Civilization of Islamic Nations, University of Tehran, Tegran, Iran.
Abstract
The main claim of the present essay is that the most important scientific responsibility of historians, whether ancient or modern, is to provide a thick description of important events related to the human past. Some critics of this assertion have criticized it and raised objections to it; For example, the traditional, chronistic and positivist approach is promoted in the study of history. An approach that is no longer acceptable. promoting the double false stereotype of "description or analysis"; denying the use of methods and theories in historical research, promoting a neutral and indifferent approach to the current issues of human societies (theory of history for history) and...
In this essay, the author attempts to provide an appropriate response to these criticisms in addition to further explaining his claim, in order to take a step towards greater understanding among historians about the nature and main function of historiography. The author emphasizes that defending the main function of knowledge and the field of history is an attempt to prevent the decline and decay of this academic field within other areas of humanities and social sciences, especially the general sciences of sociology and politics. The way out of this critical situation is therefore to emphasize dense description as the most important disciplinary task of historians.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)