Is an Empirical Approach Good or Bad?
Empiricism...Good or Bad?
Before one begins
to accumulate, research, and apply documentation, it is crucial to discuss the
lens in which the documentation is to be viewed. Documentation makes up the
majority of the foundation of Living History for, without it, Living History is
simply playing ‘dress up’ with much vigour.
Empiricism arose
during the enlightenment era, and was an attempt at solving the epistemological
arguments, ‘What is it to know something? What do we really know and how do we
know that?’ As Anna Green and Kathleen Troup state, ‘Empiricism is both a
theory of knowledge, an epistemology, and a method of historical enquiry.’[1]
You may be wondering why I am speaking of epistemology in a paper on Living
History, but, I assure you, there is a method to my madness. The link between
epistemology and Living History occurs in the concept of Documentation.
Documentation is that which shows that the action a
practitioner of Living History is performing, the garment they are wearing, or
the device they are using is authentic and in fact documented. The obvious
benefit of an empirical approach is that grounded conclusions based on primary
research are more valid than mere speculative hypotheses of historical fact. If
an empirical approach was completely taken out of the equation of Living
History, an individual could simply wear or use an item because it looks the
part, or, they saw it in a movie once. Without an empirical approach, Living
History then turns into a well-meaning cosplay.
This approach also
gives a stronger basis for one’s stance as, for example, a historical re-enactor.
As a practitioner of this hobby, I can say with confidence that various members
of public will ask the re-enactor how they got their information, or how
accurate their information is. Without an empirical approach, the re-enactor’s
argument is purely subjective without any supported evidence from modern
research or authentic documents; the re-enactor then begins to look quite
silly. Most members of the public probably do not want to hear the following
conversation take place:
Member of Public: Why are your tunics knee length? Was there a time in which they were shorter or longer than that? I was just wondering how you guys research what you do.
Re-enactor: I am wearing this knee length tunic because I thought it looks cool and looks like it comes from our period.
Member of Public: Um…ok… what do you guys research and how do you apply it?
Re-enactor: What I am wearing is self-evidently true. It just, you know, looks the part!
Member of Public: But why is it ‘the part’?
Re-enactor: Because I think it is and because I say so… also because you can see this style in Lord of the Rings and occasionally in Game of Thrones, and those look really cool and medieval.
One can see how pointless and silly the re-enactor’s position becomes without any form of empirical approach to their applied Living History. However, the majority of the public would enjoy a conversation of this sort:
Member of Public: Why are your tunics knee length? Was
there a time in which they were shorter or longer than that? I was just
wondering how you guys research what you do.
Re-enactor: There are various sources we use. One of
the most common used sources for our period is the Maciejowski Bible or the Mac
Bible for short. It was finished in the early 13th century, although
when it first began to be written is not formerly known, most likely at least a
decade earlier. What we do know, however, is that the majority of the tunics
worn in the manuscript were knee length, unless the individual was at a formal
event such as a feast for example. As for a time in which they were shorter or
longer, tunics tended to be shorter before the middle ages, with leggings that
resembled long pants. It was in the Middle Ages that the tunics became a bit
longer and the leggings became stocking like garments called ‘hoes’.
Member of Public: Ah, I see. So why is there a split
from the bottom hem almost up to the crotch of the tunics worn by men? Why
don’t the peasant tunics have this feature?
Re-enactor: This is simply because the nobles rode,
the peasants generally didn’t. If there is no split in the tunic, then wrapping
one’s legs around a horse to ride it could be quite problematic, particularly
in a battle. The split in the tunic made riding a horse much easier. Women
obviously don’t have this split and this is why noblewomen rode side-saddle. As
for peasants, they usually weren’t expected to ride, hence the difference in
the design of the tunics.
Member of Public: Where did you get the research for
those reasons you provided?
Reenactor: If you look at various manuscripts and
tapestries from our period, you can see that any man that is riding on
horseback has this same split in his tunic, and that the women are riding
side-saddle. If you consider the price for horses at this time, as much as a modern
sports car, the average peasant would not be able to afford nor need a horse.
Spot the
difference? The difference is significant! This is why a form of empirical
approach is important to Living History. While this approach is not strictly pure
scepticism – a form of philosophy that individuals like David Hume follow – for
this would get a re-enactor nowhere, it still holds some of the values of an
empirical approach to study and application.
However, almost every
approach (including empiricism) has its ups and downs; this is why it is crucial to be aware of
both. If one only focuses on an empirical approach and nothing else, this is
where it can become problematic. Of course an empirical approach is valuable
when it comes to focusing on the use of documentation, but only focusing on
documentation and nothing else can be detrimental to any historical reenactor.
The purely empirical approach can only use terms, objects, activities etc that
are specifically spoken of in the period or in modern research; in the purely
empirical approach, one can never assume anything.
How can this
potentially be a problem? I will show you; consider the below example:
Member of Public: Excuse me, are you alright?
Reenactor: I am not breathing because I can’t.
Member of Public: Oh my goodness! Wait right here, I
will call an ambulance!
Reenactor: No, it’s fine, I am just not allowed to
breathe while I am re-enacting.
Member of Public: Why is that?
Reenactor: Because no manuscripts from or modern
research about our period speak of the existence of oxygen, or that people
breathe and exhale every now and then. Therefore, if we were going to do it in
our display it would not be authentic.
See what I am
getting at? Of course one would think this is ridiculous, and even a reenactor
that claims to be purely empirical would see this conversation as foolish.
However, if one is consistently sceptical without any form of moderation (hence my point), then silly
conversations such as the one before would then appear. Here is another
example:
Member of Public: What year do you guys re-enact?
Reenactor: 1195.
Member of Public: What kinds of shields existed in
1195?
Reenactor: Heater shields
Member of Public: Were there any other kinds?
Reenactor: No.
Member of Public: Why not? How do you know?
Reenactor: Because we found a statue of a knight in
our period with a heater shield. Therefore, only heater shields existed in our
period.
In the first
example, the reenactor thought that everything that is not featured in
documentation cannot be allowed to be part of his/her living history display.
This tampered with their Living History display in a very obvious way. The
second example is the classic documentation vs logic argument; in my opinion,
documentation and logic need to be balanced. If one finds a statue of a knight
from one’s period that has a heater shield, one should conclude that heater
shields were available and maybe there might have been others, not that heater
shields were all that was available. However, one should not completely focus
on logic and forget about documentation either, as people in history did not
always act how we would define ‘logically’. The yugake gloves and metal
hand-covers in Japanese armour throughout Japan’s history were not very
effective forms of protection, but, instead of changing the design, they
remained relatively unchanged for centuries.[2]
However, one would
assume, most reasonably, that these conversations are utterly unnecessary and
take empirical scepticism too far. Yet these are the conclusions of a
consistently and exclusively sceptical and empirical approach. Of course,
though, there is a reason why these conversations do not usually happen. But
why is this so? To put it simply, every one of us begins with assumptions that
are unprovable through the demands of reason, the need to satisfy a purely
sceptical mindset (if such a thing is possible); this is how we can come to
make any form of understanding about our world. I would say that, for example,
individuals in England breathed oxygen and not anything else. Can I really
prove through reason that this is correct without any form of doubt without
actually having been there? No. But, most of us would agree with this
assumption. Such, then, is the danger of slipping into a view that is
consistently sceptical and empirical.
The message is
clear: use aspects of an empirical approach, but not so much to the point that
it becomes detrimental to your applied Living History…and existence.
[1] Anna Green and Kathleen
Troup, The Houses of History: A critical
reader in twentieth-century history and theory (New York, NY: New York
University Press, 1999), 1.
[2] ‘It was neither flexible nor comfortable and provided only limited protection, but it remained unchanged for centuries.’ Anthony Bryant, Warrior Series: Samurai 1550-1600. (London, UK: Osprey, 1994).
Comments
Post a Comment