Biography as a Source and a Methodology in Humanities Research
01/10/2019 Views : 820
I NYOMAN WIJAYA
|
page 238—252
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jurnal-humaniora https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.v31i3.47412
Biography as a Source and
a Methodology in Humanities Research
I Nyoman Wijaya
Department of of History, Faculty
of Arts, Universitas Udayana, Indonesia Email: iwijayastsp@yahoo.co.id
ABSTRACT
This study discusses whether biography can
function as a source and a methodology in humanities research. By taking biography as a source,
humanities researchers can use a collection of biographical facts
as research material or writing resource. Meanwhile,
by taking biography as a methodology, they can apply a scientific approach to biography through their research. This is
not a simple issue; thoughts on biography that emerged during the 1980s have been unable
to adapt themselves to the emergence of post-structuralist approaches, while the scientific biography approach
that emerged in the 1990s has similarly proven unable to adapt. Therefore, it is necessary
to hold a congress to develop a contemporary biographical approach that
can accommodate the influence of post- modernism [beyond modernism] and post-structuralism [beyond
structuralism] in humanities research. To further
this goal, this article attempts to provoke some preliminary thoughts by
revealing the weaknesses of previous biography methodologies before offering
alternative ideas that borrow from relevant post-structuralist theories.
Keywords:
biography,
source, methodology, post-modernism, post-structuralism
INTRODUCTION
This study examines the function of biography as a source and a methodology in the
researches of humanities, including language,
art, literature, history, culture, philosophy, and literature. Each
field has its own methods, theories, and research
methodology. However, all still require biography as a tool for obtaining sources [material]
and enriching their research methodologies. Biography, thus, has a special
position. A search for the keywords “Ilmu-Ilmu
Humaniora dan Biografi” in Google Scholar (March 8, 2019) returned 1,370
results in 0.09 seconds; none, however, specifically included that topic.
Nonetheless, the idea of reconciling biography and the humanities in a single
‘unit’ needs further
exploration; as both take humans as their objects of study, they may intersect. Such meeting
points are particularly evident, for example, when the topic of the biography is a scholar of the humanities.
Take, for example, the intellectual biography of I
Gusti Ngurah Bagus (2012), an anthropology professor who explored not only
language, art, literature, history, culture, and philosophy, but also religion
and politics. This biography included many of his research results, and as such
humanities scholars seeking research sources
or materials will find this book very useful. By integrating the methodology of
intellectual history with the methodology of biography (Kuntowijoyo, 2003: 203– 217), this book is not only able to present how its subject became a professor, but also his thoughts and his findings (both before and after his
professorship). Furthermore, the ‘entry point’ approach used in the writing of
this book managed to place its subject within the context of larger historical events and social,
cultural, and economic conditions. As such, one can gain
insight into the subject’s research methods, either through
the interviews or the bibliography. Despite a number of editing weaknesses,
the book not only provides a resource for humanities
scholars, but offers them inspiration.
This article,
however, has no pretension
of discussing the facts and the methodologies of the book.
It is not a book review. Rather, this
article attempts to answer
the bigger question of whether biography is capable of functioning as both a source and a
methodology in humanities research. This issue is particularly important given the significant changes
that have occurred in the humanities since the emergence of post-modernism
(Neuman, 2017: 132–137) and post-structuralism (Aur, 2006: 145–162). Seeking to address the weaknesses of
modernism and structuralism, scholars such as Michael Foucault, Roland Barthes,
and Jacques Derrida sought to radicalize and
transform structuralism into post-
structuralism. They problematized the position of
humanity in structuralism, which marginalized the subject
and replaced it with structures. Post-structuralism accepts
that there is no reality in humanity except language (meaning) while
radicalizing the concept of structure. Structures exist, but they
are never constant and arbitrarily
change the course of history (Adiwijaya, 2011:
810).
Among these thinkers, Barthes
stands out with his
idea of the “death of the author”.
It holds that there is no
authentic meaning; everything is a matter
of interpretation of interpretation of interpretation (ad infinitum). Meaning flows without boundaries, and
everyone is an author (interpreter). If everyone
is an author (interpreter), this is
equivalent to the death of the author. One important point through which phenomenology criticizes structuralism in
linguistics is language itself; phenomenological research into language has shown that
human meaning cannot always be expressed through language (Adiwijaya, 2011: 810).
Within the context of history as a
science, the rise of post-structuralism since the 1980s has created political biography’s single largest crisis.
Biography has seemingly been
unable to describe and explain the lives of its research
subjects, as its delineations of its research subjects’ lives with specific origins, logics, purposes, and outcomes to create singular objective identities that can
be described chronologically now appear
to be imaginary creations by writers relying on a form that began in
the 19th century. Such biographies, some have argued, are more fiction than
history (Ferres, 303–305; Bourdieu, 1986: 69–70; Shaffer in Riall, 2010: 375–397).
Historians should understand this
criticism so that they are aware of the importance of replacing the classical method, which tended to apply modernist
approaches that were tacitly supported
by structuralism. Such approaches and theories are no longer relevant to
the needs of the humanities, which has fundamentally transformed through the growing influence of post- modernism and post-structuralism. Historians should start borrowing from these approaches and theories. In this article,
we focus on the works of Bourdieu, hoping to lay guidelines for biographical works that can better explain the life dynamics of their subjects
without separating the objective and subjective structures that shaped their
lives. In doing so, this
article seeks to answer the following research
questions: (i) Why are the approaches and theories of the old model of biography no longer relevant, and why should they be supplemented by a post-modernism and post-structuralism (particularly Bourdieu’s model)?;
(ii) How can Bourdieu’s model of post-structuralism be implemented as a useful
source and methodology for writing biographies as part of humanities
research?
Supporting the research questions
is the argument that a biography cannot come into being before readers
until someone writes it. The approach and theory used by this writer determines
the biography’s manifestation. Of course,
there is no guarantee that a Bourdieuan model of post-modernism and post-structuralism can provide a new
framework for reconstructing the past experiences of research subjects, even
when nothing remains but memories (Budiawan, 2010;
Darian-Smith and Hamilton, 1994). Biography writers who
are capable of using Bourdieu’s model to reconstruct the past experiences of
their subjects can,
however, confirm the
model’s potential to more comprehensively explore
subjects’ experiences than possible under the old model.
Departing from this argument, this article seeks to
produce stronger guidelines for biography writing.
Doing so will not only enable biography to play a bigger role in
humanities research, but also transform the paradigms of authors and journalists and create new possibilities for
historians.
DISCUSSION
Methodology of History
and the Old Model of Biographical Thinking
In principle, the methodology of historical research
always changes. Carr (1961), in his book What is History, wrote “the more historical sociology becomes and the more
sociological history becomes,
the better”. This statement
shocked historians around the world.
It is from this point that social history, a methodology
favored by American historians,
began, as shown by the body of research that
emerged between 1958
and 1978. The
trajectory of social
history was influenced
by Marxism and the Annales School, as explored below (based on Hunt, 1989:
1–9). French historians of the third
Annales generation (including Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie and Pierre
Goubert) were prime
drivers of social
history and economic
history. These models soon replaced biography and the history
of religion in the very
conventional journal Revue historique. Between 1965–1984, the number of writings applying
of social history or economic
history approach in French Historical Studies, a famed
American journal, almost
doubled (increasing from 24% to 46%).
In the 1980s, social history began
to face stiff competition. At the time, the Marxist and Annales Schools began to take an interest in
Cultural History. This can be seen in Thompson’s “The Making of the English
Working Class”, in which he rejects the metaphor of Marx’s basis–superstructure, which decisively connects
socio-economic conditions with the superstructure, and focuses more on cultural
and moral mediations.
Soon, cultural history was a significant challenge to the old model of history used by Annales. Although economic, social, and demographic histories still
dominated the journal (being used in more than half of articles published
between 1965 and 1984), intellectual and cultural history came second (35% of
articles); for comparison, only 10–14% of articles applied a political history
model.
The fourth generation
Related Article