Re-framing the Past: Framing as a Stance in the Writing of History

Abstract

This article brings the work of cultural theorist Mieke Bal and historian Hayden White into a conversation, inviting the reader to consider framing, re-framing, and un-framing as historiographical dispositions. The concept of framing was used as a substitute for context in cultural analysis. The article argues that the concept of framing could be adopted as a stance or could become one’s critical disposition in history writing, often coexisting, overlapping, and inseparable from context and contextualization. Time and chronology aren’t necessarily the only organizing principles in history. This is where context and contextualization come together in history writing and are inherently present within framing. History is never really free from context, but the concept of framing presents an opportunity to identify and enact the frames, putting the frames themselves to work. In framing differently, other contexts might emerge. The delicate balance between framing and context will continue to remain entangled in history writing, disrupting the way history tends to be written, and thus presenting an opportunity to really get beneath it, opening our own door to imagination.

Acknowledgments

I extend a sincere thank you to Dónal O’Donoghue for his guidance through the development of the article and the invitation to present a version of it at the Council for Policy Studies in Art Education annual meeting in March 2017, to Mary Ann Stankiewicz and Paul Bolin for responding to the paper presentation in 2017, and to Amy Barnickel for her careful proofreading and copyediting to see this article through to be in print.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Explaining the difference between fact (objective) and opinion/interpretation (subjective), Norman Hampson (1976) argued that objective information has the ability to be counted or described, whereas subjective information usually consists of statements of judgment, assumption, belief, suspicion, or rumor. Objective information may not vary and might be close to the truth, whereas subjective information differs among individuals and is far away from the truth. As the focus of my article is on framing, I do not go into detail about historical objectivity or subjectivity.

2 For an in-depth understanding of the history of art education in India, see Kantawala (2012).

3 For more on this conference, see www.tc.columbia.edu/conferences/brushes-with-history.