Reality becomes produced by media, academia and powerful narrations the same thing happens to history and its relation to time. History develops over interpretations and changing perspectives. Due to the fact the point of view is never independent its historical Situation and circumstances we never really have an objective understanding of history. There is the notion that history develops linear because we imagine time had a teleological endpoint. And that humankind experiences progress within time. Though, maybe that's not a universal perspective but a very Western view.
Maybe understanding history isn't a linear process but contingent and changable. There is no endpoint in understanding history. History is embedded in time and we can still form it over narratives and new meta perspectives. The article I read suggests the notion of history as cloud. We are not only negotiating about the event on a time line but actually about the line itself. Instead of seeing history as entirety it should be considered a concept of temporal plurality which is open to multiple hetereogenous identities. History imagined as cloud would remain fluid and open. Allowing complexity and enabling to consider changes of our notions not as disturbances but as extension of our ability to conceptualize reality.
Maybe understanding history isn't a linear process but contingent and changable. There is no endpoint in understanding history. History is embedded in time and we can still form it over narratives and new meta perspectives. The article I read suggests the notion of history as cloud. We are not only negotiating about the event on a time line but actually about the line itself. Instead of seeing history as entirety it should be considered a concept of temporal plurality which is open to multiple hetereogenous identities. History imagined as cloud would remain fluid and open. Allowing complexity and enabling to consider changes of our notions not as disturbances but as extension of our ability to conceptualize reality.
Last edited:
