Portfolio: Final Exam

Angela Kim

Writing 101

December 10, 2007

Portfolio: Final Exam

History of the Past vs. History of the Present

A famous writer, Michael Foucault, once wrote, “Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that […] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means […] the history of the present.” He had written this in his famous novel, Discipline and Punish. At first, I was a bit confused, but I kept reading this passage over and over again to find the meaning of it. Although I did not quite understand this excerpt at first, I have come to understand and agree, but at the same time disagree with what Michael Foucault had to say about history.

Michael’s theory of history is that he took something of the present such as a feeling, concept, or symbol, and related it back to an equivalent meaning from the past. By the quote written in Discipline and Punish, the writer did not try to get a whole idea of the past and he did not try to study the laws of history, or anything like that. The writer was simply attempting to find a comparable meaning in the past, to a present symbol, concept, and/or feeling. After doing a bit of research on the passage and author, I learned that this was also known as “presentism in historical analysis” (Michael Foucault beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics Second Edition with an Afterword by and an Interview with Michael Foucault, Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rainbow). I believe that Michael Foucault was trying to emphasize that the dates and where things took place and what not did not really matter. What really does matter, though, is the actual comparison of the meaning in the past, to something of the present.

This theory of Foucault compares to my own experiences and observations in class. During the quarter in the History 121 class, I studied the happenings during American History. I believe that the reason to learning about the history of America was to not only get the required credits, but to also understand how the Americans back then had dealt with certain issues, how they lived, and how the structure of the American culture was like. After learning about certain concepts and issues and understanding how a certain person might have felt as opposed to another person’s perspective, I have come to realize that history is there for understanding the past and to affect our opinions and choices in the present.

Currently, in the present, by looking back at our past mistakes, we are able to learn from them and to approach certain situations differently. A couple examples of this would be the wars/battles occurring at this very moment, and elections. When everyone participates in the voting for elections, most people would think carefully about who they want to choose, for it would affect their society as well as themselves in the near future. During the years after someone had been chosen, people are able to see whether or not that person was a right choice. Once elections come again, the people would know whether or not to re-elect that person. A smaller example is, when a child gets burned by an iron. The child feels the pain and heat after touching the iron and therefore will not touch it again because the child has learned its lesson. I believe that our own intuition on something is affected by what we have learned in the past.

To restate what I had said about Foucault’s theory, he did not try to get a whole idea of the past and he did not try to study the laws of history, but was simply attempting to find a similar meaning in the past, to the present. I, however, have mixed feelings about it. Perhaps I just misunderstood what the writer is truly arguing, but one the one hand, I agree that history is not just about events that occurred in the past such as government related issues, wars, taxes, etc. On the other hand, I believe that the decisions and choices someone makes in life is affected by what was done in the past and the lessons we are taught.