Abstract
This research delves into the intricate interplay between subjectivity and objectivity within the context of historical fantasizing. It also explores the potential for a symbiotic relationship between narrative and history to generate empirical literature that anticipates and aligns with future developments, despite the apparent contradictions inherent in these two disciplines: history, characterized by its objectivity, and narration, characterized by its subjectivity. To accomplish this objective, the study meticulously scrutinizes the mechanisms facilitating the fusion of narrative and history. It also conducts a thorough examination of subjectivity within both historical and narrative contexts, utilizing the concept of fantasizing as a lens through which to explore its connection to narration. Furthermore, the study investigates the roles of narrators and historians, identifies points of convergence and divergence between them, and sheds light on potential challenges arising from the tension between subjectivity and objectivity in their respective domains.
Keywords:
Subjects:
1. Introduction
Historians, in their roles as agents and historical contributors, construct narratives of the past that necessitate a degree of self-assertion, choice, desire, determination, and, most importantly, writing (Crane, Citation2006). All these elements originate from an individual, a singular person, specifically the historian. The foundation of historical subjectivity commences with the historian’s personal perception of her relationship to the past, recognizing both its connection and distance. This subjectivity persists through the historian’s deliberate choice to integrate this perception into her scholarly work. In essence, historical subjectivity serves as an expression of an individual’s historical consciousness, and this consciousness would not exist without someone’s aspiration to comprehend the implications of this connected yet separate relationship (Crane, Citation2006). Despite acknowledging the postmodern concept of an author as a construct, it remains evident that there is an individual behind these words.
The significance of this research lies as it explores the concept of fantasizing, which involves creating mental images based on imaginative assumptions. History, as a discipline, aims to faithfully recount events and stories without embellishment or omission. This study investigates how creators can leverage the inherent tensions between the subjective nature of storytelling and the objective nature of history to present a unique perspective in their works. To address these issues, the study poses several key research questions:
How does the discipline of history, typically associated with objectivity, transform into a realm of fantasy within creative works?
Can history be infused with elements of fantasy, despite the inherent subjectivity of both historical accounts and personal narratives, considering the paradoxical relationship between subjectivity and objectivity that defines history?
Do novelists seek to convey the same messages as historians in their narratives?
Is there a repetition of themes and ideas between novelists and historians?
These questions give rise to a complex dialectical inquiry that this study aims to explore. It seeks to shed light on the role of subjectivity in both fantasizing and historical accounts, elucidate the relationship between storytelling and history, and examine the responsibilities of narrators and historians. Additionally, the study explores the points of convergence and divergence between these two domains.
Furthermore, this research delves into the potential for reconciling subjectivity and objectivity within narrative texts, addressing the challenges that arise from their inherent contradictions. It also considers how such challenges might be resolved and whether the synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity could open new avenues for future works and the creation of empirical literature.
To achieve its objectives, this study employs a descriptive research approach, which is well-suited for describing, interpreting, and analyzing the various aspects of this subject matter. Notably, there is a dearth of previous research in this field, with only limited studies conducted, including the work by Al-Ajami on reality and fantasizing in narrative research and the study that focused on historical fantasizing in narratives related to empires and colonial experiences.
The study is organized into three main sections: the first section delves into the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity in history, the second section explores subjectivity and objectivity in storytelling, and the third section elucidates the outcomes of combining fantasizing and history within narrative texts.
2. History between subjectivity and objectivity
History is based on the claim that the facts are transmitted literally and in total impartiality, as it is seen that most of the history events have already occurred, and people lived in that reality and really experienced it (Al-Ajami). That reality was captured by historians, and they transmitted and recorded it honestly, faithfully, objectively, and impartially. However, despite what historians show of keenness on objectivity and impartiality, it can be asserted that there is no objective historical writing for anyone as subjectivity is an element that can always be found in every piece of writing, whatever its form and type. ‘No man’, Heraclitus argues, ‘ever steps in the same river twice’, and this indicates that events are unique, and they will only happen once and will not be repeated. So, any incident, no matter how intense it is, cannot be well recalled. In other words, every event has its conditions and circumstances that will not be repeated, and when the historian’s experience of the incident or experience ends, it turns from a reality into an experience that is added to the awareness of the person who lived or experienced it or the historian who documented it.
History is a vision and perspective by which the sense of historians and narrators can be reconstructed, in addition to the available knowledge, their awareness, their interests, and perhaps by their political loyalties and intellectual and sectarian affiliations. Youssef Zaidan says that history is purely a novel, presented by the author from his/her own angleFootnote1, so there is no absolute guarantee for rewriting reality. Here, the measure of the sincerity of writing is not conformity with reality, but conformity with oneself because documentation is sensory perception, mental understanding, psychological interpretation, and human intent, not only a text that conveys reality, and there are a number of sensory, mental, psychological, intentional, and existential processes behind the text.
On the other hand, language, whether oral or in writing, is the ideal way for conveying history, and language, in turn, stands as a solid barrier behind the transmission of facts. According to Ferdinand de Saussure, the linguistic sign consists of two aspects. The first is the signifier, i.e. the sound that utters in the brain of the listeners and seeks in the mind of the listener a mental image, idea, or concept, which is the signified, and both the signifier and the signified are of a psychological nature, united in the human brain by the bond of association and suggestion. This two-structured relationship is closed and does not refer to anything outside itself in the world of existence (De Saussure, Citation1985). For example, the signifier tree is the sound and the signifier is the established intellectual perception. A tree has a real existence and an intellectual one in the mind of the hearer. As for the verbal existence, i.e. the sounds that make the word ‘t, r, and i:’ do not refer to the real existence, but to the intellectual one, because the image will come to the mind of the hearer, not a real tree. So, the signifier here raises another signifier, and the utterance brings another image (Al-Ghadami, Citation1985). This definitively means that what the signifier evokes about the signified is the human perception of the thing, not the thing itself, and this applies to the way humans perceive things around them.
In this regard, historians were able to see what is behind the language, use what their language imposes on them, and depict what they feel, not what really happened. Bergson argues that language is the result of the increasing intensity of the inclination generated by the need, and accordingly things became mere holistic perceptions (Ibrahim, Citation1977). In addition, one of the most important things that the philosopher Protagoras came up with is his assertion of the relativity of values and returning them to man as a man is the ‘measure of everything’. It showed people how the truth can differ according to how a person observes it. He also argues that any opinion, no matter how strange it is, could really be considered as long as a proof is given, so the listener may be convinced. So, the correct judgment is what seems to a person to be possible and true (Matar, Citation1974).
Hence, there is no accuracy of the language in which history is recorded or consistency in receiving and responding to it. If there is agreement about some formal functions, then there is a difference about its intellectual and moral significance (Mustafa, Citation2008), and this is what makes objectivity in recording history a form of imagination and naivety, a disordered mental assumption, an epistemological illusion, alienation from self, and self-sacrifice for the sake of the world. In the Bible, one verse states that ‘For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’ (Gospel of Matthew, 16/24-28). Augustine also argues that truth lies in humans.
3. Narration between subjectivity and objectivity
Narration is intricately entwined with the concept of subjectivity, and although it shares elements such as events, personalities, temporal and spatial dimensions with historical accounts, its interaction with these elements, and others, within the crucible of storytelling takes on a distinctive qualitative character, markedly divergent from their interactions within the realm of history. In essence, this interaction is characterized by a foundation of illusion and unadulterated subjectivity, a mode of discourse that imparts narratives bearing no tether to factual events but rather constructs a fictional reality in which diverse elements coalesce, and contradictions converge to form a textual tapestry imbued with the author’s perspectives and orientations.
This subjectivity finds its genesis in a constellation of factors and determinants, with language standing as the foremost among them. Language, in this context, functions as the raw material of narration, serving as a system of signs that leads to the generation of other forms of expression, entwining with them with the intention of simulating tangible entities or engendering illusions and representations that engage with matters pertaining to the self. Language thus transforms into a purposeful endeavor, one that encapsulates an awareness of absence or an embrace of illusion. However, due to the fundamental disparity between moments as they are experienced and their representation in language and owing to language’s inherent nature as a linguistic and communicative system (Foucault, 1989–1990), the endeavor to achieve linguistic mediation appears as an insurmountable task, a futile attempt to convey, recreate, and evoke past experiences through the medium of language.
The bridge that renders this seemingly impossible endeavor feasible is the realm of the imaginary, for it is the imaginary that bridges the chasm between moments and realities as they exist, on one hand, and language as a conduit of communication on the other. The imaginary is the catalytic force behind the emergence of literary expressions, metaphors, similes, and analogies. Devoid of the imaginary, the ability to communicate with one another would remain an elusive aspiration.
Fantasizing is a basic motive for subjectivity as it can be defined as a linguistic phenomenon linked to an objective and a function. The purpose of fantasizing does not respond to any of the conditions of honesty, commitment, and the ability to justify the seriousness of the sayings, i.e. the correctness of its conformity with what it refers to, as it fully sends its influencing energy. Here, one can be illusioned by the reality of the fantasized subjects and promoted to interact psychologically and behaviorally with them as if they were sensory, and he can accept or leave it. This indicates that fantasizing is a mental activity and a perceptual level completely different in the semantic area and its representative structure from sense, reason, intuition, and scientific and objective facts because its essential characteristic is based on violation of the familiar sensual and mental aspects and inventing what does not exist and cannot be judged according to the criterion of honesty or lying (Al-Idrisi, Citation2008).
Illusion emerges as a significant constituent and an essential precondition of subjectivity, primarily because it serves as a coordinating mechanism for thought processes and mental perceptions within the realm of fictitious subjects. It is imperative in responding to the imaginative requisites inherent in this context. The recognition of the interplay between fantasizing and illusion underscores the intricate and mutually dependent relationship between them. Illusion, in this context, serves as an indication of the soul’s cognitive and emotional movements subsequent to the act of imaginative perception, with little concern for the veracity or falsity of the perceived content.
Aristotle expounds that illusion represents a mental state wherein individuals conjure images or ideas that lack correspondence with the objective reality. It is important to note that illusion is not a mere transference of names but instead falls within the category of phenomena that can be evaluated as either true or false. Consequently, it is a faculty upon which judgments regarding sensory perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, and reasoning are contingent (Aristotle, Citation1954).
This inherent subjectivity manifests itself profoundly within the domain of narrative literature, wherein novels do not serve as reliable repositories of historical information. They cannot be embraced as authoritative sources of historical knowledge, as they were not originally intended as such nor conceived as references that one might consult within specialized historical compendia. Novels, in essence, epitomize a literary genre that hinges upon the author’s fertile imagination and capacity to craft a narrative with ideas that resonate with the reader. The author, in this context, is not beholden to the pursuit of utmost accuracy and credibility in the factual underpinnings upon which the narrative is constructed. Instead, they enjoy unfettered creative license to articulate their storyline in any manner they see fit, so long as the narrative remains a tapestry of fantastical invention borne from their creative faculties.
The recipient of such narrative works is not compelled to imbue this creative construct with an aura of sacredness or reliability. It remains the prerogative of the author to deploy their historical background in a manner that aligns with their vision, thereby directing public opinion along unconventional trajectories. The author retains the liberty to accentuate their perspective on historical events, regardless of whether it accords with prevailing orthodoxies. A salient example of this phenomenon can be found in the renowned series of novels recounting the history of Islam authored by the Lebanese writer Jurji Zaydan in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These novels constitute narratives that defy conventional measures of truth and falsehood, or honesty and deceit, for they are fundamentally subjective endeavors that derive their success from the vigor of their creative force rather than an allegiance to factual exactitude. Thus, subjectivity within narrative works emerges as an intrinsic essence that steadfastly endures. Any deviation from this fundamental characteristic transforms the narrative into an entirely distinct form of literary expression.
4. Fantasizing history
Through the previous two sections, it was found that both narration and history are based on subjectivity, despite the apparent superficial differences between them that give the illusion that both work in a field that has its own qualitative specificity. These differences were represented in the value of the historian’s work in reaching the truth, in addition to the novelist’s work that governs access to beauty and influence. In addition, historians are committed to historical facts, as his work seems to be restricted to the events and data of history, so he collects documents and investigates and classifies them to make his work appear accurate. As for the novelist, he deals with facts and events in a different way from what they are, i.e. he chooses, modifies, and changes. Honesty here does not turn his work into art, and serious historians are always keen to be objective, i.e. he abandons his passions and inclinations. Novelists, on the other hand, are emotional, biased, and devoted. Historians are concerned with the general content, while novelists are concerned with the style that gives the content its value and influence. Finally, the historian’s language shall be precise, direct, and disciplined, aiming at communication, while the language of the novelist is suggestive, gestural, and figurative, aiming at influence (Madi, Citation1985).
Nevertheless, when one delves deeper, these disparities appear rather superficial when contrasted with the underlying similarities in the fundamental structure of history and narrative, both fundamentally rooted in subjectivity. Historians and novelists alike rely on the creation of virtual realms, existing solely within the imaginations of the author and the reader. In this realm, both the author and the reader can coalesce to construct a holistic world imbued with the characteristics of reality, yet not its mirror image; rather, it emerges from the impact of sensory perception. Consequently, numerous analyses and interpretations of narrative or historical texts emerge, contingent upon the individual reader’s perspective. The author, whether historian or novelist, possesses the capacity to craft unreal worlds and hypotheses. Simultaneously, the historical or narrative reader can forge an alternative world from that which the author has envisioned, contingent on their interpretive and analytical prowess. Although history serves as a record of a bygone era, it possesses the inherent capacity for diverse readings, transmitting its meanings and interpretations as per each era and individual. Both the novelist and the historian embark on the endeavor of constructing reality, albeit through distinct methodologies and tools, yet the reality each aspires to capture remains inherently incomplete. The historian cannot merely chronicle reality; instead, they continually reshape it. Likewise, the novelist treads a similar path, weaving threads of truth and imagination together in their narrative tapestryFootnote2.
Conversely, history undergoes a transformation when assimilated into the realm of narrative, evolving from a repository of knowledge into an imaginative construct. This transformation is rooted in the distinct position occupied by narrative discourse in the construction of universal truths, necessitating a prevalence of the imaginative facet over the realistic one. This dynamic gives rise to an intermediary space, a liminal zone where the historical and the imaginary coalesce, forming a unique amalgamation replete with diverse elements. Within this space, history is neither faithfully recreated with precision and integrity nor transmuted into a fantastical realm that contradicts reality. Instead, the creator selectively extracts elements from history to weave a narrative that engenders a dialogue between the historian and the novelist, intertwining historical segments with conjectured or desired events.
The resultant text assumes a novel function, often characterized by creativity and enlightenment, as it addresses and conveys the unspoken. The historical imaginary seizes a moment from the annals of the nation’s history and narratively reconfigures it through the mechanisms of storytelling. Consequently, the emergent text embodies a distinct form, unburdened by the obligation to serve as an absolute truth or a renewed reference. Rather, its paramount role lies in fulfilling an alternative, unconventional function—an instrument that offers responses to ambiguities or overlooked aspects of history.
Thus, the image of fictional writing turns into an imagined world within a historical spirit whose aim is to try to describe the confusing present, understand the present by projecting the past on it, measure some of the data of the era, judge some moments, or express a certain vision (Talha, Citation2019), criticism of a particular phenomenon, or a real opportunity to escape from reality and exploit history to pass on certain messages and projections on the current situation, which could not be referred to directly. In addition, the margin of creativity in it is larger and broader, and it offers the reader a temporal and spatial journey to other places and times that the creator and the recipient alike may not have known about. Overall, it is an experience that adds to the awareness of the characters of the novel and its recipients as well, where the creative author starts with a thread that leads to the historical source or refers to it. Then, the author changes it and adds complex dimensions to be realistic and becomes a human model. Thus, the historical reality created by the consideration of sources becomes an artistic reality that corresponds to the nature, requirements, and conditions of the artistic medium and has a space for imagination, innovation, and creativity. This space, enhanced by imagination, takes its form from what is dictated by history, and what the imagination of the creator excels at, in order to present in the end a narrative form or anecdotal material that we call the historical imaginary (Al-Hajmari, Citation2002).
The historical texts created through narration have been cut off from their documentary and descriptive function, and it has become performing an aesthetic and symbolic function. Historical imagination does not refer to the facts of the past, nor does it decide or promote them, but inspires it as the explanatory pillars of its events, and it is the product of the interactive relationship between the narrative supported by imagination and the history supported by facts, which is a third composition that differs from them (Ibrahim, Citation2022). Here, narration stems from the historical text, and fantasizing is busy producing what fills that framework in terms of details and particles and fills some gaps that remained empty in the series of historical events. It also creates characters that represent social and human models in the era of events, based on understanding and analyzing the prevailing social relations and their active forces, even if they are not real characters. At the same time, as a utilitarian exchange, the imaginary provides an effective ability to bridge some of the gaps that may occur in the writing of history (Talha, Citation2019), as history gives the novelist raw material that allows him to present his thoughts and reflections, and the novelist may realize what the historian missed, so he writes about the forgotten history in search of humans, the oppressed, and the unspoken. Wassini Al-Araj says that readers accept reading the historical novel because they do not trust the official history. Therefore, the essence of the historical novel lies in tracing the voids neglected by official and ideological history and relying on some cornerstones to say what historians omitted or obliterated by institutions (Talha, Citation2019). Thus, the narration is an attempt to understand and rebuild consciousness, and the duty of the novelist is to rebuild history.
5. Conclusion
This study has revealed that despite the professed objectivity of historians, history inherently carries a substantial degree of subjectivity, a characteristic shared with narrative. This objectivity, albeit superficial, renders history a fertile ground for narrative authors, who themselves operate from a purely subjective standpoint. Furthermore, this research has underscored the significant role played by historical facts within narrative texts, where they are woven into a narrative historical synthesis that transcends the boundaries of conventional history and narrative. The outcome is a text characterized by a rich tapestry of subjectivity and imagination.
The study has also demonstrated that a proficient narrative author possesses the capacity to orchestrate a historical narrative synthesis, resulting in the creation of a distinctive perspective that melds elements of history and narrative. This fusion culminates in the production of historical text infused with poetic qualities, thereby enriching the literary landscape. In essence, this research underscores the intricate interplay between history and narrative, highlighting the potential for their convergence to yield innovative and imaginative literary creations that bridge the realms of fact and fiction.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Asem Baniamer
Dr. Asem Baniamer, an associate professor in literary criticism. I have worked at several Jordanian and Arab universities, including the University of Jordan and King Faisal University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I have authored numerous books, including “Modern Features in Arab Literary Criticism Heritage” and “Literary Text Analysis: Theory and Application.”
Noor Issa Allendi
Dr. Noor Issa Allendi, have Ph.D. from the University of Jordan and have worked at several universities, including the University of Jordan and the Applied Science University in Jordan. I have numerous scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals.
Notes
1 Private Interview with Youssef Zidane Online.
2 An interview with Dr. Samia Mahrez, a professor at the American University in Cairo, a website.
References
- Al-Ghadami, A. (1985). Mistake and Takfir, From Structuralism to Anatomical, Literary and Cultural Club, Jeddah.
- Al-Hajmari, A.-F. (2002). Imagination and discourse construction in the Arabic novel, narrative structure. Al-Madaris Publishing and Distribution Company.
- Al-Idrisi, Y. (2008). Imagination and poetry, excavations in Arab-Islamic philosophy. Maqarabat Publications. 60.
- Aristotle. (1954). On the Self (Transl. Ishaq Ibn Hanin, Investig. Abd al-Rahman Badawi). The Egyptian Renaissance Bookshop, pp. 1.
- Crane, S. A. (2006). Historical subjectivity: A review essay. The Journal of Modern History, 78(2), 434–7. https://doi.org/10.1086/505803
- De Saussure, F. (1985). General linguistics (Trans. Yonel Youssef Aziz). Arab Horizons House. 5
- Foucault, M. (1989-1990). Words and yhings (Arabic translation). National Development Center.
- Ibrahim, A. (2022). Historical imagination: Narration, empire, and the colonial experience.
- Ibrahim, Z. (1977). Philosophy of art in contemporary thought, Bibliotheca Misr.
- Madi, S. A. (1985). Theory of literature (4th ed.). The Arab Foundation for Studies and Publishing.
- Matar, A. H. (1974). The philosophy of beauty. House of Culture.
- Mustafa, G. (2008). The language of art between subjectivity and objectivity. Anglo Egyptian Bookshop.
- Talha, A. B. (2019). The novel between the realism of history and the aesthetic of the imaginary, an article on the internet.