Framing myths of an event and the politics of history

 Whenever you go deep into a controversial or divisive historico-political event (wars, revolutions, coups etc), the first hurdle to a deeper understanding that you must deal with as a historian is the "framing myths" or "just so stories" about the event that make up the "collective memory" of its occurrence. These come in all ideological shapes and sizes and are basically the sum of the average person's understanding of the event from within the society where it occurred. These framing myths are often heavily influenced by school social studies, stories passed down from parents, or homespun narratives of history created by ideological entrepreneurs. The framing myth is a simple, easily communicable narrative of how one ought to understand the event in moral terms, usually propping up the absolute moral rightness of the victors or victims. Ideological entrepreneurs may frame the event as redemptive or tragic, depending on how they perceive the needs of their audience.

In this respect, it is sometimes advantageous for the historian to be an outsider to the events, as they are less prone to have been socialized in the narrative of the victors or the victims. However it is also quite possible for the historian to be seduced by one narrative or the other in the course of their research, and to mistake what their interlocutors told them as the most authentic framing of the event. In reaction, historians may try to balance that with another set of interlocutors, producing a narrative which simply tries to present victor and victim framing myths as co-equal. This is better than adopting one view or the other but is still not an adequate response to the challenge of the contentious past.

Instead the role of the historian is to try to use narrative to delve into the assumptions of both framing myths, unpacking each in different ways. This increases the likelihood that the descendants of victims and victors can gain sympathetic perspective on why each side made the choices they did at the time, how different choices might have led to different outcomes, and how to qualify one's framing of an event with perspectives from the other side. In this case nuance and complexity are not paralyzing paths to inaction but a route to a more robust understanding of the event that could (potentially) transcend the victor/victim dichotomy in the next generation, allowing the descendants of each side to recognize their agentive role in what occurred. In doing so, it becomes less necessary to look backward to the pains of that event to obtain moral legitimacy for the present and more necessary to embrace a generative future that encompasses the descendants of both victors and victims.