The most important thing you
need to do is learn what the questions are asking you to do.
To make life easier for you,
I have used exactly the same form of question throughout each of
the exam papers that you may choose. The format is derived from
the Bac written exam. There will be four questions:
Questions 1 and 2: you will
be asked one question about the three sources you have been given
to study. You either have to look for similarities and
differences between the sources (compare and contrast) or
evaluate the usefulness of the sources (value and limitations).
Typically students seem to
rush this question. Take your time and begin by summarising what
the sources mean to you. This should also help to calm your
nerves.
If asked to ‘compare and
contrast’ make sure you identify similarities and differences.
Try to refer to precise details in the sources when making your
point. Similarly, if asked about value and limitations make
sure you explain why the source might be good ‘useful’ and not
so good or ‘limited’.
Review carefully the lessons
we did on
usefulness. Students typically acclaim or dismiss a
source as biased and subjective/ balanced and objective without
explaining why. Remember that usefulness means more than just
reliability.
Usefulness always depends on
what questions you ask of the source. For example, a propaganda
poster during the Cultural Revolution is unreliable evidence
about how peasants viewed the policy but it is fantastic
evidence about how the state tried to convince peasants of how
wonderful the Cultural Revolution was. A newspaper cartoon is
unlikely to give you a detailed objective view of event but it
provides an excellent insight into how newspaper readers (public
opinion) felt about an event.
This highlights the
importance of when a source is produced.
Sources produced some time
after an event (typically by historians) have the advantage of
hindsight. Hindsight means to be able to see events in a broader
context of not only what happened before but also what happened
after. By their very nature they are interpretative. Sources
produced a long time after have the benefit of calm, objective
reflection, the writings and research of others and access to
archives of declassified documents. This last point is
particularly important in the recent history of the Cold War,
where since 1991 much previously sensitive secret information
has become available.
In contrast, sources
produced at the time of event have the benefit of first hand
experience – the eyewitness, the newspaper, the declassified
government policy document, the politician’s speech – and as
such are what the past has left behind. This is the raw material
of history and without we could not claim to know anything.
Their value can sometimes simply be expressed through their
acute relevance to an event we are studying. A politician’s
memoirs, a secret government memo or an interview with a war
veteran provide information that might be rare or even unique.
They are usually less objective and can be quite emotional, but
just think about how our interpretation would change if the
politician had decided not to write, if the memo had not been
declassified or if no one had spoken to the war veteran.
This highlights the
subjective/objective issue that often presents problems for
students. Students often conclude that objective = good,
subjective = bad. But once again it depends on what you’re
interested in and what questions you ask of the sources. If you
want to know why something happened or what the consequences
were, then ask an historian or a good documentary film maker.
They should be able to give you an objective account of the
event, a list of carefully weighed-up reasons, judiciously
supported by facts approved by history’s professional community.
But if you want to know what
it was like; what the experience of actually living in the past
meant to those who lived through it – what we call empathy –
then go for subjectivity. Read the first hand accounts, the
poetry and art, speak to the eye-witnesses and get emotionally
involved. This second version of understanding the past
requires imagination and sensitivity, just as much as the first
version requires reason and accuracy.
So if in the exam you get a
source that is objective, its weakness is that it’s not
subjective enough to allow us to empathize. If you get a source
that is subjective, its weakness is that it is just one person’s
point of view. In preparation think about the range of different
types of sources you might expect: cartoons, newspapers,
documentary films, speeches etc. and consider in general why
these sources maybe valuable and limited.
Final point about
usefulness, don’t forget to mention the obvious things. Look out
for the purpose of the source, whether it was private or public,
the reliability of the author, the language of the source
(emotive or rational), whether it is supported (corroborated) by
other information you know etc.
