Anti-Realism About the Past

Anti-realist philosophers of historiography who are sometimes called constructionists claim that historiography is not a representation of the past, but a construction in the present ( Goldstein 1976, 1996 ). Constructionists regard historiography merely as something historians construct in the present. This construct need not be arbitrary; statements about it can be an interpretation of present evidence. Since the past is inaccessible or statements about it cannot be asserted, all we have is what historians tell us, further ontological assumptions about the past are to be taken at one's own risk. By contrast, historiographic realists claim that historiography is a representation or reflection of history; historiography then, is largely a true account of the events of the past. There can be three types of anti-realist constructionisms: determined constructionism regards historiography as having established a consistent family of theories and methods for the interpretation of evidence. Consistent application of these methods yields determined interpretation of evidence according to strict professional norms. Determined constructionists would balk at making any ontological claims about the past. Determined constructionism denies that determined historiography is a true representation of the past or anything more than the most plausible interpretation of the evidence