On the Importance of New Historicist Approach

Given that it is a radically new way of studying the human past, new historicism is difficult throughout, partly because it is still changing, evolving, and partly because it draws on such a wide variety of fields that they seem to have little in common other than focusing on cultural studies. Sometimes the new historicism seems to be based on sociology, sometimes on psychology or economics; in any case, the research scope of the new historicists is never limited to a single field of study. For they see how complexly all parts of a given culture are shaped and shaped by each other, which is too complex for any single approach to understanding what it is or what it means.

At its most basic level, historians have traditionally been concerned with finding out what actually happened at a particular time and/or place. They worked to determine the truth and veracity of the stories, which certainly made it possible that the narrative they gave was a valid description of what had happened. Doing so meant taking an objective stance away from the scene of action, allowing them to see and express the truth about people and events. They were of the opinion that to be successful in doing this was to capture the spirit and emotion of an entire age. This meant finding the essence of an era, its literature, art, politics, social behavior and worldview that would give meaning to others. Looking at the broad scope of history, they found that the narratives were connected in a causal sequence that was supposed to positively move the Earth forward.

New historians, many of whom were already literary scholars, challenged and resisted the assumptions and aims of traditional historiography. They deny that one can know exactly what happened at a given time and place. For the only thing that can be perceived is what is conveyed in works and stories; which makes history a narrative rather than a pure, unadulterated set of observations. That is, history is subjectively known and recorded, colored by the cultural context of the recorder—usually a powerful person—so that the stories of the powerless remain untold. No matter how committed the historian may be to produce an objective reading, he can never achieve this because he cannot exceed his own inferences, experiences, and knowledge. Inevitably immersed in his own social and cultural context, the historian cannot escape the perspectives provided by the ideas and institutions of his time. Like the literary analyst, the historian reading a "text" engages in interpretation, reinforcing the subjectivity of any historical account. It is hardly surprising that such deviations occur from traditional historical readings and that these deviations change the way we read literature. So much so that many qualified historians are actually literary scholars. Because the understanding that a text imitates life and reflects its historical context either disappeared or underwent serious changes under their auspices. Approaches that use history and/or the history of the text as the background of literature and see the work as a copy of the people and behaviors of a period are left behind. History is not expected to validate a text by presenting facts to prove its veracity. In fact, history cannot do that. Because it is transmitted subjectively, the facts are not known with certainty and can never be known.

In conclusion, New Historicism is at the point where literature directly intersects with cultural studies. Literature is both an input and an output because although literature shapes society, it is also shaped by society. In addition to being an art, literature is also a social science in terms of both showing the effect of wars, technological developments, social and political events, culture, the geography of the society and all factors. When the subject is focused on the axis of understanding, interpretation and narration, it can be clearly said that a literary work should not be written haphazardly, and it should not violate the rules of logic unless it is on the axis of its own reality. There is no need to discuss how important the literary elements of a work that cannot reach the common denominator of the society are, because it has no output because it has no output and it is clearly a waste of time to fall on it. Because the task of historians is to identify and explain the historical process, which has no definite and rigid lines, changes slowly over time and is obliged to change, as opposed to dictating a world narrative with unchanging dynamics to people. When it comes to explaining; The New Historicist approach is involved in an unceasing development process as it has to explain the ever-changing dynamics.