Abstract
Whether or not the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission
(TRC) intended to write history, it certainly engaged with the past while
historians were virtually absent. This article therefore sets out to take a
closer look at the relationship between history, historians and the TRC. An
overview of the literature reveals that historians have examined the TRC from
a philosophical perspective and analysed its report as a historical narrative.
Although some historians praise the TRC, most of them stand critically
towards its epistemology, ethics, methodology and content. In the same
way, some historians are inspired by the TRC’s alternative way of engaging
with the past but others point to the dangers of its stress on a post-apartheid
present. Overall, historians seldom explicitly write about or engage with the
TRC because they consider it a flawed and even dangerous enterprise. The
inaccessibility of the archives also impedes historians from picking up the
road map the commission tried to provide. Some historians nevertheless felt
inspired by the TRC to launch oral history projects or practice public history.
Also, while the combination of history writing and reconciliation is often
criticized, some historians claim to have written reconciliation history without
violating their historiographical standards. All of this doesn’t lead to a simple
conclusion with regards to the impact the TRC had – and still does – on
history writing, what it means to be a historian and the concept of history in
post-apartheid South Africa. What is clear, however, is that the TRC engaged
with the past in varying ways and therefore caused historians to approach it
in equally diverging ways. This is reason enough to study the relationship
between history, the TRC and historians in greater detail.
(TRC) intended to write history, it certainly engaged with the past while
historians were virtually absent. This article therefore sets out to take a
closer look at the relationship between history, historians and the TRC. An
overview of the literature reveals that historians have examined the TRC from
a philosophical perspective and analysed its report as a historical narrative.
Although some historians praise the TRC, most of them stand critically
towards its epistemology, ethics, methodology and content. In the same
way, some historians are inspired by the TRC’s alternative way of engaging
with the past but others point to the dangers of its stress on a post-apartheid
present. Overall, historians seldom explicitly write about or engage with the
TRC because they consider it a flawed and even dangerous enterprise. The
inaccessibility of the archives also impedes historians from picking up the
road map the commission tried to provide. Some historians nevertheless felt
inspired by the TRC to launch oral history projects or practice public history.
Also, while the combination of history writing and reconciliation is often
criticized, some historians claim to have written reconciliation history without
violating their historiographical standards. All of this doesn’t lead to a simple
conclusion with regards to the impact the TRC had – and still does – on
history writing, what it means to be a historian and the concept of history in
post-apartheid South Africa. What is clear, however, is that the TRC engaged
with the past in varying ways and therefore caused historians to approach it
in equally diverging ways. This is reason enough to study the relationship
between history, the TRC and historians in greater detail.