Historiography, Law, Resistance: Navigating the Future of the Past

This thesis examines the relationship between historiography, law and resistance by exploring the ways in which historiography can come to be thought of as a form of resistance in its own right. In doing so it reflects on how we implicate historical knowledge in not only our understanding of what it means to resist but also what it is that is resisted, ultimately identifying the grand narrative form as its target of resistance. To do this the study draws on the theoretical insights of German historian Reinhart Koselleck, paying particular attention to how his theory of multiple temporalities is able to expand our understanding of history and its writing to reveal how alternative engagements with historiography can challenge the power structures within which they are produced.

For the sake of clarity this thesis has been divided into two parts. In Part I the relationship between historiography and resistance is examined through an engagement with the concepts of national identity, tradition and legitimacy. Here it is argued that popular social science based understandings of resistance are too narrow, creating a need to imagine a form of resistance that is able to operate within the confines of power relations when other (more visible) forms of resistance appear impossible. The relationship between historiography and resistance is presented as a potential solution to this problematic narrowing, with engagements with alternative (more flexible) theories of history writing being cast as a potential form of resistance that can be used to alter power dynamics. In Part II law is introduced into the relationship between historiography and resistance through an examination of the ancient constitution and post-Franco Spain. Here law's preoccupation with linear understandings of temporality is identified as posing a challenge to its relationship with historiography as a form of resistance, signalling a need to revisit not only law's relationship with different temporalities, but also a need to revisit its relationship with historiography more generally if it is to avoid succumbing to the lure of the grand narrative form.