Show and Tell

I titled this post "Show and Tell" because these three simple words have seemed to evolve with us over the years. I'm sure many of us remember the act of 'show and tell' in kindergarten. Everyone sits in a circle and brings in an item to share (usually of some significance) and shares it with the class. This simple act taught us (perhaps without our awareness) the difference between showing and telling. Describing the object to the group was 'telling', giving them a second hand account. However 'showing' the object game them the experience. This very literal understanding of the difference between 'show and tell' was built upon in latter years. As we learned how to write effectively in grammar school, we were taught to show NOT tell because showing engaged our audience in a way telling could not. You may be wondering where I am going with all this?

As I read Campbell's Agency: Promiscuous and Protean, I once again evolved my understanding of show and tell. Campbell sheds light of "recovering the authentic voice of the illiterate" (13) in reference to Truth's 1851 speech. The speech however, is just an example used to illustrate her larger argument. She calls attention to the issues associated with second hand sources. They record their interpretation and every interpretation differs with each perspective: "we can never hear the originary moment of the living voice; we can only struggle to recreate its immediacy, and in its dramatic form" (13.) This is why Campbell praises Gage's version of the speech and why I have redefined 'show and tell' for at least the third time in my life: "Gage’s text allows us to experience them; in literary terms, it is the difference between showing and telling" (13.)

Why is this relevant?
In truth, perhaps it is only relevant to me. However connecting this concept and studying this example, has given me insight to other concepts we have been reviewing (and other authors). I relate this concept to episteme. When studying specific disciplines in a particular historical moment, we have to think of who the author is and consider the interpretation. How are we seeing a moment or movement? who is the source and how do they fit into their episteme? This brings me around to Foucault. Foucault gives us 'the realm of truth', and uses the example of Mendel (the true monster) to illustrate this concept. Mendel made a discovery that was factually and accurate. However when he presented it to those who made up the canon of his time, he found out that it fell outside 'the realm of truth'. This is why we must consider the perspective of the source when studying an episteme. If we studied it from Mendel's perspective, his discovery would be valid. If we study from the academics of his time, his discovery would be invalid.

When we write our own discourse or comment on the discourse in our episteme, what kind of source do we want to be? If we show, not tell, then we can bring validity and honesty to our audience. We can 'show' our audience by giving them the experience and allowing them to interpret for themselves. We can 'tell' our point of view on certain  discourses of our time, but I think that detracts from our validity and therefore our credibility as historians (and authors).

Truthfully whichever way you chose to write, it is a choice. This choice implies agency for the writer and for the historian. Again this is just my interpretation Perhaps, like Mendel, I am a true monster of my episteme.

-Samantha Markey