The Idea
Arkoun criticizes the use of history from a sectarian or nationalist perspective because it turns it into a means of sanctifying the collective self and excluding others. In this case, history is no longer a search for understanding; it becomes a narrative that justifies a closed identity and constructs a mythical image of it. The result is that facts are selected to serve belonging, not to reveal the truth. For this reason, he sees this kind of history as blocking knowledge instead of opening it up.
Concise Formulation
Arkoun: criticizes: the use of history from a sectarian or nationalist perspective
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This idea enters at the heart of Arkoun’s critique of readings that make the past a servant of present struggles. It explains why he insists on separating historical knowledge from collective glorification. In the context of the book, it plays an important role in showing that comparison and critique do not aim to diminish the group, but to free history from ideological use.
Why It Matters
This idea shows that Arkoun sees history as a field of knowledge, not a tool for beautifying identity. It matters because it reveals the limits of a reading that confuses belonging with truth. It also helps in understanding his entire critical project, since he wants history to reduce myth rather than reproduce it.
Brief Evidence
Arkoun criticizes the use of history from a sectarian or nationalist perspective because it produces a mythic-ideological outlook. In this case, history is no longer a search for understanding; it becomes a narrative that justifies a closed identity and excludes others. Facts are also selected here to serve belonging, not to reveal the truth.
Reading Questions
- How does history turn into myth when it is written from a sectarian or nationalist perspective?
- What effect does this use have on the possibility of an objective understanding of the past?
Documentation Level
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.