This is the 2016 personalities part B question:
"‘Differing perspectives and interpretations assist us in gaining an understanding of the personality’s significance in history.’
To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied?"
We got this for an exam on the topic and I know I screwed it up. I'd practised it before the task but I still don't really understand the question and it's doing my head in.
I know that part B is supposed to be where you evaluate the identity as per part 4 of the syllabus. But with this question, how am I supposed to incorporate differing, not different perspectives of the personality and then come to a conclusion myself? The question is asking for an answer where you consider conflicting viewpoints, but AFAIK in history you're meant to take one side of an argument. On 2015's question "It is the way an individual faces challenges that shapes them and their achievements. To what extent is this statement accurate in relation to the personality you have studied and their role in history?" this is a piece of cake, you just take one perspective and back it up. So for 2016, what am I supposed to do? Is the question basically telling me to say (Trotsky's influence in exile as an example):
"Historians such as X think that Leon Trotsky was a naive idealist who was completely outplayed politically by Stalin. On the other hand, historians such as Y consider Trotsky as an influential leader of the Left Opposition from 1927 on as evidenced by the formation of the 4th International. Historian Y is correct because...(how would I justify one opinion over the other?)"
What I ended up doing was providing both perspectives as above and then saying that these disagreements show why the personality was such an influential figure, rather than giving my own judgement of his significance. Although I haven't got the task back yet, what was the correct way to approach this question?
Hey _____ (interesting username
)
That was a very hard question, that a lot of people struggled with last year. In fact, I literally felt exactly how you did after the exam, expecting Trotsky to be my worst section because I felt like I made more of a judgement upon the historians than I did Trotsky (basically wrote a history extension essay). Flash forward to getting my raw marks back and I find out it was actually my best section - 15/15
So please don't worry yourself too much
I obviously can't guarantee your mark as I haven't read your essay, but from what you have said, your argument seems fine!
First of all I think you might be overthinking things a bit - differing and different mean essentially the same thing, so no worries there! I think the way that you have approached this question is great, and is very similar to what I did during my HSC
For my response, I basically said that the interpretations say more about the historians and their political and ideological leanings than it says about Trotsky - so pointing out that those who think he was a naive idealist where those who lean further right politically and thus have a negative interpretation of Communism and by extension Trotsky (eg Service, Conquest, Pipes, Figes, etc), in comparison to Left wing historians such as Wood and Deutscher who instead suggest he was a practical revolutionary!
So basically, using my power struggles paragraph as an example;
"Right wing historians such as Service assert that it was Trotsky's personal flaws that resulted in his loss of the power struggle, such as his arrogance and naivety. However, Left-wing historians such as Deutscher present an alternative perspective, suggesting that it is too simplistic to assert personal attributes as the defining issue, instead suggesting that the primary factor resulting in Trotsky's loss of power was the social changes that had occurred after the Civil War, whereby the war-weary society was more attracted to Stalin's "stable" ideology of socialism-in-one-country in comparison to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution.'" (obviously went into more detail but you get the gist of my argument).
So I didn't just look at what the perspectives where, but how and why they came to these conclusions. I answered the question upon how differing interpretations assist us in understanding Trotsky's significance, as I established that his significance is developed through this debate
You can definitely present the argument that no matter what the interpretation, the fact that such wild interpretations exist asserts his significance (had one of my students assert that recently in an assessment)! The question isn't asking was his significance good or bad - just was he a significant figure overall. Whether you accept either position, he was still clearly significant as either a terrible failure or a critical success!
Hope this clears up any concerns (though may have made you more confused - as I was when I found out I got this mark, as I was so worried that I hadn't made a judgement/was sitting on the fence).
Susie