Taking the nation-state as our point of spatial reference, we can differentiate not only b

Taking the nation-state as our point of spatial reference, we can differentiate

not only between historiographies on a sub-national level like

villages and cities, but units on a supra-national level. Applied to concrete forms

of historiography, however, we confront at least three kinds of problems that

(5) complicate this scheme, the first of which, the ideological load of some spatial

concepts, was put on the agenda by Edward Said's analysis of the notion of the

"Orient". Said has shown that though most spatial concepts initially appear quite

neutral and innocent, they often carry important ideological and political

implications. Like "the Orient", the notion of "the primitive", "the savage"

(10) and the "barbarian" have fulfilled similar ideological functions in the colonial

encounter, because—like "the Orient"—they were used as the justification of

the domination of "the primitive" by its supposed opposite: the "civilized" part

of the world.

The second problem is that the spatial scope of a historical work is not

(15) always what it seems, especially instances when we would like to assess the

relationship between regional and national historiographies. The microcosm of

the region functions may sometimes be substituted illegitimately for the

macrocosm of the nation—take for instance, the confusion of Holland for the

whole of the Netherlands, a problem that has complicated the classification of

(20) historiographies on basis of spatial markers. The third and perhaps most

troubling problem in our spatial scheme is the essentially contested character of

its central concept: the nation. The nation belongs to the same category as

notions like "freedom" and "democracy" that also refuse unambiguous definition

and the fundamental problem in the discourse on the nation is that the nation

(25) does not necessarily coincide with the state or even with the nation-state.

Sometimes spatial units at a sub-state level, like provinces or tribal areas are

represented as nations, and sometimes nations are represented as supra-national

units, units exceeding the borders of a nation-state.

It is not the task of professional historians to solve these practical issues—

(30) this is a matter of politics—but to clarify the different historical representations

in each case. Historians do not have a special task in solving political problems,

but as professional specialists of the past they have the task of clarifying the

historical roots of political problems, a practice that amounts to the

identification and the integration of the different and often conflicting

(35) perspectives pertaining to present day issues. It is neither realistic nor

reasonable to expect consensus in historiography; as in politics, the most we

can strive for is a sound knowledge of the different points of view, leading to a

maximum of empathy and to mutual understanding of past and present positions.

Which of the following best states the main point of the passage？

A．The approach to the problem of spatial boundaries is plagued by a number of problems that historiographers are obliged to confront.

B．Historiographers can benefit from studying the traditional geography of nations in greater depth.

C．Historiographers should try to refrain from solving the practical issues that arise in the resolution of spatial boundary issues.

D．The categorization and demarcations of geography at the national level is more complicated than that of the sub-national or supra-national level.

E．The spatial demarcation of nations is the most complicated issue in contemporary historiography.