One History, Two Narratives: Methodological Reflections on Writing the History of Unintended Outcomes

This paper suggests that historians must consider whether it can be necessary to construct more than one narrative of the past to understand what happened. The case considered is one of a local bank and foundation that crashed in the financial crisis leaving huge creditor losses, penniless shareholders, and decades-long court cases behind. The verdict in the press was harsh, and thus the narrative became one of irresponsible risk-taking and loss. However, if we imagine the story written before the crash, another narrative takes form. It is one of a local benefactor envisioning a revitalization of an area struggling with demographic issues and economic decline. The paper discusses whether a historian should mix the two narratives in one chronological story, or whether it is fruitful to keep them apart, if we want to understand how visions of social outcomes unintentionally could hide risks behind a veil of good intentions.