De l'exercice illégal de l'histoire

Abstract

The circumstances surrounding Kennedy's death and the many unsolved questions regarding his assassination are becoming the arena for confrontation of the three types of discourse favoured by three categories of guardians of the collective memory. There has been a continuous series of articles written by historians, journalists and amateur detectives in an atmosphere of controversy as to their respective qualifications. Historians whose claim to legitimacy is initially the strongest are accused of having eluded the factual problems posed by the assassination and of restricting themselves to journalistic accounts of the Kennedy years. Journalists, who were eyewitnesses to the assassination, are accused of having too readily abandoned their investigative role to set themselves up as the official historiographers of the presidency, thus usurping the historian's role. The amateur detectives are looked upon with condescension but challenge both historians and journalists, leading them to reconsider their roles. These troublemakers in search of legitimacy announce a redefinition of spheres of competence and new boundaries between discourses.