It's also important to note, I think especially in this context, that this framework isn't really a matter of ideology. I'm not saying you think it is, but I th

It's also important to note, I think especially in this context, that this framework isn't really a matter of ideology. I'm not saying you think it is, but I think a fair number of people here are likely to interpret it that way. This view is so widespread because people who practice history find it valuable. When you come across, for example, a widely known primary document that contradicts or undermines a view common to historians for many years, how do you explain that? The answer isn't in the facts of the documents, it's in the social construction of "history." I think there's a really common implicit assumption that historians are just people who know a lot of things about history. But once you get away from that and into the understanding of it as a skill- and research-based social practice, you start to need something to explain why we know what we know, or think we do. This ends up being a fairly useful one!