What is the relationship of writing to praxis, of historiography and critique to the human experiences and oppressions which are its subject matter? Is there a politics of context, as there is in practice: a duty of solidarity which requires that we bear responsibility for the reproduction of these narratives, for their use and reuse? What responsibility lies upon the historian as traumatic human experiences are reified, codified, and sent into the academic ether, to be picked up, quoted, referenced, theorised, and detached from their source in a specific political reality? Indeed, what politics inhere in the very notion of a single author, when understandings derive from collective work? Can academic critique be divorced from active commitment, from praxis: can we will the end, without committing ourselves to the means? And in the end, who are these histories for? Who is speaking from within them, and towards whom? These are the questions considered in this article. Drawing on the lessons of ethnography, anthropology and social research, the article critiques current practice, and offers some thoughts on how we might move towards a richer, more complex and ethical historiography. It calls for an approach based on "thick" description, reflexivity, commitment, dialogue, collective authorship and transparency about the ideological interests and economic and power relations which mediate all practice and its history.