[POL] or the work of the historian?

Reading the following in [POL] (pg341)

"For, finally, what form of life can bring off the following feat? Start
with a multitude that does not know what it wants but that is suffering
and complaining; obtain, by a series of radical transformations, a unified
representation of that multitude; then, by a dizzying translation/
betrayal, invent a version of its pain and grievances from whole cloth;
make it a unified version that will be repeated by certain voices, which in
turn—the return trip is as least as astonishing as the trip out—will bring it
back to the multitude in the form of requirements imposed, orders given,
laws passed; requirements, orders, and laws that are now exchanged,
translated, transposed, transformed, opposed by the multitude in such
diverse ways that they produce a new commotion: complaints defining
new grievances, reviving and spelling out new indignation, new consent,
new opinions."

I thought: this is the description of the world of the historian or the world of the person who has to make a description.  If the multitude is the multitude of documents and the historian or "descriptor" the medium through which they express themselves in unison and then obey the interpretation that rules the day.
Then new documents come about animated by new concerns and perhpas the cycle starts again.