PDA

View Full Version : What is History?



KC
01-31-2013, 03:26 PM
It's been way too long since I posted in this room. I just read EH Carr's What is History? though and thought it might provoke some interesting discussion here.

Snip:

http://abuss.narod.ru/Biblio/eng/carr.pdf

But a still greater danger lurks in the Collingwood hypothesis. If the historian necessarily looks at his period of history through the eyes of his own time, and studies the problems of the past as a key to those of the present, will he not fall into a purely pragmatic view of the facts, and maintain that the criterion of a right interpretation is its suitability to some present purpose? On this hypothesis, the facts of history are nothing, interpretation is everything. Nietzsche had already enunciated the principle: "The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it. . . . The question is how far it is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-creating." The American pragmatists, moved, less explicitly and less wholeheartedly, along the same line. Knowledge is knowledge for some purpose. The validity of the knowledge depends on the validity of the purpose.


Carr Talks a good deal about the difference between facts and historical facts, how the historian's job is more to do with interpretation, less about being a chronicler. He also has a pretty biting critique of the liberal empricists of the nineteenth century. Overall a good read, I'm still chewing on it.

Mister D
01-31-2013, 03:43 PM
The philosophy of history is interesting stuff.

I think the idea of the historian as objective chronicler has been shown to be a 19th Century European conceit. History is always about the present not the past and it is indeed a matter interpretation. The past cannot be 'reconstructed' with any certainty. The temporal connection between the event and our appropriation of that event in the present can never be bridged. That is, we will never know and never could know what really happened. For that reasonr, I think he is right that history is always more than merely 'the facts'. A bare "fact" does not become historical until someone in the present assigns meaning to it.

Mister D
01-31-2013, 03:46 PM
It's in Cyrilic. :grin:

Mister D
01-31-2013, 03:50 PM
It's funny, I am remembering most of this from a book about the theology and life of Apostle Paul. Udo Schnelle dealt first with historigraphixcal considerations. It was well foot noted and made an impression on me.

KC
01-31-2013, 03:52 PM
The philosophy of history is interesting stuff.

I think the idea of the historian as objective chronicler has been shown to be a 19th Century European conceit. History is always about the present not the past and it is indeed a matter interpretation. The past cannot be 'reconstructed' with any certainty. The temporal connection between the event and our appropriation of that event in the present can never be bridged. That is, we will never know and never could know what really happened. For that reasonr, I think he is right that history is always more than merely 'the facts'. A bare "fact" does not become historical until someone in the present assigns meaning to it.

Agreed. I was pretty sympathetic to Carr's argument, but when we brought it up for discussion in class, I was sort of shocked to see that no one really disagreed.

He makes a good point about how historical facts come to be. There are loads of things we'll never know until someone needs to make use of them, usually to satisfy some sort of hidden agenda.

Mister D
01-31-2013, 03:56 PM
Agreed. I was pretty sympathetic to Carr's argument, but when we brought it up for discussion in class, I was sort of shocked to see that no one really disagreed.

He makes a good point about how historical facts come to be. There are loads of things we'll never know until someone needs to make use of them, usually to satisfy some sort of hidden agenda.

They didn't disagree with Carr? I sometimes thought that a lot of people simply kept quiet. I know I sometimes did when I heard things I disagreed with. I might mention it in a paper or an email but I usually wouldn't say anything in class.

I agree but that agenda isn't alwasy hidden. I doubt historians are always conscious of it either. I draw a line when peole start to think it's a free for all. No. An interpretation must still be "plausible and appropriate" to the subject matter.

KC
01-31-2013, 04:01 PM
They didn't disagree with Carr? I sometimes thought that a lot of people simply kept quiet. I know I sometimes did when I heard things I disagreed with. I might mention it in a paper or an email but I usually wouldn't say anything in class.

I agree but that agenda isn't alwasy hidden. I doubt historians are always conscious of it either. I draw a line when peole start to think it's a free for all. No. An interpretation must still be "plausible and appropriate" to the subject matter.

Most of my classmates spoke up with pretty positive feelings about Carr. I was surprised.

Agree that not everyone's agenda is hidden. Carr wrote extensively on the subject of Soviet history, and I suspect that in doing so he was not shy about his feelings about socialism or on the Soviets.

Also in this class, participation is our grade, since it's a seminar for History majors, not really a lecture. Everyone is competing to get a word in, so very few people sat quietly.

Mister D
01-31-2013, 04:10 PM
Most of my classmates spoke up with pretty positive feelings about Carr. I was surprised.

Agree that not everyone's agenda is hidden. Carr wrote extensively on the subject of Soviet history, and I suspect that in doing so he was not shy about his feelings about socialism or on the Soviets.

Also in this class, participation is our grade, since it's a seminar for History majors, not really a lecture. Everyone is competing to get a word in, so very few people sat quietly.

I had a seminar on historical American perceptions of Russia. That was pretty cool. I still have the class materials.

Anyway, I wouldn't have been surprised. Carr's ideas seem to fit well with contemporary culture although it's often dumbed down to a blanket "history is written by the victors" type of thing. The implcation being that one cannot or at least should not believe anything. There are agendas everywhere. On the other hand, in some circles it has become common to use "revisionist history" as a pejorative. That's kind of silly considering the fact that history is constantly revised to meet the needs of each generation.

KC
01-31-2013, 04:14 PM
I had a seminar on historical American perceptions of Russia. That was pretty cool. I still have the class materials.

Anyway, I wouldn't have been surprised. Carr's ideas seem to fit well with contemporary culture although it's often dumbed down to a blanket "history is written by the victors" type of thing. The implcation being that one cannot or at least should not believe anything. There are agendas everywhere. On the other hand, in some circles it has become common to use "revisionist history" as a pejorative. That's kind of silly considering the fact that history is constantly revised to meet the needs of each generation.

That's the other extreme. I don't think we should take Carr's argument to a post structuralist extreme, although that's where it has since led for many. I think people in general are beginning to regain a little bit of faith in the historical process. Just because we all have axes to grind doesn't mean you should never believe anything you read.

Mister D
01-31-2013, 04:14 PM
That's the other extreme. I don't think we should take Carr's argument to a post structuralist extreme, although that's where it has since led for many. I think people in general are beginning to regain a little bit of faith in the historical process. Just because we all have axes to grind doesn't mean you should never believe anything you read.

Exactly.

Mister D
01-31-2013, 04:17 PM
There is an unhealthy (and frankly ridiculous) skepticism prevalent these days.

KC
01-31-2013, 04:27 PM
There is an unhealthy (and frankly ridiculous) skepticism prevalent these days.

I agree, although in general some skepticism is a good thing. It's all about learning when skepticism is appropriate.

I think Carr sort of became, at least in the field of history, someone the post structuralists and others who took skepticism to extremes could point to, sort of call their own. I doubt Carr would have been a willing participant in that.

Carr was for sure an anti empiricist, but in being one he also had an axe to grind. After all, one should be a little wary when reading A History of Soviet Russia from the perspective of a Marxist author. I think that's part of why Carr made some of his great contributions to historiography. He had to justify his lack of objectivity, but in doing so he made some pretty important points about how objectivism really isn't a realistic standard.

Mister D
01-31-2013, 07:09 PM
I agree, although in general some skepticism is a good thing. It's all about learning when skepticism is appropriate.

I think Carr sort of became, at least in the field of history, someone the post structuralists and others who took skepticism to extremes could point to, sort of call their own. I doubt Carr would have been a willing participant in that.

Carr was for sure an anti empiricist, but in being one he also had an axe to grind. After all, one should be a little wary when reading A History of Soviet Russia from the perspective of a Marxist author. I think that's part of why Carr made some of his great contributions to historiography. He had to justify his lack of objectivity, but in doing so he made some pretty important points about how objectivism really isn't a realistic standard.

As long as that axe is acknowledged (not embraced!) I think it makes him more not less interesting. I definitely agree that objectivity is an illusion and an ideological conceit of western liberals .